You are here
News Feeds
New Union Jack board rejects Reabold offer
New directors of Union Jack Oil have unanimously rejected the takeover offer by Reabold Resources.
Wressle well site in North Lincolnshire, where Union Jack has a majority stake.Photo: Egdon Resources planning statement 2026
In a circular to investors, released on 11 September 2026, the board also recommended Union Jack shareholders reject the offer.
The board, appointed after a requisitioned general meeting last month, said it had carried out a detailed review of Union Jack’s assets, liabilities and its strategic and financial positions.
It said:
“The New Board strongly and unanimously believes that the Offer is opportunistic and significantly undervalues Union Jack’s current project portfolio and the Company as a whole. Accordingly, the New Board unanimously and unequivocally rejects the Offer and recommends that Union Jack Shareholders should also reject the Offer.”
Reabold Resources announced the takeover offer for Union Jack on 15 June 2026. Reabold said it had reached agreement on the offer with the former Union Jack board in July.
The Union Jack circular said Reabold’s market share price had fallen about 27% since the start of the offer period, making the value of the offer now 3.2895 pence per Union Jack share.
It said the new board and another significant Union Jack shareholder, had undertaken not to accept the offer, including any “new, revised, improved or increased offer”
Other individual Union Jack shareholders had provided letters of intent not to accept the offer, the circular added.
It also said the parties refusing to accept the offer represented 23.02% of Union Jack’s existing issued ordinary share capital.
The takeover panel executive has reset day 60 , the latest day by which conditions must be satisfied or waived. This will now be 2 October 2026, the 21st day after publication of the circular. Day 46, the latest day on which Reabold may publish a revised offer, would also be reset to 18 September 2026.
On 3 September 2026, Reabold had secured support for its offer from 5.7% of Union Jack share capital.
Shell’s Upstream Boss Cashes In as the Oil-and-Gas Strategy Pays Off
Peter Costello sells roughly £1.17 million of Shell shares as the company doubles down on oil, gas and LNG — and shareholders reward the strategy
There is nothing inherently improper about a senior executive selling shares in his employer.
Let us establish that before anyone reaches for the corporate lawyers.
But timing, context and scale can still make an entirely legitimate transaction interesting.
And Shell has just supplied a rather good example.
The Financial Times reports that Peter Costello, Shell plc’s President of Upstream, has taken advantage of the company’s improved valuation by selling shares worth roughly £1.17 million. Shell’s own regulatory disclosure provides the precise transactions: on 28 August 2026, Costello disposed of 31,786 Shell shares in London at £33.41 each, receiving £1,061,970.26, and another 3,214 shares in Amsterdam at €39.115, worth €125,715.61. (Financial Times)
That is 35,000 Shell shares in total.
Perfectly legal.
Properly disclosed.
And rather beautifully timed.
Because Costello happens to run the part of Shell that is currently enjoying perhaps the clearest vote of confidence from chief executive Wael Sawan’s strategy:
Upstream oil and gas.
Meet the man running Shell’s upstream machinePeter Costello became Shell’s President, Upstream in April 2025.
His Shell career followed the company’s takeover of BG Group. He had previously held senior positions at BG, including President and Country Head in Kazakhstan, before joining Shell in 2016 as Vice President for Nigeria and Gabon. Before reaching the Executive Committee, he served as Executive Vice President, Conventional Oil and Gas. (Shell)
In other words, this is not an executive running a peripheral division.
Costello is responsible for one of the principal engines of Shell’s cash generation.
And under Wael Sawan, that engine has moved increasingly towards the centre of the corporate strategy.
Shell has rediscovered what it likes bestShell still talks about the energy transition.
It still says it intends to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050.
But anyone following the allocation of Shell’s capital rather than merely its corporate vocabulary can see where management enthusiasm currently lies.
At its 2025 Capital Markets Day, Shell said that it intended to spend approximately $12 billion to $14 billion every year on Integrated Gas and Upstream, while maintaining about 1.4 million barrels per day of liquids production and expanding LNG sales by 4–5% annually through 2030. (Shell)
CEO Wael Sawan was unusually explicit.
Shell said Integrated Gas and Upstream had generated roughly 70% of its organic free cash flow in the previous year and that it intended to continue investing in Upstream both organically and, where attractive opportunities arose, through acquisitions. (Shell)
That last part has now acquired a rather large Canadian accent.
Enter ARC Resources — $13.9 billion worth of convictionOn 2 September 2026, only days after Costello’s share sale, Shell completed its acquisition of Canadian producer ARC Resources Ltd.
The updated equity value was approximately $13.9 billion, with Shell also assuming about $2.5 billion of net debt and leases, giving an enterprise value of roughly $16.5 billion. (Shell)
This is no tentative experiment in wind farms.
ARC immediately adds around 370,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to Shell’s production.
Shell says the acquisition increases its exposure to long-duration, low-cost liquids and gas production in Canada’s Montney basin and should lift its production compound annual growth rate to approximately 4% through 2030, compared with 2025. (Shell)
When announcing the deal, Shell said ARC brought more than 1.5 million net acres to combine with Shell’s existing roughly 440,000 net Montney acres, as well as around 2 billion barrels of oil-equivalent proved plus probable reservesat the end of 2025. (Shell)
Shell expects the transaction to generate double-digit returns and become accretive to free cash flow per share from 2027. (Shell)
For anyone still trying to determine which parts of the “energy transition” Shell considers most attractive, $13.9 billion is a useful clue.
