News Feeds

On Monday morning, Sept. 21, Food Tank will host “Solving Food Waste is a Key Solution to the Climate Crisis” at Climate Week NYC 2026, in partnership with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Food Planet Prize, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Restaurant Technologies, CookUnity, and Mill. 

Food waste is one of the world’s most overlooked climate challenges, and one of its greatest opportunities. The summit will explore how reducing food loss and waste can cut greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen food security, and build more resilient food systems at the city, state, and global levels. 

“Reducing food loss and waste is a powerful example of how a simple action can deliver multiple benefits: feeding more people, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, protecting nature and strengthening economies,” says Martin Krause, Director of the Climate Change Division at UNEP. “By changing how we value, consume, and manage food, we can drive a future where every resource matters, every meal is valued, and no food goes to waste.”

Tackling food waste, speakers say, will require action at multiple levels, from individual eaters’ choices to broader policy changes.

“The world needs an array of interventions from different parts of the food system, and food waste is an important piece of the puzzle,” says Emily Norford, Nominations Manager at Food Planet Prize. “We hope the event will yield a renewed motivation to take action, whether it’s changing individual behavior, supporting policy solutions, or joining forces with others.”

Across the United States, advocacy and research organizations are already working to put those solutions into practice: “This event will highlight a range of impactful food waste solutions already taking place across the country and inspire us in our push towards the goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030,” says Rebecca Riley, Managing Director of Food & Agriculture at NRDC.

Some of those efforts are focused on one of the most consequential destinations for discarded food: landfills.

“Keeping food waste out of landfills is one of the most immediate opportunities we have to make our food system more sustainable,” says Diana Geseking, Chief Legal Officer at Restaurant Technologies. “We help commercial kitchens reduce their waste and turn what remains into something valuable. We are excited to bring that perspective to this conversation and learn from others working across the food system.”

But speakers say reducing food waste is about more than what happens after food is discarded; it can also mean getting surplus food to people who need it.

“Food Tank’s event at Climate Week perfectly illustrates how deeply food is connected to many of the challenges the climate crisis has forced us to confront,” says María Bengochea, Director of Sustainability, Nutrition, and Standards at CookUnity. “For our team at CookUnity, contributing to the fight against food insecurity—by rescuing surplus food, working with our donation partners to support local communities, and preventing good food from becoming waste—is central to both our day-to-day operations and our mission to empower chefs to feed and nourish more people.”

Discussions on chef partnerships to reduce food waste, city and state food waste action, advancing a national policy agenda on food waste, and food waste action in food service and retail will explore how food waste is a problem that can be addressed at a global scale.

“For decades, we have treated food waste like it was inevitable, but it’s actually one of the most solvable climate problems that exist today,” says Matt Rogers, CEO of Mill. “If people walk away from this summit understanding that we can move the needle on this massive-scale, high-impact problem, that’s a win for the economy and for the planet.”

The event will be at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 9am with breakfast and live musical performances, followed by a reception until 12pm.

Speakers include María Bengochea, Director of Sustainability & Standards, CookUnity; Veleké Brown, CEO, E-RoadMap and Velloris, and Executive Director, E-RoadMap Corporation; U.S. Representative Nikki Budzinski; U.S. Representative Maxine Dexter; Adalberto Maluf Filho, National Secretary for Urban Environment, Water Resources and Environmental Quality, Brazil’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change; Julie Gehrki, President, Walmart Foundation and Senior Vice President, Philanthropy, Walmart Inc.; Diana Geseking, Chief Legal Officer, Restaurant Technologies; Robert Jones, Vice President, Strategic Partnerships, Industry Leadership, and Impact, The Culinary Institute of America; Matthew Jozwiak, Founder and CEO, Rethink Food; Madeline Keating, Senior Advocate, Nature, NRDC; Martin Krause, Director, Climate Change Division, UN Environment Programme (UNEP); Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Emily Norford, Nominations Manager, Food Planet Prize; Emily Peck, plant-based chef and holistic nutritionist; Lou Pieh, Head of Federal Affairs, Mill; Gwyneth Rampton, Vice President of Sustainability, Compass Group USA; U.S. Representative Andrea Salinas (D-OR); Tia Schwab, Senior Manager, U.S. Food Systems, C40 Cities; Jackie Suggitt, Senior Director of Waste & Circularity, Walmart; Sydney Thayer, Pollution Prevention Specialist, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; and Jacob Wallace, Senior Reporter, Waste Dive.

“Solving Food Waste is a Key Solution to the Climate Crisis” will feature a special musical performance by Nathan Lucrezio, a Broadway actor, singer, dancer, and recording artist whose credits include Schmigadoon!, Pirates! The Penzance Musical, The Who’s Tommy, Diana, Aladdin, and Cinderella. He will be joined by Cullen Curth, New York City-based pianist, music director, and conductor who recently made his Broadway conducting debut with Just in Time.

This summit will be streamed live on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel, here. Join the Food Tank newsletter list for reminders, and click here for Food Tank’s full lineup of events at Climate Week NYC 2026.

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.

The post Turning Food Waste Into Climate Action appeared first on Food Tank.

For all our flaws, we evolved toward community and cooperation. Toward enough. Yet somehow, we got Egypt. What happened between ten and five thousand years ago that made this possible?

The EU has placed competitiveness, industrial renewal, and strategic autonomy at the centre of its agenda. But will these ambitions support the green and social transition, or become a pretext for deregulation and a weakening of Social Europe? The General Director of the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), Andrew Watt, explains what this changing political landscape could mean for workers and trade unions and social policy – and for the kind of economic model Europe is building.

Seden Anlar: Competitiveness, strategic autonomy, industrial policy and deregulation are rising up the EU’s political agenda, while the bloc is also navigating war, energy shocks, trade tensions, competition with China, and growing uncertainty around the United States. Where do you see Europe within these overlapping pressures, and what kind of transformation are they driving within the EU?

Andrew Watt: Europe is changing because the world is changing. There are longer-term trends driving that change, like demography, decarbonisation, technology, and now AI. Then there are shorter-term developments: war, the dislocation of the global political system, the behaviour of powers like Russia, but also our erstwhile ally, the United States, and renewed inflationary shocks.

For populations, policymakers and trade unions, most of these changes are initially perceived as threats. They constrain our fiscal resources, for instance. We spent a lot of public money getting out of the Covid crisis and dealing with the inflation crisis. That reduces the size of the cake available today, for example for social policy.

Then there is the demand from the US and from many Europeans for a more autonomous European defence policy, and that is going to cost money. We also have the burdens associated with ageing. So if you take the fiscal situation as a focal point for all these things, you can see how pressure is building in the system. We are going to have to face up to some trade-offs and make some difficult decisions.

But I don’t think it is all negative. Some of the responses we are seeing – industrial policy, a more critical attitude towards trade, a greater role for governments and perhaps, hopefully, for the European Union itself – are things that some of us have wanted for a long time.

There is that old story about Europe progressing through crises. It is often only when crises come that the political space opens up to take steps we think are anyway necessary .

How is this broader transformation affecting Europe’s economic model? Are we moving towards a genuinely different model of EU economic governance, or are older political-economic cycles returning in new language?

We have seen some considerable changes, and we are seeing pressure for further change. The open question is whether it is going to be enough.

If we understand economic governance as both what the EU itself can and cannot do in economic policy, including through the EU budget, and the framework within which national governments conduct economic policy, then there have been important changes. We had NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which was a substantial investment package. It broke new ground in terms of European-level borrowing, with money distributed to member states to enable them to invest when they otherwise would not have been able to, and the debt being paid back at the European level.

This was actually a big deal, but it was temporary. What we need is something like that, or even something more ambitious, on a permanent basis, and there is considerable resistance to that. We just about managed to get political support for NextGenerationEU on the understanding, in some capitals – I won’t mention any by name – that it had to be temporary. Making something like that permanent is really a sort of Rubicon. There are some decisive member states – all member states are important, of course, but some are more important than others – where there is resistance. I would hope that we take that step, but whether we do or not remains to be seen. The fact that the market for US government bonds has come under considerable pressure could, and I believe should, serve as a window of opportunity here.

We have also seen changes to the national fiscal rules. They have been revised in a good direction, but still not enough. The decisive thing we still do not have is the ability for governments to invest and to borrow in order to invest without coming up against legal constraints.

There is now an opening for more spending, but it is for defence spending. Defence may also be necessary, but we do not have that same opening for other forms of investment, and the multipliers from defence spending are much lower than for civilian public investment projects.

When you say Europe needs more investment, what kind of investment are you talking about? What is holding it back, and how could Europe unlock it?

The first distinction is the most basic one, between public investment and private investment. Public investment is much smaller, but it is important because, if it is done intelligently, it can drive private investment. We are no longer in the bad old days after the euro crisis when public investment was very depressed. Things have improved slightly, but still not enough to really move the dial.

Business investment is much bigger, so we also have to think about what gives the private sector an incentive to invest. The message we are getting is that there is a heavy regulatory burden and, if we cast that off, companies will invest. I don’t think that is going to happen.

What is holding back investment in the short term? Energy prices are a huge problem. The breakdown of trading relations is another. We also have a genuine competitiveness issue, which is with China.

But what I think is less well discussed is the internal situation, particularly internal demand. Investment that expands productive capacity will only happen if entrepreneurs are convinced there will be demand for the additional products. Europe’s population is now hardly growing at all and is set to shrink, so that is another structural factor holding companies back from investing. We are unfortunately getting locked into a pessimistic, self-reinforcing cycle. That is why the public sector can sometimes kick-start a more virtuous circle and get us out of a vicious one; public investment “crowds in” private investment.

Another factor is regulatory uncertainty. Look at the constant debates in the automobile sector about whether, from 2035, petrol and diesel engines are going to be allowed or not – backwards and forwards. That sort of uncertainty is killing investment.

Other issues include the way investment is financed in Europe and the lack of a venture-capital market. So it is not a simple matter where you pull one lever and suddenly get investment.

What is holding back investment in the short term? Energy prices are a huge problem. The breakdown of trading relations is another. We also have a genuine competitiveness issue, which is with China.

We need to do several things. We need a bigger role for the public sector at the national level, and major European initiatives on the green transition, technology, and infrastructure. We also need investment in schools, hospitals and care services, in addition to classical infrastructure, grids, and interconnections between countries. In technology, we need to build up our own indigenous tech sectors. That is where we really need investment.

We also need more regulatory certainty and, in some cases, support for companies. If European industries need protection from aggressive Chinese competition based on excessive subsidisation, then I would support that. I am not a China basher, but we do need to protect our industries where those distortions exist. And this is where I think we need to see the different orders of magnitude. The whole political system, the media, and the Brussels bubble are investing so much time and energy in the deregulation agenda, which is of more marginal importance.

Even if regulatory simplification is successful on its own terms, I don’t really think anybody believes – and I certainly don’t believe – that it is going to deliver the scale of investment Europe needs. It might reduce some costs, but it is not going to move the dial.

The main point of the Draghi report was that we need around 750-800 billion euros a year in additional investment. Even if we got half of that, it would make a big difference if it were done effectively, in the right places, and in the right sectors. How is regulatory simplification going to deliver that investment? I don’t think it will.

The EU’s growing focus on competitiveness, strategic autonomy, and security is arguably putting its social agenda at risk. Do you see these agendas as compatible? And is it still realistic to think of Social Europe as a structuring political project in this new context?

There are certainly political forces using the competitiveness argument to make Europe less social and to weaken it. But that doesn’t have to be the case.

Let me say a few words about competitiveness. If you use the word in a businesslike sense, Europe is competitive. We have had a current-account surplus for many years. We have no problem paying our way in the world. So this chain of thought that goes, “Europe is not competitive, therefore we have to cut pensions, cut childcare allowances, or make people work longer hours” just doesn’t fly from a very basic point of view.

The more useful understanding of competitiveness – the one Draghi and that most sensible economists use – is really about productivity. We should not get obsessed with the idea that a country is like a company, because it isn’t. Competitiveness is about productivity, living standards, and what we can afford as societies. If we don’t have productivity growth, the cake is not growing. And if the cake is not growing, we will have distributional conflicts that are very difficult to resolve.

I very much believe the labour movement and trade unions need to play a role in the debate about how to raise productivity, and many of them do. We have evidence in our research that when you involve workers in decision-making – through works councils, at board level, through collective bargaining, or at sectoral and national level – you get better outcomes. It is not hard to understand why. If you involve people in processes of structural change, for example restructuring or the green transition, the outcomes will be better. There will be less resistance and less conflict, and productivity can grow faster. That is one example of how a sensible competitiveness or productivity agenda goes hand in hand with good social policy.

There are numerous other examples. Think about childcare, education, and healthcare. It is perhaps an instrumental way to think about these things, but from an economic perspective they also affect how productive workers are, how often they can go to work, how much work they miss because they are ill, and how productive they are when they are working.

One of the main ways the competitiveness agenda is manifesting in this mandate is through the simplification-deregulation agenda. What risks do you see this creating for Social Europe, workers’ rights, and labour protections? And how should trade unions respond?

I think we can have a debate about simplification in some cases, but deregulation should be out of the question. That is essentially also the line the trade unions take. We have sectoral bodies and interprofessional bodies where business and labour are represented and can work through the issues that make regulation unnecessarily complex. European Parliament committees can do that as well. That is all fine.

What concerns the trade unions, and us at the ETUI, is the speed with which these things are now being pushed through. There can be over-regulation, or cases where the same thing is covered by two different directives. Nobody wants things to be more complicated than they have to be. But we need to understand that regulation was put there for a purpose.

We can have a debate about simplification in some cases, but deregulation should be out of the question. That is essentially also the line the trade unions take.

It could be that that purpose no longer exists. For instance, we do not need a regulation for steam trains if we no longer have steam trains. Some regulations simply become obsolete. But usually the public purpose is still there, whether it is health and safety, or protecting the environment, workers, or pregnant women. So if you want to weaken or remove a regulation, you need to answer the question: what about that public purpose? How is it still going to be achieved?

Unfortunately, I don’t think we are really having that detailed debate at the moment. It would have to be a very granular, detailed, and time-consuming debate, and instead these things are being pushed through the institutions very quickly. It also makes no sense to talk about regulation simply in quantitative terms. Business lobbies champion ideas like “one in, one out”: every time you introduce one regulation, you have to throw out an old one. That is absurd.

The question should be: what public priorities do we want that the market will not provide without regulation? And then, of course, we can discuss how we achieve those objectives without imposing unnecessarily high costs.

Europe is again talking about strategic industries and reindustrialisation – areas in which trade unions historically played an important role, both in industrial development and in shaping workers’ rights. At a time when collective-bargaining coverage has declined considerably, what might this renewed industrial agenda mean for trade unions and their capacity for renewal and mobilisation?

Following the Covid-19 pandemic and the energy shocks and highly politicised trade relations of recent years, we are simply in a different world. In this context, the renewed focus on industry is welcome, but we should not take it too far because most European workers are in services. That said, industry still has an outsized economic importance. It matters for exports, it is often where productivity growth is generated, and a lot of service employment is built around the industrial sector. It also has strategic significance, including in relation to defence.

For trade unions, industry matters because it is a big part of their history and, in many countries, where they remain relatively strong. Large workplaces are easier to organise than many fragmented service-sector workplaces, and practices of industrial relations have developed over decades – even centuries to some extent – in which trade unions have a recognised voice at the table. You have national and European works councils as well as board-level representation. Union density tends to be higher than in services, although the public sector is of course now extremely important for the trade-union movement as well.

The unions want to play a role in this new industrial-policy debate, and we as a research institute want to support that. This is also closely linked to trade and China. I said before that Europe does not really have a classical competitiveness problem except vis-à-vis China. We have a very large trade deficit with China – roughly one billion euros a day, or around 360 billion euros in 2025. Germany, for instance, had trade surpluses with China for many years but now also runs deficits.

That is partly linked to Chinese policies which, in my view, need to change. China needs to import more and address over-subsidisation in some industries, such as the car industry. It needs to pay its workers more or revalue the currency. There are lots of different steps it could take, and Europe should be negotiating with China about them. But I do not want to bash China. China is also very important for the green transition. I am fine with cheap solar panels coming in and, to some extent, cheaper cars. But we also need a chance to export. That is what trade is for: countries import things others are good at producing and export things they themselves are good at producing, and everybody benefits. But China deliberately restricts imports.

We have been losing manufacturing employment. We lost around 220,000 manufacturing jobs between the average of 2024 and 2025. That is a lot, and that can’t continue.

At the same time, we do not want Fortress Europe. We do not want to stop the green technologies we need from coming in. What has changed is the naïve faith that was dominant in Brussels for decades that we simply need free trade, and everything will be fine. That is gone, and that also creates opportunities for trade unions.

Unions are worried about forced labour, deforestation and the oppression of organised labour in some of our trading partners. They want to use trade as a lever to improve conditions in other countries. That has become more possible, and I think that is an important development.

There has long been a wider debate about the limits of GDP as a measure of economic and social progress, including whether it adequately captures dimensions such as wellbeing, care, and ecological sustainability. Given your point about how the economic “cake” is distributed, how should we think about growth and productivity in an era of extreme wealth concentration and weak redistribution?

Let me split that into two things and first focus on the beyond-GDP question.

We have a long tradition at the institute of work on just transition, and I intend to continue that. Growth is not the solution to everything. What we need, I think, is qualitative growth and investment-driven growth, because that is also a path to decarbonisation. It is easy to become depressed about the climate crisis, but if we have a hope, I do think technology is an important part of it. Technology comes through scientific processes and research, but it only changes economic outcomes if it is actually invested in and becomes part of the capital stock of the economy.

So I am not a “go-for-growth” person in a traditional sense. But I am also very clear that I am not in the degrowth camp. Whether we like it or not, if the cake is not growing, distributional conflicts build up. Politics becomes poisonous: it is you against me; either you have it or I do. If we want decent pensions and we want to take care of elderly people with a shrinking labour force, we need productivity growth and some economic growth.

But the distribution question is absolutely central. Think about comparisons between the United States and European countries. Even if GDP per capita in the United States is higher, people work longer hours and have shorter holidays, and income is much more unequally distributed. So, the benefit for the average person – or, more precisely, the median citizen or median worker – can look very different. How GDP is distributed is therefore absolutely vital.

Whether we like it or not, if the cake is not growing, distributional conflicts build up. Politics becomes poisonous: it is you against me; either you have it or I do.

We are seeing rising concentrations of wealth and income within the corporate sector, more in the US than Europe, but increasingly here too. That is not only an economic problem; it is a political problem. People with enormous amounts of money have outsized political influence. Europe has stricter rules around party financing than the United States, but wealthy people still have influence. They buy newspaper publishers, for example.

Digital services and technology also tend towards monopoly, and wherever you have a monopoly you tend to get concentrations of wealth. That is bad socially, but it can also be bad economically.

And that brings us to AI. If AI improves productivity and those gains are distributed through the economy, then it can be a very good thing. We become more productive, living standards rise, and maybe some boring tasks that people do not like doing can be done by AI. If the gains are shared, people have higher wages and use that income to buy other services, and you can maintain full employment. That is more or less how the positive scenario works.

But that won’t happen if the gains from AI become concentrated among a handful of billionaires or trillionaires, some tech workers, and shareholders. In that case, aggregate demand breaks down, you do not get the corresponding expansion in other services, and you can expect unemployment and social strife.

There is also a more specific labour-market issue beginning to emerge. It looks as if AI may be hitting entry-level jobs – not only in coding, but office positions, skilled jobs, and some professional occupations. Some studies point to this outcome, and there is evidence that fears around AI are quite concentrated among people who are just starting their careers. At the same time, those who already know the ropes may benefit from AI. They can use it to become more productive and perhaps increase their earnings.

So, once again, the question is about distribution: who benefits from the technology and who carries the costs?

Earlier you touched on the challenges posed by Europe’s changing demographics. While ageing societies and shrinking workforces are usually framed as a crisis, tighter labour markets could actually also give workers greater bargaining power, perhaps even strengthen collective bargaining. How do you see those two sides playing out, both now and in the future?

There is a joke going around about a young person who goes to a job interview. At the end, instead of the employer saying, “We’ll call you,” the candidate says: “I’ll put you on my shortlist.” It is a joke, but for certain sectors and skills there is something to it. People can afford to be a bit more choosy. For teachers and healthcare workers, for example, large cohorts are leaving, and employers need people. The same applies to some parts of industry.

This can be good for job quality as well. Even in countries we think of as having high standards, there are sectors – notably care – where working conditions are pretty bad: low pay, long hours, and physically demanding work. We are already seeing that employers who want to keep people in these sectors or attract new workers have to pay higher wages and offer more flexible arrangements, including working hours that make it easier for people with caring responsibilities to remain in the labour market. So, tighter labour markets can also bring positive changes.

We are still relatively early in this EU mandate, and political agendas are likely to evolve over the coming years. Looking ahead to the next few years, what do you think is likely to happen? What would success for Social Europe look like from the ETUI’s perspective? What concerns you most, and where do you see reasons for optimism?

We have to get through some short-term issues first, and they are going to be decisive. If geopolitical conflicts drag on or relations between the major powers deteriorate further, things are going to get very hard. We already face big challenges, and I don’t think we should be under any illusions about that.

We have done some scenario analysis that actually looks beyond five years, towards 2040. Even some of the “muddling through” scenarios for Europe and Social Europe, to be very frank, do not look great. So we need to do things. We cannot simply continue with the status quo.

In that sense, I think Draghi did us a service, even though I don’t agree with everything in his report. He essentially said: look, if we don’t get our act together and move beyond the status quo and the constant “I can’t agree to this, I can’t agree to that,” the outlook is not good. We need some kind of social pact: agreements between member states with different views, between capital and labour, and across political divides.

Maybe it sounds slightly naïve, but people need to recognise that things can get worse and find ways of overcoming some of their differences and making concrete proposals for moving forward. Because if we don’t, things will go downhill. I do think there is scope for a more positive scenario. If we get some tailwinds at the global level and international tensions decline, some of the pressure around huge increases in defence spending could ease.

Technology is another source of optimism. Look at how dramatically the price of solar panels and batteries has declined. I think the price of electric vehicles will also come down considerably. If AI is managed well and fulfils its expectations, I think it can be a force for good. It may not be, but it can be. Higher productivity growth could help us address some fiscal problems and some of the problems connected with demographics.

There are avenues forward. But to be frank, most of them require a stronger European level. Unless we get something like what we had with NextGenerationEU – some sort of central capacity to invest in our common future – it is going to be hard. We need to face up to the fact that even quite large European countries are small on a global scale, and they are becoming smaller in terms of their share of global GDP and their political influence. We need to overcome that fragmentation.

We have seen some positive signs of that happening, but also some limits. We are pushing up against those limits now with the idea of a common European fund or a bigger EU budget. There is a lot of resistance, but we need to overcome it.

So, I am always cautiously optimistic. There is the famous Gramsci quote, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. That is certainly a sort of motto for me personally and, I think, for the institute. We need to do what we can. We need to point things out, make proposals and hope they are picked up by trade unions, political parties, opinion-makers and the media. That is what we do. That is the game we play every day. And it is the game we are trying to win.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length. Some answers have been reordered thematically.

The Lock the Gate Alliance says new laws introduced to Queensland Parliament today could undermine Queenslanders’ rights to scrutinise and object to mining projects that threaten their water, farmland and climate.

Along with grief and loss, the anniversary of 9/11 brought home for many the "incalculable cost" of the quarter century of carnage it unleashed - the militarizing "beyond all sanity," the othering of "everyone who isn't 'them,'" the lying, fear-mongering, inflicting of terror that's left America hollowed out from forever wars now mostly against imaginary enemies within. The bleak consensus: There would be no Trump without 9/11, the senseless, self-defeating war on terror did not end, and it damn near did us in.

The commemoration of 9/11 came hard on the tawdry heels of a pointless, "historic" midterm convention by a "staggeringly incompetent" dumpster fire of a GOP shameless enough to hoist "Never Forget" signs while forgetting or twisting beyond recognition what it was we vowed not to forget - our unity and humanity in the face of unprecedented loss. Instead, it mirrored the betrayal of a nation's history and values, the turning of a government on itself to morph into an engine of its own destruction. "Defend Freedom!", vaguely blared other signs, without specifying just whose freedom, or at what cost. Thus did the event's speakers giddily spiral into paranoia and conspiracy, pointing stubby fingers at their "enemies" of choice: "Terrorists. Muslims. Criminals. Antifa. Black or trans people. Undocumented immigrants. Suspected undocumented immigrants. Opinion-havers. Op-ed writers." Etc etc.

And, these days, commies. Ted Cruz savaged "communists and Islamists (who) hate Christians, hate Jews and hate capitalism.” Little toad-like, wide-eyed MAGA Mike shrieked we are a nation "being attacked from within" (true, that) by Dems "beholden to radicals. We have let the barbarians inside the gate, and next year the Communists will be in Congress." (Oh, please.) Ever-slimy J.D. called half of Congress "the party of hatred (that) despises America and the people who built it." Don Jr. revisited the "dystopian hellscape" of left-wing ideology, declaring, "Communism is on the march." His demented old man said Dems "turned our cities into scenes of death, misery, murder, poverty and destruction," but thank God "we took that dark age of America and turned it into a golden age." Also, he'll give you a $5,000 bribe if you "cheat like hell" on Election Day. Inspiring.

Later, at a 9/11 Pentagon event, he and his lackeys reiterated their devotion to “never forget” not to learn anything from a grievous, vengeful past. Trump said his Iran debacle fulfills a "sacred oath" to "never, ever forget,“ or learn, squat. Dangerous zealot Pete said "our warriors" have "fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for half a century, that cheered on 9/11," a total lie. Iran's government and people decried the “mass murder of human beings" on Sept. 11, with huge crowds attending candlelit vigils. Sliding past pesky facts, Pete yawped Iran still "plots to kill our citizens" and "we're still sending terrorists where they belong - to Hell." Then he crudely veered to Scripture: The struggle against evil "will continue until Judgment Day, "our only answer (is) eternal vigilance,” and thank you Jesus for brave new "warriors who will say when it matters most, 'Send me.'”

Startlingly for those of a certain age who, dumbfounded, watched it unfold on that blue-sky day - and then rewatched it a thousand times, trying to grasp a reality so much of the world, but not this once-shining city on a hill, has experienced - about a third of Americans are too young to remember the chaos of 9/11 - its searing images of office workers, often holding hands, plunging to their deaths; the collapse of both towers in a vast cloud of ash, dust, paper, carcinogens; the courage of firefighters and first responders, thousands of whom died that day or later of cancers; the initial summoning of our better angels as a nation came together for one another. Historian David Blight cites "the essential grief of it...a sheer sense of unspeakable loss." He also calls it "the most visual event in our history, so shocking, so horrifying that you can’t watch it without a certain weeping."

Obviously, it didn't last. At first, Bush's language was of criminality, not war. The resources of the federal government would go to help victims' families and "find those folks who committed this act." He was rational: He told Congress the terrorists "practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism (that) perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam." Then - from fear, hubris, ineptness, talking to mad Cheney? - his rhetoric pivoted to the martial, the need in a new world to "win the war against terrorism." “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said, and new Sen. Hillary Clinton echoed him: “Every nation has to be either with us or against us." Absurdly, he vowed to end terror, evil itself, "a frightened child wishing to rid the world of bad guys." Even language warped into creepy, blood-and-soil, "Nazi-resonating" totalitarianism with the newly coined "Homeland Security."