The market appears to approveAccording to the FT, Shell’s shares had risen approximately 27.6% over the preceding year by the time it examined Costello’s disposal. (Financial Times)
That rise is significant because it illustrates an important feature of the Sawan era.
Investors have generally rewarded Shell for talking less about corporate reinvention and more about:
cash flow, capital discipline, LNG, oil, gas, buybacks and shareholder returns.
Shell’s 2025 strategy increased its intended shareholder distributions from 30–40% to 40–50% of cash flow from operations through the cycle, while continuing to prioritise share buybacks and maintaining its policy of progressive dividend growth. (Shell)
The terminology may be corporate.
The proposition is wonderfully simple.
Make more money.
Spend capital where returns are highest.
Return a great deal of the cash to shareholders.
And do not apologise for continuing to produce oil and gas while the world continues to consume it.
For investors primarily concerned with financial returns, the strategy has obvious attractions.
And executives holding Shell shares benefit from the same uplift.
Costello is not the only senior Shell figure to sellThere is useful context here.
CEO Wael Sawan also sold Shell shares earlier this year.
Shell’s official regulatory filing records that on 22 May 2026, Sawan disposed of 40,000 ordinary Shell shares in Amsterdam at €37.170105 each, producing total proceeds of €1,486,804.20. (Shell Plc)
Again, there is nothing in the disclosure suggesting anything improper.
Indeed, executives routinely receive substantial parts of their remuneration in shares, and sales can occur for any number of entirely mundane financial or personal reasons.
Sawan also continued receiving Shell shares through the company’s remuneration and dividend arrangements after that disposal. (London South East)
Costello likewise received 50,402.48 shares in March 2026 when a 2023 Long Term Incentive Plan award vested, and he has subsequently received further dividend shares. (Shell Plc)
That context matters enormously.
Without it, “Shell executive sells £1.17 million of stock” can be made to sound considerably more dramatic than the underlying evidence justifies.
What the share sale does NOT tell usA senior executive selling stock is one of those events that invites speculation.
So here are several conclusions that the evidence does not support.
There is no evidence from this transaction that Peter Costello believes Shell’s shares are about to fall.
There is no evidence that he has lost confidence in Shell.
There is no evidence that the disposal was connected to undisclosed negative information.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing.
And it would be irresponsible to imply any of those things merely because a senior executive chose to realise part of the value of his holdings.
Shell disclosed the transactions in accordance with the market-abuse disclosure regimes governing persons discharging managerial responsibilities. (GlobeNewswire)
That is exactly what the regulatory system requires.
What it DOES tell usThe transaction is nevertheless illuminating for a different reason.
It provides a small personal-finance footnote to a very large corporate transformation.
When Wael Sawan became chief executive, Shell increasingly reasserted the primacy of returns.
Projects were expected to compete for capital.
Lower-carbon investments were no longer entitled to special treatment merely because they fitted an attractive transition narrative.
Shell’s Capital Markets Day presentation said low-carbon options would account for less than 10% of group capital employed and emphasised higher-return investment throughout the portfolio. (Shell)
Meanwhile, billions continue to flow towards LNG and upstream hydrocarbons.
The ARC acquisition is the clearest recent example.
Shell has just committed nearly $14 billion in equity consideration to acquire a large Canadian oil and gas producer.
And the man now responsible for Shell’s upstream business has converted a little over a million pounds’ worth of Shell equity into cash after a substantial appreciation in the company’s market value.
Those facts belong together — not because one caused the other, but because they illustrate the same corporate era.
“More value with less emissions”Shell’s preferred slogan under Sawan remains:
“More value with less emissions.”
There is a clever ambiguity in those six words.
Which word comes first?
Value.
Shell says it remains committed to playing a role in decarbonising the energy system and retains its ambition to become net zero by 2050. (Shell)
But the financial architecture of the company increasingly makes clear that the transition must meet Shell’s return requirements rather than the other way around.
Capital expenditure has been tightened.
Return thresholds matter.
Cash distributions have risen in strategic importance.
Integrated Gas and Upstream remain dominant cash generators.
Liquids production is to be sustained.
LNG is to grow.
And ARC Resources adds another 370,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day immediately.
That does not mean Shell has abandoned lower-carbon businesses.
It means management has become far more discriminating about which of them it wishes to fund.
The shareholder perspectiveFor an ordinary Shell shareholder, there is an argument that all of this is precisely what management is supposed to be doing.
Executives are not elected to maximise the number of renewable-energy press releases.
They are employed to allocate shareholders’ capital intelligently.
If oil and gas projects produce superior risk-adjusted returns while legal demand for those products remains enormous, management can argue that rejecting them solely for appearances would itself be irresponsible.
And shareholders who have watched the share price appreciate may have little reason to complain.
That argument deserves to be stated fairly.
But there is another side.
Shell has spent years presenting itself not simply as an oil and gas company but as a major participant in — and at times architect of — the global energy transition.
The greater the proportion of capital and strategic attention flowing back towards hydrocarbons, the more closely investors, policymakers and the public are entitled to compare Shell’s environmental messaging with what the company actually funds.
The money tells a story too.
Often a clearer one than the advertising.