9/11was "when things began to go wrong for the United States," argues former Bill Clinton adviser Bill Galston. When "the world's most powerful country responded to the worst terrorist attack in its history by inflicting terror of its own," we swiftly squandered our global good will, power, money, resources and whatever remained of our moral capital after decades of imperialist crimes to invade Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Iran, in forever wars born of the same lies, missteps, ignorance, arrogance and racism whose abuses and lack of accountability continue to haunt and fracture us today. Added to millions of innocent lives lost, the reflexive move to demonize, dominate or torture those seen as lesser also led to "a staggering level of the willful infliction of suffering...of gratuitous cruelty and sadism that became operationally part of the war on terror."

An estimated 940,000 people were killed by direct, post 9/11 violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen; up to another 3.8 million people died indirectly in those war zones. Bush promised great military victories, as Americans learned (again) to equate national strength with the ability to inflict harm. When misbegotten wars faltered, ravaged, failed - it took the Taliban just 20 years to retake power - leaders began recycling 9/11 lies to justify new wars (see Iran), recycling hardware and manpower from the old, well-funded wars for a paramilitary and counter-insurgency force at home (see ICE), finding domestic enemies to scapegoat and target (see migrants et al), and pitting Americans against each other while turning a blind eye to the boundless corruption behind it. In brief, after a long road of death and destruction, "The war on terror has come home."

Historians debate whether Osama Bin Laden "won" after all in the dark aftermath of 9/11. He failed in his desire to establish a caliphate and expel western countries from the Middle East, but "the magnitude of the self-inflicted wounds (of) America's overreach," argues former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes, "hastened our own decline, division and betrayal of our own story.” Rhodes is often haunted by the cost in blood and treasure of what we did - and what we didn't do, say, for climate change, health care, education: "If you came down to Earth from another planet and tried to make sense of the fact that the United States spent several trillion dollars chasing a relatively small number of terrorists around a few countries, toppling governments and then fighting insurgencies when it has huge problems...you would think this is a country that has gone insane.”

To The Intercept's Nick Turse, a quarter century after 9/11, "It's clear that bin Laden won." A major goal, Turse notes, "was to trap the U.S. in expensive, foreign quagmire wars that would trigger domestic economic collapse." In 2001, America enjoyed an unimaginable budget surplus of $128 billion. After decades of ruinous wars, tax cuts for the rich and too much spending on the wrong things, today's national debt is over $40 trillion, we'll pay more than $1 trillion in interest, and that will likely double in the next decade. In 2004, Bin Laden touted his strategy of "bleeding America to the point of victory," writing, "All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without achieving for it anything of note.”

Of late, America's "swirl of toxic policies and overreach has opened the door to something beyond bin Laden’s wildest dreams" - the rise of a more deadly terrorist than any foreign threat or even Cheney, who deemed "quietly" waterboarding detainees "a no-brainer.” Trump, Putin's fragile, useful idiot, has "stepped into that slipstream of othering people" - Black president, Mexican "rapists," immigrant caravans, Democrats - unleashed by 9/11, and swiftly taken nearly 4,000 authoritarian actions, 1,050 undermining democracy: Over 940 silencing dissent, 650 destabilizing foreign policy, 600 gutting civil rights, 500 spewing misinformation, one biggie tryiing to kill us all with greenhouse gases, and now headlining the global erosion of democracy to render the U.S. "Patient Zero." "Bin Laden is long gone, but his spiritual successor remains ensconced in the White House," Turse darkly notes. "The Al Qaeda leader couldn’t have hoped for better."

At last week's 9/11 remembrance, several relatives of the dead spoke out against the same "sickening, unfathomable" othering, denouncing "using this tragedy to spread hate, which does no honor to the victims." Jonathan Larsen likewise urges we find hope in the "stories of what people did when faced with the prospect of horrific death, people who had to weigh that against their own humanity." Those stories offer "hopeful messages about America" because "they’re about humanity, a humanity 9/11 was engineered to make us forget." Our own "true instincts," he argues, are "of greatness, of self-sacrifice," demonstrating "that any of us, unburdened by stupid stories about who our fellow humans are, will help each other." 25 years later, "What we need to recover our forgotten better natures are better stories." May we tell them, and hear them above the unutterable carnage, and find solace going forward.

Update: Oh look! Over there! Another lying scumbag, another hapless scapegoat, another desperate, vengeful, shiny circus - "Operation Heartland Surge To Find New Imaginary Enemies" - to distract us from colossal crimes and failures. Huh.

ICE, born of Bush/Cheney's ill-conceived War on Terror, brought the war home to Chicago.Getty Images

Pedang terhunus, benturan baja, serta karakter bersenjata mungkin terlihat sebagai dekorasi biasa. Namun, tema perang pedang dapat menyimpan lapisan mekanis lebih dalam saat setiap elemen mulai diperhatikan satu per satu. Royalgacor membawa konsep tersebut ke pembahasan menarik karena visual pertempuran tidak harus berhenti pada latar cerita. Simbol senjata, duel karakter, perubahan arena, sampai efek serangan dapat memiliki fungsi berbeda selama permainan berlangsung.

Bagian tersembunyi tersebut justru menjadi sisi paling menarik untuk dibaca. Mekanisme Royalgacor pada tema semacam ini bisa terasa sederhana di permukaan, tetapi beberapa petunjuk baru terlihat setelah pengguna memahami hubungan antara simbol, animasi, fase permainan, serta fitur khusus.

Elemen Tema Perang PedangPeran dalam TampilanFungsi Mekanis PotensialPedangIdentitas utama pertempuranWild, scatter, atau pemicu fiturPrajuritMembangun karakter ceritaPenanda fase atau simbol bernilai tinggiDuelMembuat permainan terasa aktifTransisi menuju mode khususPerisaiMemperkuat nuansa peperanganSimbol reguler atau modifierArena perangLatar utama permainanPenanda perubahan faseEfek tebasanRespons visualMemberi sinyal saat fitur aktif Mekanisme Royalgacor Tidak Selalu Terlihat dari Putaran Awal

Permainan bertema peperangan memiliki keuntungan dari sisi desain ada banyak fungsi dapat disisipkan melalui objek familiar tanpa membuat antarmuka dipenuhi teks penjelasan. Pedang menjadi contoh paling mudah di mana pada layar pertama, objek tersebut mungkin tampak seperti simbol biasa setelah kondisi tertentu muncul, fungsinya dapat berubah menjadi penanda fitur, wild, scatter, atau bagian dari transisi permainan.

Pendekatan tersebut membuat mekanisme Royalgacor terasa memiliki beberapa lapisan. Pengguna melihat tema lebih dahulu, lalu mengenali fungsi setelah berinteraksi dengan permainan.

Pedang Bisa Menjadi Bahasa Visual

Desainer tidak selalu membutuhkan tombol tambahan untuk menjelaskan perubahan cahaya pada pedang, gerakan karakter, suara benturan, atau warna arena dapat menjadi bahasa visual. Misalnya, pedang mulai menyala sebelum mode tertentu aktif karakter bergerak maju ketika sebuah kondisi tercapai. Arena berubah setelah fase dasar berakhir. Detail kecil semacam ini membantu pengguna memahami perubahan tanpa membaca instruksi panjang setiap saat.

Inilah bagian tersembunyi di mekanisme Royalgacor dengan tema perang pedang. Cerita dan sistem dapat berjalan pada jalur sama.

Tema Perang Pedang Membentuk Ritme Berbeda

Nuansa pertempuran membutuhkan tempo. Jika semua animasi muncul dengan intensitas sama, efek dramatis cepat kehilangan fungsi. Karena itu, ritme visual biasanya dibangun bertahap.

Putaran dasar dapat memakai gerakan lebih tenang. Saat fitur tertentu mendekat, efek suara atau animasi mulai meningkat. Ketika mode khusus aktif, layar memperoleh perubahan lebih besar melalui karakter, cahaya, atau latar arena.

Tema perang pedang akhirnya bukan cuma kostum visual. Tema tersebut membantu membentuk urutan informasi agar pengguna mengetahui kapan permainan berada pada kondisi normal atau memasuki fase berbeda.

Duel Karakter Dapat Menjadi Penanda Perubahan

Pertarungan dua karakter memiliki nilai visual kuat. Namun duel juga dapat dipakai sebagai jembatan menuju fitur berikutnya.

Alih-alih menampilkan notifikasi besar, permainan dapat menggunakan adegan serangan singkat. Setelah duel selesai, susunan simbol, multiplier, jumlah putaran, atau kondisi reel dapat berubah sesuai aturan game.

Cara tersebut membuat transisi terasa menyatu dengan cerita. Pengguna tidak merasa berpindah ke layar lain secara tiba-tiba.

Tema Tersembunyi Muncul Lewat Detail Kecil

Tidak semua petunjuk perlu dibuat mencolok. Beberapa justru ditempatkan melalui perubahan mikro seperti warna pedang, simbol pada perisai, indikator energi, atau posisi karakter.

Tema tersembunyi semacam ini menciptakan identitas lebih kuat karena pengguna memiliki sesuatu untuk diperhatikan selain hasil putaran. Namun fungsi setiap indikator tetap perlu dijelaskan melalui menu informasi agar efek visual tidak berubah menjadi petunjuk ambigu.

Royalgacor dapat menempatkan detail tersebut sebagai bagian dari pengalaman membaca permainan. Tampilan memberi sinyal, sedangkan aturan menjelaskan arti sebenarnya.

Tersembunyi di Mekanisme Royalgacor Bukan Berarti Pola Rahasia

Ada batas penting saat membicarakan mekanisme tersembunyi. Efek pedang, perubahan suara, atau animasi karakter tidak otomatis menjadi kode untuk memprediksi hasil berikutnya.

Elemen tersebut lebih tepat dibaca sebagai komunikasi antarmuka. Ia memberi informasi mengenai fitur aktif, perubahan fase, atau respons sistem berdasarkan kondisi permainan.

Memisahkan fungsi visual dari dugaan pola kemenangan membuat pembahasan mekanisme Royalgacor lebih masuk akal. Pengguna dapat memahami apa fungsi sebuah simbol tanpa menganggap setiap kilatan pedang sebagai sinyal hasil tertentu.

Royalgacor Membuat Tema Perang Pedang Terasa Lebih dari Sekadar Dekorasi

Kekuatan tema perang muncul ketika cerita, simbol, serta mekanisme mempunyai hubungan jelas. Pedang tidak hanya ditempatkan karena terlihat gagah. Prajurit bukan sekadar karakter pengisi layar. Arena juga dapat berubah mengikuti fase permainan.

Royalgacor melalui konsep semacam ini memiliki ruang untuk menghadirkan pengalaman lebih terstruktur. Tema perang pedang menjadi lapisan visual, sementara mekanisme Royalgacor bekerja sebagai fondasi di baliknya.

Bagian paling tersembunyi justru bukan rahasia kemenangan. Daya tariknya berada pada cara sistem menyamarkan fungsi teknis menjadi bagian dari cerita. Saat simbol, duel, animasi, serta transisi memiliki tujuan jelas, permainan terasa seperti satu dunia utuh, bukan kumpulan reel dengan gambar pedang ditempel di atasnya.

The wild force of life Channel Reviews brendan 15th September 2026 Teaser Media

September has arrived at a full sprint. Are you able to choose a few ways to take action this month? Maybe send an email, write a comment, invite a friend, show up in person, or all of the above! Here are some ways to get involved:

Sept 8 – It was powerful to see so many of us join together in Salem for the Data Center Moratorium Lobby Day & Rally! Over 170 of you showed up! Together, we’re making it clear that bold action against data centers is a political necessity – Governor Kotek even (finally) escalated her position on this at the rally yesterday by saying she supports a moratorium. Did you know that 75% of Americans oppose data center development? It’s time for the Oregon legislature to listen up!

Photo Credit: Eli Imadali, OPB 

Sept 12 – 13: Forest over Profits AND 350PDX Art Build

We are hosting a 2-day forest defense conference this weekend, including an Art Build Sunday (9/13) afternoon from 1–4 PM.  

Join forest defense advocates from across the PNW to build community, power, and momentum against the exploitation of forests and public lands for extractive logging, data center development, and mining. This event precedes the World Forestry Center’s annual forest commodity conference. We know that investing in the care of living forest ecosystems is an actual climate solution. So, join us! See website for details. Lunch will be provided. Space is limited, RSVP today!

Sept 13: Sunday Parkways in Downtown  

Join us downtown at Sunday Parkways from 11 AM – 4 PM. It’s the last Sunday Parkways of the summer and a fun event to get to talk to lots of Portlanders. 350PDX’s booth is in Pioneer Courthouse Square on the SW corner of 6th and Morrison – come find us!

Sept 13: Chasing Chimeras Film Screening

The Tomorrow Theater (3530 SE Division St.) is screening local filmmaker Barbara Bernstein’s film Chasing Chimeras: The Lure of Deceptive Climate Solutions. Learn why “renewable” fuels are not the answer. A panel discussion will follow the film. Get your tickets here. 7 PM.

Sept 16: No Secret Deals for Data Centers Resolution  

Final vote on this resolution will happen at Council, with another opportunity for public testimony. Submit written comments here, and come and help fill the room to show your support for this resolution from 6–9 PM.

Sept 17: CEI Hub Work Session

This is a long-awaited moment in our year-long policy process on this issue, where members of our coalition will be presenting to City Council about how to make the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub safer. Submit written comments now (we have talking points here) and come show up in red at City Hall to show your support. 2 – 5 PM

Sept 19: Peak bird migration begins

Learn about healthy nighttime urban ecosystems from our friends at the Bird Alliance of Oregon.

Sept 21: Comment deadline – Stop Repeal of the Roadless Rule.

One of the most successful forest safeguards of all time needs our voices! Comment through OregonWild.  Learn more at MoreThanJustParks. Since 2001, the Roadless Rule has protected nearly 2 million acres of Oregon’s forests and 45 million acres nationwide from destructive logging and development.