A million-pound punctuation markPeter Costello’s share sale is therefore interesting less as an isolated director dealing than as a punctuation mark in the wider Shell story.
An executive at the top of Upstream sells roughly £1.17 million of stock.
Shell’s shares have enjoyed a substantial valuation uplift.
The company has just completed a $13.9 billion acquisition of a Canadian oil and gas producer.
Its strategy envisages maintaining material liquids production, expanding LNG, returning 40–50% of operating cash flow to shareholders through the cycle and directing the largest portion of annual investment towards Integrated Gas and Upstream.
The FT calls Costello’s transaction taking advantage of a “valuation uplift.” (Financial Times)
Fair enough.
That uplift did not materialise from thin air.
It reflects a market increasingly persuaded by the Shell that Wael Sawan has chosen to build:
leaner,
more financially disciplined,
more unapologetic about hydrocarbons,
and intensely focused on shareholder returns.
Peter Costello happens to be running one of the principal businesses delivering that proposition.
On 28 August, he converted a small portion of that proposition into cash.
Around £1.17 million of it.
A necessary disclosureNothing reported above suggests that Peter Costello’s share disposal or Wael Sawan’s earlier disposal was improper. Both transactions were publicly disclosed under applicable rules governing dealings by senior managers.
The significance attributed to the transactions in this article is commentary about Shell’s broader strategy and executive incentives, not an allegation concerning the legality or motivation of either sale.
There is no public evidence cited here establishing why either executive chose to sell on the particular date concerned.
SourcesFinancial Times, 11 September 2026: Directors’ Deals: Shell’s upstream boss takes advantage of valuation uplift.(Financial Times)
Read the Financial Times report
Shell plc PDMR disclosure, 1 September 2026: Peter Costello’s disposals on 28 August 2026 — 31,786 shares in London for £1,061,970.26 and 3,214 shares in Amsterdam for €125,715.61. (GlobeNewswire)
Shell plc, 2 September 2026: Completion of the ARC Resources acquisition; approximately $13.9 billion equity value, approximately 370 kboe/d of additional production and approximately $16.5 billion enterprise value. (Shell)
Shell — Completion of ARC Resources acquisition
Shell plc, 27 April 2026: Original ARC acquisition announcement, including production, reserves and expected return information. (Shell)
Shell — ARC Resources acquisition announcement
Shell plc Capital Markets Day, 25 March 2025: strategy, capital allocation, shareholder distributions, LNG and upstream production objectives. (Shell)
Shell — Capital Markets Day 2025
Shell plc PDMR disclosure, 22 May 2026: Wael Sawan disposal of 40,000 shares for €1,486,804.20. (Shell Plc)
Shell — Wael Sawan PDMR disclosure
Site-wide disclaimer applies.
Shell’s Upstream Boss Cashes In as the Oil-and-Gas Strategy Pays Off was first posted on September 11, 2026 at 8:32 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
Senate Investigation Into OpenAI Is an Important First Step, But CEOs Must Testify Under Oath
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Disaster Management, has launched an investigation into OpenAI following revelations that the company’s AI agents breached Hugging Face during cybersecurity evaluations this summer. Hawley is seeking documents and information from OpenAI about the incident, including evidence that the company knew its agents were engaging in unauthorized behavior before the breach and allowed testing to continue.
Public Citizen previously called on Congress to investigate this deeply disturbing incident and hold the corporations responsible accountable for their failures.
J.B. Branch, director of federal AI governance and technology policy at Public Citizen, issued the following statement in response:
“Senator Hawley’s investigation is an important first step toward getting the answers the American people deserve. Public Citizen, alongside dozens of civil society organizations and leading experts, called on Congress in July to investigate the OpenAI-Hugging Face incident and examine the serious gaps in federal oversight that allowed it to happen.
“But an investigation is only a start. Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and other leaders of frontier AI companies must be brought before Congress to testify under oath about these incidents. These companies are developing technologies with profound consequences to our digital infrastructure and public safety. Congress must follow the facts wherever they lead and use its oversight authority to determine what went wrong and what binding safeguards are necessary to prevent the next incident from causing far greater harm.”
BirdLife International, National Audubon Society y CAF desarrollan un marco científico para bonos enfocados en la conservación de las aves migratorias y los ecosistemas en América Latina y el Caribe
45 Organizations Urge House Democratic Leadership to Call a Vote on Cuba War Powers Resolution
A coalition of 45 faith, peace, labor, health, and political organizations is calling on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and committee Ranking Members Gregory Meeks and Jim McGovern to immediately announce plans to call a vote on Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s Cuba War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res. 106). In a letter sent this week, the groups call on the House to vote to end the de facto US oil blockade on Cuba, which they argue amounts to hostilities that Congress has not authorized.
"Cuba is suffering through a man-made economic and humanitarian catastrophe, caused in significant part by deliberate policy choices of the United States," the organizations wrote.
The privileged resolution — which can be called for a vote without Speaker Johnson’s approval — directs the president to remove US Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Cuba absent congressional authorization. The signatories, who include the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Church World Service, Demand Progress, Just Foreign Policy, Indivisible, the Latin America Working Group, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, RootsAction, United Church of Christ, Win Without War, and dozens of others, argue that the de facto oil blockade in place since January 2026 meets the definition of hostilities under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The letter describes a humanitarian emergency on the island that grows worse by the day. Already, six nationwide power grid collapses have occurred in the past year, leaving more than nine million people without power for periods lasting more than 20 hours, and with transportation stranded, inadequate water and food, and the health system forced to ration care. Cuba’s infant mortality rate has increased by 148 percent under sanctions imposed by Trump, meaning 1,800 babies have died since 2018 who otherwise would have lived.
On August 6, a panel of UN experts warned that the humanitarian fallout of the sanctions escalation is becoming a full-blown crisis, threatening Cubans’ rights to health, food, development, and to life itself.
The letter follows a Senate vote on April 28 to end US hostilities against Cuba — sponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Adam Schiff (D-CA) — which was defeated on a procedural motion in a 51-to-47 vote, despite the support of Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The letter notes that those 47 senators voted to affirm that this blockade, imposed without a single shot fired, nevertheless constitutes an act of hostility under the War Powers Act. The letter deems this vote to be “one of the most important stands Congress has taken against U.S. economic sanctions toward Cuba in over six decades,” and calls on the House to “take a similarly forceful action at this crucial moment.”
The letter notes that under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, “the President may not introduce U.S. forces into hostilities, or situations where hostilities are imminent, without congressional authorization,” stating that “a de facto fuel blockade enforced by military assets meets the definition of hostilities.” It cites the UN Charter, which treats a blockade as a use of armed force, and the UN General Assembly’s official “Definition of Aggression,” which also identifies a blockade as an act of aggression. The signatories observe finally that the “deliberate deprivation of fuel to a civilian population also violates the 4th Geneva Convention’s prohibition on collective punishment of civilians, and is therefore a war crime under this treaty, which the United States, along with all other UN member countries, has ratified.”
The signatories call for urgent action, concluding that this “moment calls for decisive leadership that enables our communities to engage in the political process and try to shape the outcomes of policies being waged in our name.”
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 SEPTEMBER 2026
Archive reference: SLF-2007-054
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal scientific records: Glenn Gailey et al., Gray whale density during seismic surveys near their Sakhalin feeding ground; Glenn Gailey et al., Western gray whale behavioral response to seismic surveys during their foraging season, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2022
Supporting scientific record: Lisa Schwarz et al., Gray whale habitat use and reproductive success during seismic surveys near their feeding grounds, 2022; Lisanne Aerts et al., Seismic surveys near gray whale feeding areas off Sakhalin Island, Russia: assessing impact and mitigation effectiveness, 2022
Contemporaneous scientific record: Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel Statement of Concern, 8 May 2015
Authenticated Shell record: Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2015
Subsequent conservation record: IUCN, 3 September 2016 and 24 April 2019
Court record: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), used solely for the earlier Sakhalin II environmental and public-finance context
Evidence standard: Statistical association is distinguished from proof of injury or population-level causation. Observed behaviour is distinguished from modelled demographic consequences. Population recovery is not treated as proof that industrial disturbance was harmless. Industry financial and logistical support for parts of the research programme is disclosed rather than ignored.
The previous instalment ended on 29 July 2015.
Sakhalin Energy’s seismic operation was over.
Its mitigation system had stopped the source when required.
The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel would later regard the mitigation component as satisfactorily implemented, while recording shortcomings in monitoring, equipment preparation and training.
But the most important question remained unanswered.
What had the whales actually done?
That was never going to be answered from the vessel log.
A shutdown record could tell scientists when an airgun array stopped.
It could not tell them whether whales elsewhere had changed course.
An acoustic buoy could measure sound.
It could not by itself establish whether a feeding whale shortened its dive, accelerated, moved towards shore or abandoned an area temporarily.
And successful completion of a seismic programme could certainly not establish whether disturbance had energetic or reproductive consequences.
The answer required years of analysis.
In October 2022, much of that analysis finally appeared in a special collection of peer-reviewed papers in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Two papers in particular examined the questions at the heart of the 2015 dispute: whether whale density changed with accumulated sound exposure, and whether individual whale behaviour changed as seismic vessels and other vessels approached. (Springer)
The findings were not “nothing happened.”
Nor were they “the whales were driven away.”
The truth was more interesting.
1. The 2015 monitoring effort was enormousWhatever criticism can be made of the 2015 programme, lack of data collection is not one of them.
For the density study, shore teams operated from 13 observation stations between 1 June and 30 September.
Across those stations they accumulated 10,042 distribution scans and 16,817 whale sightings. The researchers noted that the 2015 scan total was more than twice the number collected over the entire previous decade from 2004 to 2013. (Springer)
The behavioural programme was similarly substantial.
Five shore-based teams accumulated approximately 3,843 observer-hours.
They produced 1,270 whale tracks, 401 focal-follow sessions, 44,634 geographic whale positions and 30,735 recorded respiration events.
Around 7,403 movement-analysis intervals and 2,328 respiration-analysis intervals were ultimately derived from the observations. (Springer)
The acoustic environment was monitored with 40 automatic underwater acoustic recorders, nine of which could transmit real-time acoustic information. The system recorded not merely seismic impulses but the wider industrial soundscape: seismic vessels, ordinary vessel traffic, pile driving and other activity. (Springer)
This matters.
The 2015 controversy had originally been framed largely around seismic airguns.
The eventual scientific record showed that a whale inhabiting this coastline did not experience industrial activities one corporate project at a time.
It experienced sound.
2. The first result: whale density fell as vessel noise accumulatedThe density analysis attempted to separate industrial sound from the natural factors already known to influence where whales feed.