Sept 22: No Immunity for Big Oil Resolution

The City Life Committee of Portland City Council will hear a resolution saying we don’t want to let big oil companies off the hook for the damage they have caused to our climate and public health! Send a message to city council in support.

Sept 30: Rumble on the River: Protecting Our Region From Its Most Perilous Threats

Come and learn more about the CEI Hub, data centers, nuclear power, and the proposed refinery at Port Westward’s Columbia River Estuary. St. Luke Lutheran Church (4595 SW California St.) Doors & Info Tables 5:30 PM, Panel 6:30 PM.

All of September is STEPtember!

 It’s like Pedalpalooza for walking! Oregon Walks dedicates the month of September to promote walking as a fun, healthy, ubiquitous activity. Grab a friend, pick some events to attend, and let’s get to walking!

Voter Guide and Scorecard:

350PDX’s 2026 Voter Guide and Scorecard is now available online and as a downloadable PDF! 32 candidates from Portland City Council Districts 3 and 4, the Portland City Auditor, and candidates for Multnomah County Chair and District 2 submitted statements.

Candidate Forums:

Save the dates for our big Climate Justice Candidate Forums this October:

• District 4: Monday, October 5, 6 PM at First Unitarian
• District 3: Thursday, October 8, 6 PMat The Porch

Multnomah County has a new Climate Justice Plan!

August 27 the Board of Commissioners adopted the strategy to guide long-term community and local government action. Thanks to everyone who supported this epic project!

Forest Defense Team

Priority Tree Planting Areas Announced
If you have friends in the following low-canopy neighborhoods, let them know it’s time to sign up for PCEF-funded street trees: Argay, Centennial, Creston-Kenilworth, Cully, East Columbia, Foster Powell, Glenfair, Hayden Island, Hazelwood, Lents, Mill Park, Montavilla, Mt. Scott-Arleta, Parkrose, Parkrose Heights, Powellhurst-Gilbert, Russell, South Tabor, Sumner, Sunderland, and Wilkes.

Model public land tree opportunity map released: Thrive East PDX used a PCEF mini-grant to hire a GIS student to create a StoryMap prioritizing 10 publicly-owned parcels ready for immediate street tree planting to shade popular pedestrian routes. Check it out!

The 350PDX Forest Defense Team meets every first and third Monday of the month. Join us.

Energy Justice Team

Next in person meeting, Sept 22nd, 6 – 8 PM at the 350PDX office. Get plugged in with the 350PDX campaign team that works on everything from fighting data centers, Zenith, and the CEI Hub to advocating for PCEF and transportation justice! RSVP to dineen@350pdx.org and cherice@350pdx.org.

Art Team  Last month the Arts Team led an enthusiastic workshop at Oregon Wild’s Rabble Rouser on the powerful political activism of art and puppets. Our next Art Build is Sunday, September 13, 1-4, at N 3639 Mississippi. We plan on beginning a few more puppets and going back to our roots making posters for demonstrations. Can you help us? It’s vital, fun, and sociable. RSVP to info@350PDX.org.  Book Club

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30PM. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual.

Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes.

Join us on Wednesday, October 7 at 6:30PM for our next nonfiction in-person meeting. We’ll discuss Soil: The Story of a Black Mother’s Gardenby Camile D. Dungy, in which the poet and scholar recounts her seven-year odyssey to diversify her garden to reflect her heritage, expanding how we talk about the natural world and the environment.  RSVP at books@350PDX.org.

Save the date for our other upcoming discussions:

Wednesday, November 4 at 6:30PM (Google Meet) — Book to be selected in October

Milwaukie Advocates for Climate Justice

Do you live in Milwaukie and want to take action for climate justice with your neighbors? The Milwaukie Advocates for Climate is hosting their kick-off movie event on October 10th from 3:30-4:30, at the Ledding Library Community Room.

We will be watching the 350’s How to Reduce Fossil Fuels movie and having a facilitated conversation with the SW Neighborhood Team lead, Pat Kaczmarek.

Washington County Team

The 350PDX Washington County Team  always welcome newcomers to our events and to our (mostly) monthly online meetings (6:30 PM on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Southwest Team

The 350PDX Southwest Neighborhood Team includes neighborhoods on the south and west sides of Portland. We work together to raise awareness of the climate emergency. Our monthly meetings happen on the third Monday of the month. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Before closing our newsletter, a few reminders:

• Check out our Take Action page, which we update regularly. It includes actions that may not be in our newsletter.
• Join the 350PDX community Slack channel! This is a great way to stay connected on an ongoing basis. Contact to info@350pdx.org and we can add you.
•  350PDX is still searching for a wonderful, new home. Please reach out to info@350PDX.org if you have ideas for a space where we can have meetings, our arts team can create show-stopping puppets, and more!

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Cherice, Dineen, Jessica, Maeve, and Noelle

 

The post 2026 September Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

Six hundred more curbside spaces are about to become electric vehicle charging points under a contract that will be announced on Tuesday — a massive expansion of a pilot program but a small down payment on the city’s larger plan to permanently allocate more public space for the automobile.

Pedestrian and street-safety groups have long warned that creating curbside chargers represents a giveaway to the minority of New Yorkers who own cars, but that’s exactly what the Brooklyn-based it’s electric is being hired to do: install the electric posts that opponents say will reduce public space left for wider public benefit such as bike or bus lanes, street seats, curbside dining or even trees.

“Our curb space can be used for so much more than parking,” said Michael Sutherland, senior policy and legislative analyst at Open Plans, which shares a parent organization with Streetsblog. “EV chargers are permanent, expensive infrastructure that permanently lock in public space for cars and make future improvements more difficult.”

The city has been operating 88 charging points from FLO, but is expanding to 600 with it’s electric, a company with the lower-case name … and big ambitions.

“Just as fire hydrants are on every street, our vision is for EV chargers to become that normal,” it’s electric founder Nathan King said in a statement. The company did not address the livable streets issue: cars occupying the curbside lane forever.

The charging points do not only lock in parking, said another advocate.

“It also locks in a contract for a utility company to keep a fueling facility there in that parking space,” said Jon Orcutt, a former DOT policy director. “And we’re essentially turning public streets into the 21st-century gas stations.”

Coming soon.

Mayor Mamdani created the Office of Curb Management at DOT in April, on the premise that the curb has been stuck with one use — car storage — ever since overnight parking was made legal in the 1950s. Its job is to repurpose that space for loading zones, containerized trash, and outdoor dining. And also more spots for EVs to fuel up. (The city announced the expansion last month, but will be announced today that it’s electric won the bid.)

DOT’s 2021 Electrifying New York report called for 10,000 curbside points by 2030, though it’s electric co-founder Tiya Gordon thinks that landmark will be reached “between 2030 and 2040.”

Transportation officials say they will coordinate charger locations with bike, bus, and pedestrian projects to preserve flexibility.

Neighborhoods with high concentrations of taxi drivers, including Soundview, Rego Park, Red Hook, Washington Heights, and Stapleton, are being targeted first because the chargers will help meet the city’s Green Rides rule, which requires all rideshare rides to be zero-emission (or wheelchair-accessible) by 2030.

Passenger vehicles, including those Uber and Lyfts account for 17 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the city’s chief climate officer Louise Yeung. The city wants drivers to switch to electric to reduce that pollution (though obviously the driver of an electric SUV takes up the same curb space, causes the same traffic, blocks the same buses and has the same potential to kill and maim as the driver of a gas-powered car).

The original 88 charging points in the pilot are occupied by an EV more than 70 percent of the time and are delivering energy more than 85 percent of the time they are occupied, according to Con Edison.

But 56.7 percent of New York City households don’t have access to a vehicle at all, according to 2024 census data. And EVs only account for 8.3 percent of new vehicle registrations in the city, DOT said.

Still, advocates are not arguing against charging infrastructure for EVs, but merely where to put it.

“The city should explore publicly accessible, off-street EV charging that utilizes existing car infrastructure like garages and gas stations without hindering future efforts to reclaim public space for people,” Sutherland said.

DOT says it will add 92 fast charging points and 180 Level 2 points at places like city-owned municipal lots and garages, with construction underway or finished. 

Council Majority Leader Shaun Abreu (D-Manhattan), who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, defended the 600 new charging posts as “being creative with our city’s curb space,” saying it targets neighborhoods with the greatest need. 

Gordon hopes to begin installations in the first quarter of 2027. The department is taking public comment on proposed locations. (Click here to provide feedback by Sept. 30.)

• Americans love driving. So why is it that they also love European cities where people don’t have to drive? (Vox; paywall) It might have something to do with all these cool spaces European architects have reclaimed from cars (The Guardian).
• In Guadalajara, by contrast, it takes four hours to get anywhere.
• Then you have Doug Ford’s efforts to tear up Toronto bike lanes (City News).
• Amtrak is having its moment in the sun, but Congress doesn’t seem very cooperative. (Smart Cities Dive)
• Deficit spending is OK for highways but not for any other modes of transportation. (Bipartisan Policy Center)
• Data centers are a transportation issue, too. (Next City)
• Tacoma is activating new speed cameras. (KOMO)
• Nashville is planning new safety measures on two dangerous roads. (Fox 17)
• A Miami activist is using social media to push for better sidewalks. (Axios)
• The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority received an $80 million federal grant to upgrade three trolley stations. (Philly Voice)
• Raleigh churches are exploring ways to use their mostly unused parking lots for more housing. (WUNC)
• Cue another Trump administration investigation: A man was stabbed on Seattle light rail. (KOMO)
• A Rhode Island town is learning about road diets. (Providence Journal)

Corporate sponsors, a big cast of kids and the war on “woke” all appear in Secretary Sean Duffy’s “Great American Road Trip” reality show. But one important thing goes unmentioned as he and his family make their way across the country — the transportation projects his U.S. DOT has defunded since President Trump returned to the White House last year.

The six-episode series, which premiered on YouTube last week, follows Duffy, his wife (and Fox News personality) Rachel Campos-Duffy as they drive from city to city and state to state. Their nine children come along, though not all at once; even an eight-seat SUV couldn’t fit the whole family, so kids are rotated in and out of the trip. Each episode is packed with confessionals and unscripted family moments, and very little discussion of transportation.

That may be for the best, since every location Duffy visits has been the victim of his war on bike lanes, sidewalks, mass transit and any project that does not adhere to the current administration’s policies on diversity, gender identity and climate.

The Department of Transportation announced last May that it would review all grants made during former President Joe Biden, and proceeded to cut as many as it could. By September, U.S. DOT had canceled at least $77 million worth of federal investments in location infrastructure.

Here’s a rundown of some of those defunded projects, which Duffy does not mention once.

Philadelphia

Duffy has sparred with Philadelphia officials multiple times since stepping into his role last year, mostly around a series of fires onboard SEPTA, the city’s regional transit agency. On Oct. 1, 2025, U.S. DOT ordered SEPTA to inspect and repair its entire Silverliner IV train fleet before returning the cars to service.

“If changes are not made immediately, it is only a matter of time before SEPTA’s crumbling commuter rail system erupts in flames and kills someone,” Duffy said in a letter last year to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

Shapiro pushed back, calling on Duffy to convince Pennsylvania’s Republican-led legislature to approve $167 million in funds for SEPTA repairs. (Duffy declined.)

Recommended Rural and Disabled Pennsylvanians Fighting For Transit As Keystone State Budget Nears Late Deal Ren Zaro Fitzgerald July 6, 2026

The transportation secretary finally announced a $13 million grant for the agency last month — ten months after the initial ask for help. That grant covers less than eight percent of the amount that Shapiro says is needed.

SEPTA’s damaged fleet was the oldest in the nation of its kind. Facing a $10 billion deficit to its maintenance fund, and no substantive federal support in sight, the agency has been forced to defer dozens of infrastructure projects.

Boston

The Duffy family spent their Boston trip far more focused on Harvard University’s liberal politics than the millions of dollars their dad withdrew from Beantown safety projects.

Last September, Duffy’s DOT cancelled $20 million that would have improved three major streets in Roxbury, a neighborhood of Boston. The project included electric car charging stations, which U.S. DOT said went against its “traditional forms of energy and natural resources” in its cancelation notice last year.

“The city won these competitive federal grants to replace sidewalks, improve lighting, upgrade bus stops and plant trees on neighborhood streets,” a city spokesperson told StreetsblogMASS, which covered the funding rescission.

Recommended Breaking: US DOT Pulls Grants For Projects That Aren’t Focused on Cars Kea Wilson September 16, 2025

U.S. DOT also cancelled a smaller $2 million grant for Mattapan Square, just five miles south of Roxbury.

The majority-Black neighborhood was part of the agency’s Reconnecting Communities Pilot, a program to increase access in areas historically segregated by road and rail infrastructure. But because the street redesign would reconfigure some car lanes for other uses, Duffy’s cancelation notice accused it of being “hostile to motor vehicles” and lacking national significance.

Montana

The Duffys’ visit to the Mountain West is a heartwarming family ski trip … straight through areas where he’s frozen several key street safety initiatives.

The Transportation Secretary’s attack on “woke” grants targeted a planned upgrade to Highway 200, which runs through East Missoula, Montana.

“All of our years of planning, we’re now gonna see dirt move. We’re gonna see some construction. And now we’re back to where we were almost a decade ago where nothing’s happening,” East Missoula Community Council member Lisa Thomas said in a July 2025 interview with 8 KPAX, a local news station, after Duffy cut the $24 million grant.

Planned upgrades to the roadway included new bike lanes, bus stops and sidewalks, additional street lighting, a new roundabout and an improved grade-separated railroad crossing. The changes were funded through the same Reconnecting Communities grant as Boston’s disendowed Mattapan Square project.

The canceled grant had unlocked an additional $6 million in state and local funds, which may now be in jeopardy as well.