That was essential.
Whales do not distribute themselves randomly across the ocean.
Water depth mattered.
Distance from shore mattered.
The time of the season mattered.
Geographic position mattered.
And the energy available from important prey groups — including amphipods, isopods and cumaceans — also significantly influenced whale density. (Springer)
After accounting for those factors, however, another relationship remained.
As cumulative vessel sound exposure increased, gray-whale density in the affected area decreased.
The researchers detected a statistically significant relationship over both an eight-hour exposure period and a seven-dayexposure period.
Their interpretation was cautious but clear: the pattern was consistent with both relatively short-term responses and longer responses when vessel activity continued in the same area. (Springer)
That did not mean every whale left.
It did not mean the feeding ground was abandoned.
It meant that, after the other major explanatory variables were considered, fewer whales were present in places experiencing greater accumulated vessel noise.
That is a much narrower proposition.
It is also scientifically significant.
3. The second result: seismic exposure produced a similar patternThe researchers then examined seismic sound separately.
Again, the result was not an all-or-nothing displacement.
At the shorter timescale, gray-whale density declined slightly as cumulative seismic exposure over the preceding two hours increased.
The decline was greater when exposure over the preceding three days was considered.
Extending the analysis to seven days did not explain significantly more variation than the three-day measure.
The authors therefore interpreted the result as evidence that whales could respond on both shorter and longer timescales — while also potentially returning after periods of higher exposure had ended. (Springer)
This is the evidence behind the headline of this instalment.
The whales moved.
But that sentence needs its qualification attached.
They were not shown to have abandoned Sakhalin.
Some remained within the nearshore feeding area even during periods of relatively high sound exposure.
Others appear to have reduced their use of particular areas and later returned. (Springer)
“Local displacement” is therefore closer to what the data support than “flight from the feeding grounds.”
4. One whale demonstrated the process in real timeThe behavioural study contains a particularly useful case example.
Observers were tracking a gray whale that was feeding while a seismic source vessel approached.
As the vessel turned towards the whale’s direction, the animal stopped its original feeding pattern and began travelling towards shore.
When the vessel subsequently moved farther away, the whale resumed feeding.
But it did so in a different area from the one it had originally occupied. (Springer)
One animal does not establish a population effect.
The researchers did not pretend that it did.
What the observation supplies is something more modest but valuable: a visible example of the type of response that the statistical analysis was detecting across the much larger dataset.
The whale did not strand.
It did not disappear permanently.
It altered what it was doing while an industrial source approached.
Then it resumed feeding elsewhere.
5. The whales were also breathing differentlyDistribution was only half the story.
The five behavioural teams were recording how individual whales moved and breathed.
Natural behaviour remained the dominant explanation for much of the variation. Feeding whales behave differently from travelling whales, and water depth affects diving and respiration.
But industrial variables still accounted for statistically significant changes.
As vessels approached, whale respiration intervals shortened, surface blow rates increased and dive times decreased.
The approach of seismic vessels was also associated with changes in surface behaviour.
In the movement data, whales increased speed, range and distance from shore as seismic vessels approached, and tended to move more perpendicular to the approaching vessels.
With increasing seismic sound exposure, whales appeared to move closer to shore.
Increasing continuous vessel sound was associated with more reorientation and reduced directionality. (Springer)
The paper’s broader interpretation was straightforward: vessel distance and sound exposure significantly influenced movement and respiration. Whales tended to breathe faster and move faster when vessels were closer or sound exposure was greater. (Springer)
Again, none of that establishes physical injury.
It establishes behavioural response.
That was precisely one of the phenomena the mitigation programme was intended to reduce.
6. The researchers said mitigation did not eliminate the responseThis is perhaps the most important sentence in the 2022 behavioural paper.
The researchers considered that the mitigation measures may have reduced larger or longer-term responses.
But they concluded that mitigation “did not eliminate behavioral responses” in the short term. (Springer)
That conclusion deserves to be preserved without embellishment in the historical record.
It does not say mitigation failed.
A mitigation regime can reduce an effect without reducing it to zero.
It does not say the whales suffered population-level harm.
Behavioural disturbance and demographic damage are different questions.
And it does not contradict the conclusion that operational mitigation measures were implemented.
It tells us something the operational record alone could never reveal:
compliance with the mitigation system did not mean the whales behaved as though the industrial activity was absent.
7. The 2015 WGWAP warning now looks prescient — but only up to a pointSeven years earlier, before the seismic season began, the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel had warned about precisely this possibility.
Its formal Statement of Concern of 8 May 2015 arose after WGWAP concluded that the combined scale of planned seismic activity was exceptional and that the Panel lacked some information it considered necessary for final assessment.
The Panel’s concern included the possibility that cumulative acoustic exposure could cause whales to move away from preferred feeding areas. It urged serious consideration of postponing at least some seismic work. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The 2022 density results are directionally consistent with that warning.
Higher cumulative industrial sound was associated with lower local whale density.
But it would be wrong to turn that consistency into retrospective certainty.
WGWAP’s pre-survey concern involved possible consequences across the combined industrial programme.
The later studies found measurable relationships within the actual 2015 dataset.
They did not establish that every predicted consequence occurred.
Nor did they establish that the whales permanently vacated preferred habitat.