“We’re almost back to square one,” Thomas told 8 KPAX.

Charleston, South Carolina

In a rare acknowledgement of the kind of transportation infrastructure projects he oversees, the fourth episode of The Great American Road Trip takes Duffy’s family to Charleston, South Carolina for a private tour of Boeing’s local manufacturing facility, showing off the airplane company’s high-tech 787 Dreamliner fleet. (The company’s cameo isn’t particularly surprising; it is a top sponsor of the show.)

Charlotte’s push to build out its mass transit system, though, doesn’t get any airtime at all.

The planned 21-mile “Lowcountry Rapid Transit” bus network would run from Northern Charleston to downtown on a network of dedicated transit lanes. Lined with high-end bus “stations” and priority at stop lights, the system would help a region growing at three times the national average. The federal government hasn’t shown much enthusiasm.

The project is due to receive $374 million from the Department of Transportation through the Capital Investment Grants program, but Duffy hasn’t approved a single new funding agreement for the program since his appointment as Transportation Secretary.

The Department of Transportation’s contribution is expected to cover nearly 60 percent of the project’s total cost — threatening its implementation if Duffy refuses to move the money by January.

A screenshot from The Great American Road Trip lists Boeing, Chevron and Toyota as top sponsors.

“We are concerned by the actions the Department has taken to withhold these funds and delay implementation of critical infrastructure projects across the country,” a group of Democrat Members of Congress wrote in a March 2025 letter to Duffy. U.S. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), one of the letter’s authors, represents a majority of Lowcountry Rapid Transit’s service area.

Texas

The road trip’s penultimate stop left the Duffys loving Texas … but not enough to fund its trains.

Last spring, Secretary Duffy terminated Amtrak’s nearly $64 million grant to build a high-speed passenger rail line between Dallas and Houston.

The project, which is estimated to cost more than $40 billion total, could carry passengers between the two cities in under 90 minutes, proponents say. An estimated 50,000 Texans travel along the corridor every week, signaling major demand for a high-capacity and convenient option. Without federal support, funding the line is more out-of-reach than ever.

“We were a little surprised … I don’t think we were shocked,” said Peter LeCody, the President of Texas Rail Advocates. The organization supports high speed rail in the state through public and private sector coordination, according to its website.

A longstanding vision for high speed rail in Texas is jeopardized by Trump and Duffy’s Department of Transportation.

Now, the public-private partnership may rely entirely on private funding to stay afloat, according to LeCody. The switch could lead to a much faster project timeline, but it needs to close its massive deficit first.

Even with federal support, the project was primarily funded through Texas-based private investors. Duffy nonetheless called it yet another form of government “waste” to be axed by the Trump administration.

Recommended Is Private Capital Up to a Texas-Sized High Speed Rail Challenge Now That the Feds Have Pulled Out? Jim Mathews April 16, 2025

“Underwriting this project is a waste of taxpayer funds and a distraction from Amtrak’s core mission of improving its existing subpar services,” the transportation secretary said in a statement in April 2025. “If the private sector believes this project is feasible, they should carry the pre-construction work forward, rather than relying on Amtrak and the American taxpayer to bail them out.”

It’s an ironic move for a president who named the Texas High Speed Rail project a top priority in 2017, and whose first administration pitched the initial public-private funding model.

Irony doesn’t lay track or build trains, though, and supporters are searching for a backup.

Arizona

The corporate-backed tour wouldn’t be complete without a trip to Arizona, where driverless cars dominate the public road. In the final episode of The Great American Road Trip, several members of the Duffy family take a Waymo for an autonomous test drive. Waymo shares a parent company with Google, which sponsored the show. Still, the reviews were mixed.

“It’s weird … I did not like that,” said Evita Duffy, the secretary’s 26-year-old daughter.

The older Duffy kids were less-than-calm riding in a Waymo driverless car around Phoenix.

The family also met with Suzanne Philion, a representative for Waymo, who touted the company’s better-than-humans safety record. For the first time in the series, Secretary Duffy acknowledged the nearly 40,000 lives lost to traffic violence every year in the US.

“This will be the first time we actually have a huge impact on saving lives on American roads,” he said. It’s a bold statement from the man who has taken nearly $2 billion from lifesaving street improvement projects across the nation.

Recommended Driverless Cars Could Save Tens of Thousands of Lives. But We Must Treat Them Like Aviation — Not Like Cars Marco Conner June 18, 2026

Even Duffy, who quietly removed bike lanes, road diets and speed cameras from the Department of Transportation’s list of street safety measures this year, won’t deny the epidemic of car-induced problems in the US. Yet the only solutions he’s accepted don’t cost his department a penny — and do enrich a private auto interest.

“To love America is to see America,” Duffy says in the kickoff for his reality show. To love America, as it turns out, is also to block any attempt at making it better.

In our latest, we talk with investigative journalist Eli Clifton about the Israeli lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Listen in: Guest Bio// Eli Clifton is cofounder and senior advisor at…

Shell Spying, Corporate Intelligence and Security: Documentary Chronology

Four of the most important emails.

1. 24 June 1998 — Richard Wiseman admits the Shell connection to Christopher Phillips.
This moves the story beyond pure allegation.
Read the document

2. 9 July 1998 — Wiseman: “The activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.”
A particularly clear contemporaneous formulation. (johndonovan.website)
Read the document

3. 21 March 2007 — Shell’s global monitoring email.
The strongest evidence that Shell later monitored global internal email and website traffic in an effort to identify sources communicating with Donovan. (shellnews.net)
Read the Shell internal email

4. The 2004 Hakluyt/Church of England document bundle.
This provides the personnel links, Hakluyt correspondence and the extraordinary Church of England episode in one place. (shellnews.net)

Shell–Hakluyt master document archive The following chronology brings together correspondence, internal Shell emails, police material, Hakluyt-related documents, Church of England correspondence and later US litigation involving Shell corporate-security personnel.

A critical distinction should be maintained throughout:

Documented: Shell and its lawyers acknowledged the use of Christopher Phillips for enquiries on Shell’s behalf; later Shell internal emails record monitoring of communications and web traffic in an effort to identify internal sources supplying information to the Donovan websites. (johndonovan.website)

Documented connection: senior Shell figures Sir Peter Holmes and Sir William Purves simultaneously held roles connected with Hakluyt during the relevant era, and the 2004 correspondence directly engaged Hakluyt over whether it had any role in the Donovan surveillance allegations. Hakluyt declined to identify its clients or activities. (johndonovan.website)

Not established by the presently available documents: that Hakluyt itself carried out the Christopher Phillips operation, burglaries, threats or every other alleged covert operation against the Donovans.

1997 — senior Shell management kept informed 28 April / 14 May 1997 — Richard Wiseman correspondence

Shell UK Legal Director Richard Wiseman’s correspondence records that senior Shell figures were being kept informed about the Donovan dispute, including figures at Shell UK and Shell Transport. This predates the most intense 1998 undercover episode and is useful for establishing the level at which the dispute was already known inside Shell. (shellnews.net)

Richard Wiseman correspondence index — including 28 April and 14 May 1997 letters

Why it matters: the later surveillance controversy cannot readily be characterised as a dispute known only to junior lawyers or local Shell staff.

1998 — the undercover-investigator sequence

This is the strongest contemporaneous documentary bundle because Shell and its solicitors ultimately acknowledged that Christopher Phillips had been conducting enquiries on Shell’s behalf. The archive also records other alleged undercover contacts, including men presenting themselves as journalists, but Shell denied involvement in the wider intimidation allegations. (johndonovan.website)

9 June 1998 — John Donovan to The European

Written after concerns arose about a purported journalist. It begins the documentary trail concerning persons approaching Donovan witnesses or representatives while claiming media credentials. (johndonovan.website)

1998 correspondence master page — Chapter 5

11 June 1998 — The European responds

The newspaper confirmed concerns about the use of its name by an individual who was not acting for it in the manner represented. This provided contemporaneous independent corroboration that at least one purported journalistic approach was irregular. (johndonovan.website)

Chapter 5 — full correspondence sequence

15 June 1998 — John Donovan to Dr Chris Fay, Shell UK Chairman and CEO

This is one of the most useful early documents. Donovan set out the activities of Charles Hoots, Christopher Phillips, “Daniel Wilson” and an anonymous caller, and alerted senior Shell management to concerns about intimidation and covert enquiries. The letter records the allegations contemporaneously rather than retrospectively.

15 June 1998 letter to Dr Chris Fay

16 June 1998 — DJ Freeman replies on Shell’s behalf

Shell’s solicitors responded to the letter to Dr Fay. At this stage the full Phillips connection had not yet been acknowledged.

DJ Freeman letter, 16 June 1998

18 June 1998 — Royds solicitors to DJ Freeman

This correspondence enclosed enquiries made to Cofton Consultants and pressed Shell’s lawyers about Christopher Phillips. It was part of the sequence that forced the issue into the open.

Royds to DJ Freeman, 18 June 1998

18 June 1998 — John Donovan to Colin Joseph, DJ Freeman

A further direct challenge concerning the investigative activity.

John Donovan to DJ Freeman, 18 June 1998

19–23 June 1998 — solicitor-to-solicitor correspondence

This sequence is significant because Shell’s legal representatives progressively disclosed the nature of Phillips’s role. Chapter 5 preserves the related correspondence in chronological context. (johndonovan.website)

Full 1998 correspondence chronology

23 June 1998 — John Donovan to Shell Group Chairman Mark Moody-Stuart

The controversy was escalated directly to the head of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.

Letter to Mark Moody-Stuart, 23 June 1998

23 June 1998 — John Donovan to Richard Wiseman

This is particularly important because Donovan specifically asked whether Phillips had engaged in surveillance or telephone tapping.

Letter to Richard Wiseman, 23 June 1998

24 June 1998 — DJ Freeman to Royds

Shell’s solicitors described the inquiries into companies associated with Donovan as legitimate financial/credit enquiries.

DJ Freeman to Royds, 24 June 1998

24 June 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

A key document. Wiseman confirmed the Shell connection to Phillips but did not answer Donovan’s specific question about whether Phillips’s instructions extended to surveillance or phone tapping. (johndonovan.website)

Richard Wiseman letter, 24 June 1998

25 June 1998 — Royds to DJ Freeman

Donovan’s solicitors characterised Phillips’s dealings with the business-centre receptionist as involving deception. (johndonovan.website)

Royds letter, 25 June 1998

26 June 1998 — Turner Enquiry Services

Private investigators retained by the Donovan side reported on enquiries concerning Phillips and Cofton Consultants. This helps show that the matter was being independently investigated at the time. (shellnews.net)

Master document index containing the Turner correspondence

29 June 1998 — report to Suffolk Police

The Donovan side reported the alleged threats, deceptive approaches and undercover activity to the police. This is important evidence that the accusations were formally raised contemporaneously rather than invented after the litigation. (shellnews.net)

1998 documentary index, including the police correspondence

1 July 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

Wiseman wrote that he could find no Shell-company knowledge of Charles Hoots. The letter is useful because it distinguishes Shell’s admitted connection to Phillips from its denial of knowledge concerning other alleged operatives. (johndonovan.website)

Wiseman letter, 1 July 1998

3 July 1998 — DJ Freeman to John Donovan

This is among the strongest documents in the bundle. Shell’s solicitors said that if police wanted information from Shell or anyone involved in enquiries on Shell’s behalf, including Mr Phillips, full cooperation would be given. The wording also indicates that Phillips was not necessarily the only person conducting enquiries. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman letter, 3 July 1998

9 July 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

Wiseman expressly stated that Shell and its lawyers denied involvement in the alleged intimidation, while adding that “the activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.” (johndonovan.website)

Wiseman letter, 9 July 1998

7 and 11 August 1998 — further DJ Freeman correspondence

These letters form part of the continued dispute about the undercover activity. The 11 August document is cited in the archive as confirmation that Shell had conducted an internal investigation into the matter. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman, 7 August 1998

DJ Freeman, 11 August 1998

16 October 1998 — Suffolk Police

Police correspondence concerning one of the burglary allegations. Shell denied involvement in the burglaries and intimidation allegations.

Suffolk Police letter, 16 October 1998

26 October 1998 — Shell solicitors

The archive records this correspondence as further confirmation that an internal Shell investigation into the undercover controversy had taken place. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman/Shell correspondence archive

2004 — Hakluyt and the Church of England

This strand began when the Donovan family later discovered the extensive overlap between senior Shell figures and Hakluyt, the private intelligence consultancy founded by former intelligence officers. The archival documents establish the Shell/Hakluyt personnel overlap and the correspondence with Hakluyt; they do not, by themselves, prove that Hakluyt conducted the Phillips operation. (johndonovan.website)

4–14 April 2004 — discovery of the Shell/Hakluyt connection

The archived sequence includes correspondence with Shell lawyers and senior Shell figures after the Hakluyt links were discovered. A 5 April letter discusses Charles Hoots and raises expressly the possibility of intelligence connections. Those were allegations by Alfred Donovan, not established findings. (shellnews.net)

April–June 2004 Hakluyt correspondence index

22 April 2004 — Alfred Donovan / Richard Wiseman emails

This exchange revisited Shell’s prior admission concerning investigative activity. It forms the bridge between the 1998 Phillips documents and the later Hakluyt inquiry. (shellnews.net)

Dark Side of Royal Dutch Shell — full correspondence index

26 April 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Richard Wiseman

Follow-up correspondence recording Donovan’s interpretation of Wiseman’s response and the earlier admissions. (johndonovan.website)

Don Marketing archival correspondence

26/27 May 2004 — email to hundreds of MPs

Subject: “HAKLUYT — THE COMMERCIAL ARM OF MI6?”