That distinction is important if this archive is to remain documentary rather than polemical.
8. Sakhalin Energy was not responsible for the entire acoustic environmentThe scientific papers reinforce another distinction already made in earlier instalments.
The 2015 season involved two oil and gas operators and up to four seismic source vessels operating across several licence blocks.
Sakhalin Energy conducted its Piltun-Astokh programme.
Exxon Neftegas conducted separate seismic operations.
The monitoring programme deliberately captured sounds and whale responses associated with activity beyond a single company boundary. (Springer)
Ordinary vessel traffic, fishing vessels, research vessels and support operations also contributed to cumulative sound exposure. (Springer)
The later results therefore cannot responsibly be expressed as:
“Shell’s survey caused all the whale movement observed in 2015.”
The data do not establish that.
They establish associations between whale responses and the combined acoustic and vessel environment during a season of unusually intensive offshore activity.
Sakhalin Energy was part of that environment.
It was not all of it.
9. A paradox: the better the dataset became, the more effects scientists could detectThere is an important methodological lesson buried in these papers.
Earlier analysis of the 2010 seismic operation had found little or no measurable behavioural response.
That result had helped support a highly positive public account of the Sakhalin mitigation model.
But the 2022 behavioural paper pointed out a limitation in those earlier studies: the datasets had been much smaller and therefore had limited statistical power to detect subtle or moderate effects. (Springer)
The 2015 programme changed that.
There were more vessels.
There was more seismic activity.
There were many more observations.
And the study had substantially greater ability to detect changes that a smaller dataset might miss.
The result was scientifically awkward but important.
Better monitoring did not merely validate mitigation.
It revealed responses that less powerful monitoring had struggled to measure.
That is not a failure of science.
It is exactly what more informative science is supposed to do.
10. But whale density was also being shaped by foodAny attempt to attribute every movement in 2015 to industrial sound would be contradicted by the same research.
Whales congregated strongly around the mouth of Piltun Bay and in other areas associated with favourable feeding conditions.
Their density increased through much of the early season before declining after early August.
And density was significantly related to the energetic value of several prey groups. (Springer)
Other research in the same 2022 collection found unusual use of areas farther offshore and considered whether concentrations of high-energy sand lance could help explain those distributions.
The modelling authors explicitly acknowledged that incomplete spatial and temporal information about prey limited the precision with which some habitat patterns could be reproduced. (Springer)
So there were at least two simultaneous forces shaping whale distribution.
Whales moved in response to what they wanted:
food.
And the evidence indicates that they also changed behaviour and local distribution in response to what they were exposed to:
industrial activity and noise.
The scientific challenge was separating one from the other.
11. Then comes the apparent contradiction: reproduction did not collapseIf behavioural disturbance reduced feeding opportunities, the ultimate conservation question was whether whales lost enough energy to affect survival or reproduction.
A separate 2022 study attempted to bridge that gap using a stochastic dynamic programming bioenergetics model.
The model allowed simulated pregnant whales to move among feeding areas, respond to disturbance and compensate by feeding elsewhere.
Its result was considerably more reassuring than the behavioural findings.
Under the actual 2015 acoustic-disturbance scenario, predicted reproductive success and broad habitat use were broadly similar with and without disturbance.
The researchers described the effect of disturbance on predicted reproductive rate as no-to-little. (Springer)
That finding is not inconsistent with whales changing behaviour.
It answers a different question.
A whale can interrupt feeding, travel to another location and resume feeding — exactly as the observed individual did — without necessarily losing enough seasonal energy to impair reproduction.
The bioenergetic model was designed to examine whether such compensatory behaviour could prevent short-term disturbance becoming a demographic consequence.
For 2015, it generally predicted that it could.
12. Fourteen calves appeared the next yearField observations gave the modelling exercise a particularly important reality check.
Researchers identified 14 new calves in the Sakhalin feeding areas in 2016.
Eleven calves had been identified in 2015.
Depending on how the pool of females potentially capable of being pregnant in 2015 was defined, the study calculated an observed successful reproductive rate ranging from approximately 0.64 to 0.88. (Springer)
That is a powerful counterweight to any claim that the 2015 seismic season demonstrably caused widespread reproductive failure.
It did not.
At least 14 calves were observed the following season.
But that fact cannot be turned into proof that disturbance was irrelevant either.
The modelling study itself stresses uncertainty about the number and identity of reproductive females and limitations in assumptions about habitat use and prey distribution. (Springer)
Science again refuses the convenient binary answer.
13. “No population effect proved” is not the same as “no biological cost”The behavioural researchers went further than simply documenting movement.
They considered what repeated interruption could mean if it accumulated.
Earlier bioenergetics work had suggested that sufficient loss of feeding opportunity could, in theory, affect pregnancy success.
But the 2022 behavioural paper explicitly said it remained unknown how often particular individuals — including pregnant females — were repeatedly disturbed, and whether the observed responses resulted in biologically significant consequences for growth, survival or reproduction. (Springer)
That is the boundary of the evidence.
Inside the boundary:
behaviour changed.
local density changed.
industrial sound was statistically associated with those changes.
Outside the boundary:
proof that the 2015 programme caused population decline.
proof that whales suffered reproductive failure.
proof of lasting physiological injury.
The distinction is not semantic.
It is the difference between an observed response and a demonstrated conservation consequence.