This circulated the Shell/Hakluyt issue widely among MPs and sought investigation of the connection between Shell and the intelligence consultancy. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Shell/Hakluyt master correspondence page

2 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Hakluyt

A direct request to Hakluyt co-founder Christopher James asking whether Hakluyt had been involved in the Shell-related activities against the Donovans. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt correspondence index

2 June 2004 — Intelligence and Security Committee

The ISC acknowledged Donovan’s concerns about Hakluyt and stated that they would be drawn to the attention of committee members. (shellnews.net)

ISC letter, 2 June 2004

3 June 2004 — Church of England Legal Office

This is the extraordinary document in the Church of England strand.

Mike Webster of the Church’s Legal Office contacted Alfred Donovan after the letter intended for Hakluyt appeared on a Church of England fax machine. The eventual explanation centred on Sir Anthony Hammond QC, who had relevant Church legal responsibilities while also being connected with Hakluyt. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Shell/Hakluyt/Church of England correspondence index

4 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to the Intelligence and Security Committee

This letter is particularly useful because it sets out, contemporaneously, why the unexpected Church of England involvement increased Donovan’s concerns. It also recounts the allegations about Hoots and the wider intelligence context. (shellnews.net)

Letter to Intelligence and Security Committee, 4 June 2004

7 June 2004 — Hakluyt correspondence

Hakluyt directly communicated with Alfred Donovan. The fact of communication is established; its significance should not be overstated. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt master correspondence page

7 June 2004 — Church of England Legal Office follow-up

A second Church legal-office communication followed, clarifying aspects of the unusual routing of the Hakluyt correspondence. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Church of England/Hakluyt correspondence archive

7 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Sir Mark Moody-Stuart

The Hakluyt matter was raised directly with the former Shell Group chairman. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Complete Shell/Hakluyt document list

7 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Queen Elizabeth II

The letter was sent because the Queen was Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It raised Sir Anthony Hammond’s simultaneous Church and Hakluyt connections. These were Donovan’s allegations and concerns, not findings by the Palace. (shellnews.net)

Letter to Queen Elizabeth II, 7 June 2004

8 June 2004 — Christopher James / Hakluyt response

This may be the single most important Hakluyt document.

Christopher James said it was not Hakluyt’s practice to comment on activities undertaken for clients or even whether Hakluyt had acted for a particular client. Consequently, the letter did not give Donovan the categorical denial he had requested. It should not, however, be treated as an admission of involvement. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt response and contemporary reproduction

8 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan replies to Hakluyt

Donovan argued that Hakluyt’s reply remained ambiguous and again invited a direct denial of involvement. (shellnews.net)

Alfred Donovan reply to Hakluyt, 8 June 2004

14 June 2004 — Buckingham Palace

The Queen’s office acknowledged the letter, noted its contents and explained that the Queen would not intervene in the Church’s day-to-day administration. (shellnews.net)

Buckingham Palace letter, 14 June 2004

22 June 2004 — Lambeth Palace

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s office acknowledged the material and said its contents had been carefully noted. (shellnews.net)

Church of England letter, 22 June 2004

2007 — Shell’s own internal surveillance emails

This is arguably the strongest documentary strand because the material consists of Shell’s own internal communications, later disclosed through data-protection procedures. (johndonovan.website)

9 March 2007 — countermeasures / “round table” working group

An internal Shell email discussed a broader response to Donovan activities. The surviving archive describes this as a countermeasures structure and connects it with multiple corporate functions. (shellnews.net)

Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell — documentary compilation

11 March 2007 — internal email about Alfred and John Donovan

An internal writer referred to hopes that Alfred Donovan’s advancing age might reduce his campaigning activity but observed that John Donovan appeared equally determined. It is revealing evidence of the degree of internal attention being paid to the family. (shellnews.net)

Shell DPA documentary compilation

March 2007 — Bill O’Reilly / Fox News episode

An email from John Donovan to Fox News about Shell’s dealings involving Iran triggered internal circulation within Shell USA and Shell International. Internal personnel prepared for the possibility that Fox might contact the company. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

19 March 2007 — “sources in the USG and in London”

This is particularly significant.

A Shell internal writer stated:

“I have contacted some of my sources in the USG and in London…”

The context was an effort to obtain additional information about Alfred and John Donovan following the Fox News email. “USG” naturally reads as United States Government, but the email does not identify the individuals or agencies contacted, or establish that any government information was actually supplied. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Detailed US/Donovan security analysis and internal-email chronology

20 March 2007 — “information security tasking”

Another Shell internal email concluded that the Donovans were “of no security interest” unless Shell wished to undertake an information-security exercise to find where their well-placed Shell sources were located. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

This is an important distinction: Shell’s concern, according to its own correspondence, was not primarily a physical-security threat but information leakage.

Chapter 12: Shell corporate espionage in more recent years

21 March 2007 — global monitoring operation

Perhaps the clearest internal surveillance document.

The confidential email states that Shell had initiated an IT project:

• to monitor internal emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan; and
• to monitor web traffic to identify internal visits to the Donovan website.

The email also refers to suspicions that current and former employees were communicating with the Donovans. (shellnews.net)

Shell internal email, 21 March 2007 — “Donavan CONFIDENTIAL”

22 March 2007 — Shell USA communications posture

A Shell internal communication states that the US side should be distanced from the underlying UK dispute and provides a controlled response for use if contacted. (shellnews.net)

Shell internal email, 22 March 2007

31 August 2007 — continuing monitoring

Later internal Shell correspondence recorded continued monitoring of the Donovan website and stated that employees had been instructed not to visit it. (shellnews.net)

DPA/Shell surveillance compilation

2009–2011 — Corporate Affairs Security and Hakluyt crossover 17 June 2009 — CAS and NCFTA

Later disclosed internal correspondence referred to CAS and the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, with “high level interest” in material being published on blogs. The identities and full purpose are obscured by redactions, so conclusions should be cautious. (shellnews.net)

Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell compilation

2010/2011 — Ian Forbes McCredie: Shell to Hakluyt

Ian Forbes McCredie, formerly Vice President of Corporate Security at Shell and an ex-intelligence officer, subsequently became associated with Hakluyt. The Donovan archive records that an email sent to his old Shell address produced a response from his Hakluyt email address. (johndonovan.website)

Chapter 5 — McCredie, Shell Corporate Security and Hakluyt background

This is strong evidence of the personnel crossover between Shell security and Hakluyt. It is not proof that McCredie or Hakluyt conducted the 1998 operation.

United States: Shell security litigation and insider material Crockett Oaks III — former FBI agent and Shell US security chief

Oaks headed Shell’s US security function. In 2017 Shell sought court intervention after alleging that he threatened to disclose confidential material concerning internal investigations. Legal reporting described his remit as including threats to Shell’s employees, property and reputation. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

That last category is particularly relevant to the wider spying issue because treating reputation as a security concern creates obvious questions about where conventional security ends and intelligence-gathering concerning critics begins.

Shell Spying in America — Oaks and other US litigation

The underlying litigation is important, but it should not be described as proving unlawful spying. What it establishes is the existence and sensitivity of Shell’s internal corporate-investigation machinery. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Michael Oliveri v Shell Oil Company

Court filings described the Security Advisor US position and Shell’s security reporting hierarchy: Crockett Oaks was identified as Regional Security Manager for the Americas, reporting upwards to James W.D. Hall at Shell’s global headquarters in The Hague. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

This is valuable because it documents a transatlantic command structure linking US security operations to central Shell management.

US security litigation master article, including Oliveri court-document links

Walied Shater litigation

Shater’s litigation exposed additional details about Shell Corporate Security, overseas assignments, repatriation, CCTV evidence, Shell’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer and its Business Integrity Department. Shater ultimately lost his Fifth Circuit appeal, which should be stated clearly. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

The case nevertheless provides independent court documentation concerning the internal structure and workings of Shell security.

Romak and Taylor v Shell — 2025 security reorganisation litigation

Michelle Romak and Kevin Taylor sued Shell USA Inc., Shell plc and Wayne Hunt over a restructuring of the corporate-security function. Those allegations remain allegations unless and until established in court. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Its relevance here is institutional rather than evidential: it provides another public court record involving the management of Shell’s US security organisation.

The confidential US insider

This should be handled particularly carefully.

My own published account records that information was supplied through ProtonMail by a person with knowledge of a severe internal falling-out among individuals associated with Shell security in the United States. Some of the supplied material included court documents, while other claims concerning identifiable individuals remain unpublished and untested. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

I would describe it in exactly those terms:

“A confidential source with apparent knowledge of Shell’s US security operation supplied Donovan with information and court material concerning internal disputes. Some of the source material could be cross-checked against public litigation; other allegations have not been published because they remain uncorroborated.”

The public litigation does not prove the confidential source’s more serious claims. But, as the existing article fairly observes, it supplies an independently verifiable institutional backdrop: Shell security personnel have indeed appeared repeatedly in litigation involving investigations, confidentiality, employment disputes and internal security management. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Why the US material makes the story more significant

The US litigation does not demonstrate a single continuous international spying conspiracy.

What it does demonstrate is that Shell operated a sophisticated international corporate-security structure extending from Houston into its global hierarchy; that former law-enforcement and intelligence personnel occupied senior security roles; that sensitive internal investigations repeatedly became the subject of litigation; and that Shell itself treated reputation as one of the interests within its security remit. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Put beside the British record—the Phillips admission, the Hakluyt personnel overlap, the later Shell global email monitoring and the US-government-source reference—the result is a much more substantial investigative question:

How did Shell define the boundary between legitimate corporate security and intelligence-gathering directed at critics, whistleblowers, employees and other sources of reputational risk?

I intend to include the above information in The Shell Leaks Files.

Shell Spying, Corporate Intelligence and Security: Documentary Chronology was first posted on September 14, 2026 at 11:23 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

CALIFORNIA (September 14, 2026) — The National Audubon Society proudly announces five California ranches that have earned its Bird-Friendly Land Certification, which recognizes their efforts to...

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-057 The Sakhalin Papers XLVII: The Feeding Ground Was Losing Its Food — WGWAP’s 2019 Benthos Alarm For fifteen years, oil companies operating off north-eastern Sakhalin financed a programme that measured the tiny bottom-dwelling animals on which gray whales depended. Then something changed. Amphipod biomass in the nearshore Piltun feeding ground began falling sharply in 2013 and reached the lowest level in the entire monitoring series in 2016. That same year, the industry-sponsored benthic programme ended. Three years later, the independent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel issued an unusually stark public warning: the whales’ traditional nearshore feeding ground might be losing the capacity to support them.

1. The problem was beneath the whales

Much of the Sakhalin controversy had been visible above or within the water column.

Platforms.

Pipelines.

Ships.

Dredging.

Seismic airguns.

Fishing nets.

But the next warning came from the seabed.

Gray whales are benthic feeders. Off Sakhalin, they descend to the seafloor and consume large quantities of small invertebrates living in or immediately above the sediment.

In the shallow nearshore feeding area around Piltun Lagoon, one of the principal prey species was the amphipod Monoporeia affinis.

Farther offshore, another amphipod, Ampelisca eschrichtii, was particularly important.

The difference would eventually matter enormously because the nearshore and offshore feeding grounds were not interchangeable for every whale.

Young calves and dependent mother-calf pairs relied especially heavily upon the shallow Piltun habitat.

2. Fifteen years of industry-financed seabed monitoring

Between 2002 and 2016, Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and Exxon Neftegas Limited jointly supported an annual benthic sampling programme.

Its purpose was straightforward but scientifically important:

to measure the distribution, composition and biomass of gray-whale prey in both the nearshore and offshore feeding areas.

The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel later acknowledged imperfections in the programme. Sampling locations and timing varied between years.

Nevertheless, WGWAP considered the resulting 15-year dataset to possess considerable scientific value. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

That point deserves emphasis.

The evidence underlying the later warning did not originate with environmental campaigners attempting to reconstruct conditions from outside the project.

Much of it came from research financed by the oil companies themselves.

3. The decline began in 2013

The long-term dataset began showing something troubling.

According to WGWAP’s formal Open Statement of Concern dated 11 July 2019, amphipod biomass in the nearshore feeding ground began declining in 2013.

By 2016, it had reached the lowest level recorded during the entire 15-year time series.

Offshore conditions were different.

Amphipod biomass there remained high through 2016. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The distinction between the two habitats began to offer a possible explanation for another observation.

The whales themselves appeared to be redistributing.

Increasing numbers were using the richer offshore feeding ground.

Fewer were remaining in the traditional Piltun nearshore area.

4. Then the monitoring stopped

This is the central documentary fact in the present file.

After the 2016 season, the companies discontinued the benthic monitoring programme.

WGWAP stated in July 2019 that no new data had been collected under that programme since then.

The Panel also recorded that it had repeatedly expressed disappointment over the decision because the available evidence was already showing a sharp reduction in nearshore amphipod biomass.

The timing was therefore remarkable.

A monitoring programme had produced a warning signal.

The signal was worsening.

Then the monitoring ceased.

That sequence is established.

What it does not establish is that Sakhalin Energy stopped monitoring because it wished to conceal the decline.

The documents reviewed for this instalment do not demonstrate such a motive.

The evidentially safe conclusion is narrower:

the programme ended at precisely the time when the long-term dataset was showing its most concerning nearshore result.

5. The whales appeared to be moving too

The prey decline was accompanied by changes in whale distribution.

WGWAP’s July 2019 statement recorded two developments occurring in parallel with the loss of nearshore amphipod biomass:

a continued reduction in the number of whales using the nearshore feeding area;

and a noticeable southward shift in their distribution.

The Panel said the combined pattern raised the possibility that waters immediately outside Piltun Lagoon were gradually being abandoned and could cease to function as a viable feeding ground.

That was not presented as a proven prediction.

It was a scientific warning.

And WGWAP described the matter as urgent.

6. Why mothers and calves made the warning more serious

The offshore feeding area offered abundant prey.

So why not simply allow the whales to move?

Because the observations suggested that not all animals could use the deeper offshore habitat equally.

WGWAP reported that mothers were increasingly seen offshore after weaning their calves.

But calves and yearlings had not been observed there.

That suggested that the youngest animals might not yet be capable of feeding effectively in deeper offshore waters.

The nearshore Piltun habitat was therefore not simply one feeding patch among several.

At the time of the Panel’s statement, it was the only known Sakhalin feeding area where mothers accompanied by dependent calves regularly foraged.

If that habitat became nutritionally inadequate, the biological consequences could fall disproportionately on precisely the animals most important to future population growth.

7. The 2018 numbers intensified the concern

The 20th WGWAP meeting later examined whale-distribution data from 2018.

The figures were striking.

During synchronized nearshore surveys, the average number of whales counted was only six.

The maximum was eight.

WGWAP described eight as the lowest maximum count recorded since this component of the Joint Programme began.

In comparison, a nearly simultaneous September survey estimated 124 whales offshore and only five nearshore.

But the Panel identified an important methodological complication.

The vessel used for offshore surveys in 2018 had a much higher observer platform than the vessel used previously. Observers aboard the new vessel counted substantially more whales during comparative work.

WGWAP therefore warned that raw offshore counts from 2018 should not simply be compared with earlier years without correcting for observational differences.

This is an excellent example of why the source record must be handled carefully.

There was compelling evidence of reduced nearshore use.

But not every apparent numerical increase offshore could safely be treated as a biological increase.

8. WGWAP challenged the industry programme’s reassuring conclusion

The industry-supported 2018 monitoring report concluded that the overall Sakhalin foraging group was relatively stable and generally favourable.

WGWAP did not accept that conclusion.

At its November 2019 meeting, the Panel said the available data did not support such a broad characterization.

It pointed instead to:

the severe reduction in whale abundance in the Piltun nearshore area;

the contraction of whale distribution there;

the apparent correlation with declining prey biomass;

and unresolved methodological problems in the survey data.

The Panel repeated its concern that the declining benthic biomass could eventually produce population-level consequences.

This was therefore more than an argument over presentation.

The company-supported monitoring programme and its independent scientific advisers were drawing materially different conclusions from parts of the same evidence.

9. One scientist used the word “crisis”

The November 2019 WGWAP report records an unusually forceful intervention by Panel member David Weller.

Discussing the very low use of the nearshore feeding ground and the unusually early separation of some mother-calf pairs, he described the nearshore habitat as being, in his opinion, “in a state of crisis.”

His hypothesis was that lactating females might be exhausting their nutritional reserves and moving offshore earlier in the season to find better feeding, leaving newly independent calves behind in the shallower habitat.

If correct, such a process could affect calf survival and maternal reproductive intervals.

WGWAP did not present this hypothesis as established fact.

It explicitly treated follow-up survival and reproductive monitoring as necessary.

That distinction is vital.

A serious scientific hypothesis entered the record.

It was not a proven causal finding.

10. A peer-reviewed paper pointed strongly towards natural oceanographic drivers

There was another reason not to leap from declining prey biomass to an accusation against Shell.

In February 2019, researchers published a peer-reviewed analysis in Marine Environmental Research examining prey biomass around north-eastern Sakhalin between 2001 and 2015.

The study investigated relationships between benthic prey and water depth, year, climatic indices and oceanographic processes.

Its overall conclusion was that temporal changes in prey biomass appeared to reflect climatic and oceanographic factorsdriving broader ecosystem change across the Sea of Okhotsk and Pacific Arctic region. (PubMed)

That study is significant because it provides a credible natural explanation.

Indeed, WGWAP expressly cited it when discussing possible causes of the decline.

The scientists were not approaching the question from the premise that oil and gas activity must necessarily be responsible.

11. But WGWAP would not rule industrial disturbance out

The Panel’s position was deliberately more cautious.

In its July 2019 statement, WGWAP said the cause of the amphipod decline remained undetermined.

It explicitly acknowledged that natural changes in the ecosystem might be entirely responsible.

But it added that disturbance associated with more than two decades of exploration, infrastructure development and oil and gas production in the region could not yet be excluded as having played some role.

That wording is central to this instalment.

The Panel did not find:

Shell caused the prey decline.

Nor did it find:

oil and gas activity had nothing to do with it.

Its position was:

the cause had not been determined, several hypotheses remained plausible, and the missing monitoring data made the question harder to answer.

12. The solution proposed by the scientists was more data

WGWAP called for renewed investigation.

It said the nature and causes of the amphipod decline should be examined in much greater depth.

Multiple hypotheses should be tested.

And most importantly, regular benthic sampling should restart so scientists could determine whether the decline observed through 2016 had continued.

This was not a demand for an immediate finding of corporate liability.

It was a demand for evidence.

The distinction matters.

The scientific response to uncertainty was not to invent certainty.

It was to restore the measurement programme.

13. The public warning became contemporaneous news

IUCN issued a public report on 11 July 2019, the same day as WGWAP’s Statement of Concern.

Its headline was explicit:

“IUCN scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales.”

IUCN reported that the Panel feared waters immediately outside Piltun Lagoon might be losing their ability to support recovery of the endangered whales.

It noted the steep fall in amphipod biomass, the termination of the long-term monitoring programme in 2016 and the contemporaneous shift in whale distribution away from the nearshore feeding area. (IUCN)

The warning was therefore public at the time.

It is not a concern reconstructed retrospectively from private material.

14. Shell’s own 2019 Sustainability Report

There is an important authenticated Shell record from the same year.

Royal Dutch Shell plc’s Sustainability Report 2019 described IUCN as a long-standing environmental partner and specifically referred to the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel.

Shell stated that in 2019 WGWAP had received a new three-year mandate to advise Sakhalin Energy on assessing and managing its impact on western gray whales.

The report identified Shell’s interest in Sakhalin Energy as 27.5% minus one share. (Shell)

That corporate statement confirms something important about responsibility for the advisory process.

WGWAP was not an external protest group attempting to impose itself on Shell.

It was part of an independent scientific mechanism that Sakhalin Energy had formally agreed to use.

Consequently, when WGWAP issued a public warning about the disappearing prey base, it was the company’s own independent scientific advisory structure speaking.

15. And yet benthic monitoring was still not scheduled to resume

At the November 2019 WGWAP meeting, Sakhalin Energy representatives discussed plans for 2020.

The company was seriously considering restarting annual acoustic monitoring.

But the representative confirmed that a resumption of the benthic component of the Joint Programme was not planned for 2020.

WGWAP again stressed the importance of benthic monitoring.

It was encouraged to learn that Exxon Neftegas and Gazpromneft-Sakhalin had collected environmental or benthic information independently and expressed hope that those data could extend the amphipod time series beyond the discontinued Joint Programme.

By that stage, therefore, the central problem was no longer merely that sampling had stopped.

It was that an independent scientific panel had publicly called for its resumption and regular benthic monitoring still had not been restored through the Joint Programme.

16. The High Court record remains background, not proof

As with earlier Sakhalin files, the English High Court litigation provides historical context.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting considered access to government environmental information relating to proposed British export-credit support for Sakhalin II.

The judgment records the scale of the project, the approximately US$650 million financing request and the environmental controversy surrounding western gray-whale habitat. (vLex)

But the limits of the judgment must remain explicit.

The High Court did not examine the 2013–2016 amphipod decline.

It did not consider the termination of the benthic programme.

It did not determine the cause of changing prey biomass.

It did not adjudicate the July 2019 WGWAP warning.

The case belongs here only because it establishes the longer history of governmental and judicial scrutiny surrounding environmental information about Sakhalin II.

Documentary Findings

The record establishes that Sakhalin Energy and Exxon Neftegas jointly supported annual benthic monitoring from 2002 through 2016 and that the resulting dataset was considered scientifically valuable by WGWAP. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

It establishes that nearshore amphipod biomass began declining in 2013 and reached its lowest recorded level in the 15-year series in 2016, while offshore amphipod biomass remained comparatively high.

It establishes that the industry-sponsored benthic programme was discontinued after 2016 and that WGWAP repeatedly objected to the loss of sampling.

It establishes that declining prey biomass coincided with reduced use and contraction of whale distribution in the Piltun nearshore feeding area. The documents describe that relationship as a correlation and concern; they do not establish a single proven causal chain.

It establishes that WGWAP regarded the loss of the nearshore habitat as especially concerning because mothers with dependent calves relied upon it and calves had not been observed feeding in the deeper offshore area.

It establishes that a 2019 peer-reviewed study found strong evidence that climatic and oceanographic processes influenced long-term prey variability. (PubMed)

And it establishes that WGWAP regarded the ultimate cause of the nearshore prey decline as unresolved: natural ecosystem processes might fully explain it, while some contribution from long-term industrial disturbance could not be excluded.

Commentary

The most striking feature of this episode is not that scientists discovered an environmental decline.

Monitoring programmes are supposed to discover changes.

The more troubling feature is what happened next.

For fifteen years, the oil companies financed the collection of evidence about what the whales were eating.

When that evidence showed the nearshore prey base falling sharply, the programme ended.

That does not prove bad faith.

There may have been contractual, scientific, regulatory, financial or programme-design reasons for ending it.

But from the perspective of environmental governance, the consequence was damaging.

The data series stopped at precisely the moment when continuity became most valuable.

Three years later, the independent scientific panel was effectively asking:

Is the decline continuing?

And because sampling had stopped, the answer was:

We do not know.

That is the larger lesson of the Sakhalin archive.

Monitoring is most useful when it produces unwelcome information.

If measurement stops when the trend becomes difficult, the entire rationale for long-term environmental monitoring is weakened.

There is also a second lesson.

This file does not establish that Shell destroyed the Piltun prey base.

The peer-reviewed evidence makes such a claim untenable.

Climate, ocean circulation and ecosystem processes offered credible explanations.

WGWAP itself acknowledged that natural change might be entirely responsible.

But precisely because multiple explanations were plausible, additional sampling was essential.

The scientific dispute was therefore not principally about whether Shell should be blamed.

It was about whether anyone was still collecting enough evidence to find out what was happening.

That question would become even sharper in 2020.

Source Record

The principal primary document is the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel Open Statement of Concern on decline of the amphipod prey base in the nearshore feeding area near Piltun Lagoon, dated 11 July 2019. It records the 2002–2016 monitoring programme, the prey decline beginning in 2013, the 2016 low point, termination of the programme and the Panel’s call for renewed sampling. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP Open Statement of Concern — 11 July 2019

The principal contemporaneous public report is IUCN’s “Scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales,” 11 July 2019. (IUCN)

IUCN report — 11 July 2019

The principal subsequent Panel record is the Report of the 20th Meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, Moscow, 6–8 November 2019. It records the exceptionally low nearshore counts, WGWAP’s rejection of overly reassuring interpretations, concern about benthic biomass and the absence of plans to restart Joint Programme benthic work in 2020. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP 20th Meeting Report — November 2019

The peer-reviewed scientific record is Blanchard et al., “Prey biomass dynamics in gray whale feeding areas adjacent to northeastern Sakhalin (the Sea of Okhotsk), Russia, 2001–2015,” Marine Environmental Research 145 (2019), 123–136. (PubMed)

PubMed record for Blanchard et al. 2019

The authenticated Shell corporate record is Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2019, which confirms the renewed WGWAP mandate and Shell’s then 27.5%-minus-one-share interest in Sakhalin Energy. (Shell)

Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2019

The judicial background remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin) and is used solely for historical context concerning transparency and proposed UK financial support for Sakhalin II. (vLex)

Archive disclaimer: The decline in nearshore amphipod biomass is documented. Its cause is not established. WGWAP explicitly acknowledged that natural ecosystem change might be entirely responsible while stating that industrial effects could not be excluded. The termination of benthic monitoring after 2016 is documented; no motive for that decision is attributed without evidence. WGWAP recommendations were independent scientific advice rather than judicial or regulatory findings.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers XLVIII: “A Philosophical Difference” — When Shell’s Scientists and Its Independent Advisers Disagreed About How Much Evidence Was Enough

By November 2020, the missing benthic data had become part of a broader dispute.

WGWAP said the disappearance of seabed monitoring was a major loss because scientists could no longer properly explain why whales were abandoning the nearshore feeding ground.

Sakhalin Energy took a different position.

The company maintained that it should not be responsible for collecting benthic information outside the area in which its operations could potentially affect the seabed.

During the meeting, Sakhalin Energy’s HSE leadership acknowledged what the minutes described as a “philosophical difference” between the objectives of conservation scientists and those of an oil company.

The next file examines that unusually candid exchange — and asks a fundamental question at the heart of independent corporate environmental oversight:

Is complying with regulatory requirements the same thing as knowing enough to protect an endangered species?(IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 14, 2026 at 10:34 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 National Labor Relations Board’s Region 13 Office in Chicago moved to block the originally scheduled Sept. 17 NLRB union election at Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston, Ill., in light of credible allegations that a free and fair election is not possible at this time due to Prime Healthcare’s substantial and flagrant violations of the National Labor Relations Act.

Following the Trump administration’s move to exempt oil projects from environmental review in the Western Arctic, Alaska Wilderness League Arctic Campaign Manager, Katie Umphlett, released the following statement: 

“The Trump administration has made it clear from day one that their priority is catering to industry and not the American public. With this latest move in the Western Arctic, they are essentially letting the oil industry write its own rules. At a time when oil companies and executives are already making record profits, the last thing we should be doing is bending the rules to make it easier to pad their bottom lines at the expense of our public lands, wildlife, and communities.” 

Coal is by far the dirtiest of the world’s major energy sources. It accounts for almost half of the cumulative global carbon emissions since the industrial era began — as much as oil and natural gas combined. And it generates much more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than either oil or gas. Most climate experts agree that phasing out coal power is the single biggest change the world could make to slow down global warming. 