14. The population was recovering at the same timeIn September 2016, IUCN published what, on its face, was very good news.
It reported that the population feeding off the Russian Far East had grown at approximately 3–4% per year, from an estimated 115 animals in 2004 to 174 in 2015.
IUCN also credited Sakhalin Energy with making important efforts during the preceding 12 years to limit the effects of its operations, while warning that industry activity remained a threat. (IUCN)
In 2018, the population’s IUCN Red List classification was changed from Critically Endangered to Endangered.
IUCN reiterated the 3–4% annual growth figure when it renewed the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel in 2019, while stressing that continued cooperation across oil and gas, fisheries, shipping and other industries remained necessary. (IUCN)
That long-term recovery is real and important.
But it does not erase the 2015 behavioural findings.
A population can increase while individuals still respond to industrial disturbance.
Equally, evidence of behavioural response does not prove that the disturbance prevented population recovery.
Both statements can be true.
That is why population trajectory is a poor substitute for direct impact monitoring.
15. The Red List change itself needs a qualificationThere is another reason for caution.
The 2022 behavioural study noted that the later IUCN status assessment incorporated information from both Sakhalin and Kamchatka.
It also recorded that the population would still have met the more severe threshold if assessment were restricted to animals observed only off Sakhalin because the number of reproductive females remained low. (Springer)
So the 2018 change from Critically Endangered to Endangered was significant.
It was not a declaration that the population was secure.
Nor did it mean that the feeding grounds had ceased to require protection.
IUCN continued the WGWAP process and, in 2018, separately warned that western gray whales faced very high entanglement risk from coastal salmon nets as well as continuing pressures from oil and gas development. (IUCN)
The conservation problem had expanded beyond Shell long before the Shell-related problem disappeared.
16. Shell’s own 2015 report was more careful than a “no impact” claimRoyal Dutch Shell plc’s authenticated Sustainability Report 2015 deserves to be read alongside the later papers.
Shell said it and IUCN had worked together since 2004 to minimise the effects of operations on western gray whales.
It said that, under WGWAP guidance, the company had worked to reduce the effects of operations on whales and their habitat.
Shell highlighted the fact that Sakhalin Energy was the only energy company operating at Sakhalin in 2015 with an IUCN independent observer on the team implementing seismic monitoring and mitigation.
Crucially, the report said the Panel would continue to examine the impact of oil and gas development following the 2015 season. (Shell)
Those verbs matter.
Minimise.
Reduce.
Examine.
Shell’s own authenticated report did not say that the operation created no disturbance.
The later science shows why such wording would have been difficult to sustain.
17. The research itself was peer reviewed — but it was not financially detached from industryThe 2022 papers should not be misdescribed as wholly independent research funded without operator involvement.
The behavioural study acknowledges financial, logistical and safety-management support from Exxon Neftegas Limited.
One of its authors, the late Rodger H. Melton, was affiliated with ExxonMobil Exploration Company. (Springer)
The density paper makes the same acknowledgement of Exxon Neftegas financial, logistical and safety support and likewise lists Melton’s ExxonMobil affiliation. (Springer)
The broader paper describing the 2015 mitigation and impact-assessment programme states that Exxon Neftegas funded preparation of that publication, and several authors were affiliated with ExxonMobil. It also records anonymous peer review and editorial review. (Springer)
Those facts do not invalidate the findings.
They belong in the provenance record.
Indeed, they make one feature of the published results especially noteworthy.
Research supported by an operator did not conclude that mitigation had eliminated behavioural responses.
The papers reported statistically detectable effects.
That is precisely why research provenance should be disclosed rather than used automatically either to dismiss or to sanctify a result.
18. WGWAP’s role also needs to be kept distinctThe Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel was not a court.
It was not the Russian environmental regulator.
And it did not possess legal power to prohibit the 2015 surveys.
It was an IUCN-convened scientific advisory mechanism.
The recovered WGWAP archive shows that the process eventually ran for 17 years and produced more than 600 formal recommendations, principally concerning the oil and gas industry and associated regulators. Its final meeting took place in November 2021. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
An independent evaluation later recorded that WGWAP’s May 2015 Statement of Concern represented one of those occasions when ordinary individual recommendations were considered insufficient to express the Panel’s level of concern. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That history makes the 2022 science particularly valuable.
It provides evidence against which the Panel’s precautionary warnings can actually be tested.
Not vindicated in every detail.
Not disproved.
Tested.
19. The old English court record still supplies the historical backdropThe British High Court had encountered the gray-whale issue years before the 2015 seismic season.
In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting recorded that proposed British financial support concerned a Sakhalin offshore development in which Shell had originally held a majority interest.
The judgment noted the potentially serious consequences of the development for western gray-whale habitat and feeding grounds.
The actual case concerned access to environmental information surrounding proposed UK export-credit support, not scientific adjudication of seismic effects. (vLex)
The court did not determine whether the 2015 surveys were safe.
It did not establish acoustic thresholds.
It did not find that Shell caused whale injury.
Its relevance here is narrower and historical.
By the time scientists began collecting the extraordinary 2015 dataset, the importance of western gray-whale habitat had already been part of British governmental and judicial records for years.