For almost 20 years, the United States has whipsawed on the question of whether the federal government should try to speed up that phaseout. After Barack Obama failed to push a carbon tax through Congress, his administration drafted the “Clean Power Plan,” which would have forced electric utilities to cut their emissions by shifting away from coal. President Donald Trump repealed that rule during his first term, and the Supreme Court later said that the president could not unilaterally force utilities to give up the fuel.

Instead of forcing utilities to abandon coal, the Biden administration tried to work around the Supreme Court ruling in its 2024 rule by giving utilities a choice. They could either retire their coal plants sometime in the 2030s, or they could equip them with new machines that would capture almost all the carbon dioxide that would come out of their smokestacks. The result either way would be a significant drop in carbon emissions from the power sector.

The Trump administration is now repealing that rule. The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Monday that it plans to wipe away all federal regulations for carbon emissions from the electricity sector, essentially allowing utilities to warm the Earth as much as they want. The agency used the same justification as it did in its repeal of climate regulations on motor vehicles earlier this year, arguing that the science of climate change was uncertain and that the repeal would save consumers money on power bills.

“For over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations implemented a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy,” said Trump’s EPA chief Lee Zeldin at an international energy summit in Texas. “We are working to go even further so that American energy can be fully unleashed. Realizing the full potential of American energy means more jobs, lower prices, and a more prosperous America.”

This repeal deals a significant blow to the federal government’s efforts to force the power sector away from coal. The whiplash between Democratic and Republican administrations has been so frequent and so severe that neither the Obama nor the Biden rules have done much to speed the decarbonization of the power sector, especially when compared to other federal efforts like the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies for solar and wind.

“The reason to have a target is that it sends a clear signal to decision-makers in companies,” said Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of environmental economics at Yale University and an economic adviser to the Obama administration, where he helped draft the Clean Power Plan. “If you’re on the fence between choosing two things, you might as well choose the one that’s in line with the target. That’s been undermined. There has to be some teeth behind it.”

Even though the Obama and Biden rules never took effect, coal power has still been plummeting in the United States over the past 20 years. That’s thanks to the shale fracking boom, which lowered the cost of natural gas and made it cheap for utilities to replace their coal plants with gas plants. When burned, natural gas does warm the Earth, but slower than coal, and the shift has caused overall power sector emissions to fall in the U.S. by almost half.

The repeal of the Biden rule will likely delay that phaseout and will have significant effects for the nation’s public health. Coal plants also release harmful toxins like mercury and particulate matter, leading to thousands of premature deaths around the world. Inasmuch as the Biden rule would have sped up coal closures, it would also have prevented around $370 billion in health damages from climate change and air pollution. The Biden administration predicted that in 2035, the rule would have prevented hundreds of thousands of asthma flare-ups, hundreds of emergency room visits, and more than 1,200 premature deaths.

The artificial intelligence boom is also slowing the phaseout of coal. The Biden administration drafted its 2024 rule at a time when coal was expected to keep shrinking on its own; the rule projected a “continued decline in projected coal-fired steam generating unit capacity as well as a steady decline in annual operation of those [plants] that remain online,” driven largely by “eroding economic opportunities for coal-fired steam generating units to operate.” Now the rapid growth in power demand from data centers has led to a resurgence in demand for coal plants, and has led many utilities to push out the retirement date for their legacy coal assets. For coal power plants that sell into wholesale markets like the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic, high prices have made it worthwhile to stay online. (The Trump administration has also ordered some coal plants to stay online past their planned retirements, a move that a federal court found to be unlawful earlier this month.)

A case in point is Southern Company, the massive utility that produces energy for states including Georgia and Mississippi. Under the Biden administration, the utility had planned to retire its major Mississippi coal plant by 2028, but Southern announced last year that data centers would necessitate keeping it online well into the 2030s. The company’s previous efforts to install carbon capture at its coal units, meanwhile, have ended in failure. Environmental groups have criticized these decisions and argued that AI demand is inflated, but the Trump administration is happy to give utilities leeway to keep coal online.

The next president who seeks to take action on climate change will face much the same coal challenge that Obama did: how to speed up the phaseout of a fuel that is declining, but not dying? Gillingham argues that the short-term boost provided by Trump and the data center boom may not help rescue the coal fleet. The nation’s coal plants are only getting older, and many utilities will choose to replace them with gas or other fuels rather than repair them. The next president may still need the regulatory “stick,” but by that time the sector may be on its last legs.

“We have more electricity demand than we did before, which is, on the margins, going to make it easier for a coal plant to stay on,” said Gillingham. “But the trend is pretty clear, and you can only fight markets so much.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump topples the last pillar of Biden’s climate agenda on Sep 14, 2026.

The fracking company Cuadrilla has secured the very time extension to restore its Lancashire shale gas site that councillors refused nine months ago.

Dismantled acoustic fencing at Preston New Road, August 2026. Photo: Maple Independent Media

Unknown to residents and campaigners, Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to return the Preston New Road site to farmland by six months to 30 June 2027.

In December 2025, this date has been unanimously refused by the council’s planning committee.

It has also emerged that Cuadrilla appealed over other dates enforcing the clean up of the site, near Blackpool.

The developments began three months ago, when Cuadrilla failed to meet an approved timetable for the Preston New Road restoration.

The county council took enforcement action. The enforcement notice required the site to be returned to farmland by January 2027.

But Cuadrilla worked behind the scenes with officials to get agreement on the very extension it had previously applied for and been refused.

The extension has taken residents and campaigners by surprise. The first some local people knew about it was a social media post by a councillor last week.

At the time of writing, there has been no media release from the county council.

Reaction

Nick Danby, of the campaign group, Frack Free Lancashire, said:

“We have just learned that the timetable for the restoration of the Preston New Road fracking site has been extended – yet again. The site was to have been fully restored by next January but now it seems that we might not see this matter resolved until June.

“Cuadrilla have turned dragging their feet into an art form and they have received no sanction whatsoever. Frankly, they have run rings around the regulators and Lancashire County Council and we have absolutely no confidence that they will meet the new timetable nor that they have any intention of doing so. We will be keeping a close eye on developments, if there are any.

“The community has been completely failed. Just as we always predicted. This should have been properly resolved a long time ago and the fact that we are still waiting is completely unacceptable.”

Another opponent of Cuadrilla’s operation, Preston New Road Action Group, said:

“In June we were encouraged by the fact that Lancashire County Council (LCC) had finally taken action to enforce Cuadrilla’s blatant failure to restore the site at Preston New Road. We were looking forward to this blot on the landscape being removed by December 2026.

“It is now very disappointing to find out that, following an appeal by Cuadrilla, LCC have rolled over and given them until June 2027 to restore the site – exactly the extension Cuadrilla applied for in 2025 which was refused by the LCC Development Committee.

“This is another fine example of Cuadrilla playing the LCC planners and getting the upper hand. We can only hope that this really is the final deadline for Cuadrilla.”

DrillOrDrop has been trying to make sense of what happened over the restoration plans, enforcement action, Cuadrilla appeal and the agreement with officials.

Lancashire County Council told us repeatedly that there had been no extension of the final deadline. But this is contradicted by several documents.

Timeline 4 December 2025: Cuadrilla refused more time

Councillors voted by nine to nil, with no abstentions, to refuse Cuadrilla’s request for an extension until 30 June 2027 for the return of Preston New Road to farmland. At the time, officials said:

“The proposed extension of time for the retention of the site in its current form would result in unnecessary and unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area.” Details

Campaigners called for immediate restoration of the site. Details

3 June 2026: original enforcement notice served

Lancashire County Council served an enforcement notice on Cuadrilla over the restoration of Preston New Road. The notice was due to come into force on 8 July 2026 unless there was an appeal against it.

The enforcement notice set three deadlines for the work.

1. “All plant, buildings, security and acoustic fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings forming part of the drilling compound for hydrocarbons shall be removed from the land” This was to be by 8 November 2026, within four months from the date the notice became effective.
2. The upper layers of the subsoil material shall be subsoiled to a depth of 600mm using a heavy duty winged subsoiler prior to the replacement of topsoils to relieve compaction and remove materials injurious to plant life and ay rock, stone or other materials capable of preventing or impeding normal agricultural use or land drainage operations. This was to by 8 December 2026 – within five months
3. Following treatment of the subsoil the topsoil from the soil storage mounds on the Land shall be distributed evenly across the Land to a minimum depth of 150mm and shall then be ripped, cultivated and left in a state that will enable the Land to be brought to a standard fit for agricultural use. This was to be by 8 January 2026 – within six months.

1.0 Enforcement Notice LCC 3.06.26_Redacted(1)Download

8 June 2026: media announcement

Lancashire County Council issued a media release on the enforcement notice. Details

Councillor Joshua Roberts, cabinet member for Rural Affairs, Environment and Communities, said:

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

“Local residents have had to live with this site for longer than they should have, and it is right that we have now taken firm action to bring this to a conclusion.

“It is positive that work is beginning to remove infrastructure from the site, but it is essential that the full restoration is completed within the required timeframe.

“We will not hesitate to take further steps if necessary.”

The media statement repeated the three deadlines in the original enforcement notice.

24 June 2026: Cuadrilla asks for an extension

On 24 June 2026, Cuadrilla confirmed the final deadline of 8 January 2027 in the enforcement notice. But it asked Lancashire County Council to “exercise its discretion” under planning legislation to change the final date to 30 June 2027.

The company also confirmed that 30 June 2027 was the date it had asked for in its planning application, refused in December 2025.

Cuadrilla cited the following reasons for its requested delay:

• The restoration work was “extensive in scope and require careful sequencing”
• The work would be best carried out in April-September, not the winter
• The company could procure contractors on “appropriate terms and enable them to mobilise effectively”
• Working in the winter could cause further harm to the soil structure and agricultural quality of the land
• The company had not appealed against the refusal of planning permission

Cuadrilla proposed to remove the acoustic fencing by 30 September 2026. It also said it would remove concrete structures, drainage materials, the stone platform, fencing, bulk earthworks and the access track by May 2027, subject to weather conditions and availability of contractors.

The company added that it would complete the return of subsoil to a depth of 600mm by May or June 2027 and prepare the site for agricultural use by 30 June 2027.

Cuadrilla described this as a “pragmatic and cooperative approach”.

It would, the company said, “avoid poorer environmental/agricultural outcomes from winter works and allow the Land to be restored properly and in a manner consistent with the Council’s own planning policies and the objectives of the original planning permission”.

2.0 Cuadrilla Letter 2405261_RedactedDownload 30 June 2026: council extends one deadline

Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to 30 June 2027 for work on the subsoil, topsoil and preparation for farming. But it said plant, buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings must still be removed by 8 November 2026.

3.0 LCC Response on enforcement notice PNR 30.06.26_RedactedDownload 2 July 2026: Cuadrilla threatens appeal

Cuadrilla agreed to the extensions to 30 June 2027 for subsoil, topsoil and agricultural preparation. But it said the 8 November 2026 deadline for buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings was “not achievable once allowance is made for procurement, mobilisation and the practical sequencing of works”.

The company asked for an extension for all site work to 30 June 2027.

It added:

“Unless the Council is able to confirm that amendment, the Company intends to submit an appeal on 3rd July 2026 seeking variation of the compliance period for requirement (i) accordingly.”

4.0 Cuadrilla Letter 0207261_RedactedDownload 3 July 2026: Council replies

Lancashire County Council replied a day later.

It said it had “carefully considered” Cuadrilla’s request for an extension to 30 June 2027 for all works. But it said it could not agree to any further extension or the requested amendment.

It concluded:

“The Enforcement notice will take effect on 8th July 2026 unless an appeal is made against it beforehand”.

6 July 2026: appeal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate informed the council it had received an enforcement appeal from Cuadrilla.

Cuadrilla issued a statement of its appeal case against the council’s 8 November 2026 deadline to remove all plant, buildings, fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings.

It said the company

“considers that compliance should be structured around a single milestone for completion of restoration (30 June 2027), allowing works to be sequenced appropriately within that period. Interim requirements for removal of hard-standing risk forcing work to be undertaken in sub-optimal conditions, contrary to best practice.”

Cuadrilla said the “sequencing of individual work elements should be retained within the control of the restoration programme rather than prescribed through interim compliance milestones.”

Confirmation of the appeal meant the enforcement process was put on hold.

27 August 2026: Withdrawal of appeal

There is no published correspondence between Cuadrilla and Lancashire County Council until a letter dated 27 August 2026. On that date, Cuadrilla said it was withdrawing the appeal with immediate effect.

28 August 2026: Withdrawal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate confirmed the appeal had been withdrawn.

Why did the council agree to changes?

We asked the council about the reason for the changes to the enforcement notice.

A spokesperson said:

“To be clear, the deadline for the full restoration has not changed, it is still June 2027, as it always was. The only changes are that the acoustic fencing must now be removed by the end of September, and some earthworks can take place outside the winter period as long as everything is completed by June 2027.”

We have shown, confirmed by Cuadrilla and the first enforcement notice, that the final date for site restoration, was originally 8 January 2027.

The council spokesperson said:

“The reason these changes have been agreed is to avoid a situation where Cuadrilla’s appeal continued and all enforcement action is suspended while that appeal is considered.

“If that happened, the Council would be unable to force any restoration work during the appeal, which could potentially delay the restoration beyond June 2027. By agreeing these changes, the Council can continue to enforce the original June 2027 deadline and take further action if the restoration is not completed in full.”

The spokesperson confirmed that there had been no consultation or correspondence with residents.

We asked where we could see the enforcement notice. The spokesperson said:

“The letters have been sent to Cuadrilla and landowners”.

The correspondence is online and has been tracked down, using advanced searches, by a resident. The link is here: https://planningregister.lancashire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/LCC/2026/0025#

DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla to comment on the extension. This article will be updated with any response.

Puget Sound Energy is fighting to increase your energy rates and invest in more fossil fuels. Megan Larkin Mon, 09/14/2026 - 12:44 pm