Documentary Findings EstablishedThe 2015 Sakhalin season produced an unusually large dataset covering whale distribution, individual behaviour, acoustic exposure and prey conditions. The density study used more than 10,000 shore-based scans; the behavioural study analysed 1,270 tracks and 401 focal follows; acoustic monitoring included 40 underwater recorders. (Springer)
After accounting for important natural and spatial variables, higher cumulative vessel sound exposure was statistically associated with lower local whale density over both shorter and longer exposure windows. Higher cumulative seismic exposure was likewise associated with lower density, with relationships detected over two-hour and three-day periods. (Springer)
Individual whales also altered movement and respiration in relation to vessel proximity and sound exposure. The researchers documented changes including speed, direction, reorientation, respiration interval, surface blow rate and dive behaviour. (Springer)
The behavioural paper concluded that the mitigation regime did not eliminate short-term behavioural responses. (Springer)
Separate bioenergetic modelling nevertheless found no-to-little predicted effect on reproductive rate under the 2015 disturbance scenario, and 14 calves were identified during the following feeding season in 2016. (Springer)
The wider population was increasing during this period: IUCN reported an estimated rise from 115 animals in 2004 to 174 in 2015, approximately 3–4% per year, and the population was subsequently reclassified from Critically Endangered to Endangered in 2018. (IUCN)
Scientifically Observed — Causation LimitsThe density relationships are statistical associations derived from observational data in a complex real-world environment, not a controlled laboratory experiment.
The researchers attempted to account for major natural influences including season, geography, water depth and prey availability. Those variables themselves explained substantial portions of whale distribution. (Springer)
Multiple seismic programmes, support vessels, fishing vessels and other maritime activities contributed to the 2015 soundscape.
Consequently, it would be incorrect to attribute every documented behavioural or distributional response specifically to Sakhalin Energy.
Likewise, reduced local density should not be converted into a claim that whales permanently abandoned their Sakhalin feeding grounds.
The data explicitly show that some whales remained during relatively high exposure and that animals could return after exposure diminished. (Springer)
Shell and Industry Position in the Documentary RecordShell’s 2015 Sustainability Report presented the IUCN relationship as an environmental partnership intended to minimise impacts, emphasised WGWAP guidance and highlighted Sakhalin Energy’s use of an IUCN Independent Observer. It also acknowledged that scientific examination of oil and gas impacts would continue. (Shell)
IUCN itself subsequently gave Sakhalin Energy significant credit for efforts to reduce operational effects while simultaneously warning that industrial activity continued to pose risks to the recovering population. (IUCN)
The 2022 science does not justify rewriting either position into an absolute.
It does not show that mitigation was pointless.
It does show that mitigation did not make behavioural response disappear.
Not EstablishedIt is not established that the 2015 seismic season caused a decline in the western gray-whale population.
It is not established that the 2015 activity caused widespread reproductive failure.
It is not established by these studies that seismic exposure caused permanent hearing damage or other physical injury to the whales.
It is not established that Sakhalin Energy or Shell was responsible for all of the industrial sound to which animals were exposed.
It is not established that the later increase in population occurred because of WGWAP, Shell or Sakhalin Energy’s mitigation measures.
And the population’s improvement in conservation status does not establish that industrial disturbance was biologically irrelevant.
CommentaryThis may be one of the most instructive files in the entire Sakhalin archive.
For years the public argument tended towards two incompatible narratives.
One said that sophisticated mitigation demonstrated environmentally responsible offshore development.
The other said that industrial seismic activity beside the feeding grounds of an endangered whale population was inherently unacceptable.
The 2015 evidence does not fit comfortably into either narrative.
The mitigation system mattered.
Shutdown criteria mattered.
Scheduling mattered.
Acoustic modelling mattered.
Observers mattered.
The extensive monitoring programme mattered enormously.
And yet the whales still responded.
That is not surprising.
Mitigation is not a force field.
Its purpose is to reduce risk and disturbance, not to make a seismic vessel acoustically invisible.
The more interesting question is what happened after the response.
If a whale interrupted feeding, moved a short distance and successfully compensated later, the demographic cost might be negligible.
If the same whale were repeatedly disturbed during a constrained feeding season and could not recover the lost energy, the consequence could be much greater.
The 2015 data recorded the first part of that chain with considerable precision.
The modelling attempted to calculate the second.
For that particular year, the population-level picture was reassuring.
Reproduction did not collapse.
The population continued its wider recovery.
But a reassuring demographic outcome does not retrospectively convert measurable disturbance into no disturbance.
That is the central documentary point.
There is also an institutional lesson.
A company could have commissioned only enough monitoring to demonstrate compliance.
Instead, the combined 2015 research programme generated enough information to demonstrate that compliance and biological response can coexist.
That is scientifically valuable.
It is also uncomfortable for corporate communications departments, because “the mitigation plan was implemented” fits neatly into a sustainability report while “the animals still changed their behaviour, but we cannot demonstrate a population-level consequence” does not fit quite so neatly.
Yet the second formulation is closer to what the evidence ultimately showed.
There is one final irony.
WGWAP had been concerned before the survey that whales might move away from preferred feeding areas.
Years later, peer-reviewed analysis did indeed detect reductions in local density associated with cumulative industrial sound.
But those same years also produced a growing whale population and enough calves to make a simple catastrophe narrative untenable.
The scientists had not discovered that one side was right and the other wrong.
They had discovered something harder:
impact is not a binary condition.
A whale can be disturbed without being killed.
A feeding area can experience displacement without being abandoned.
A mitigation programme can work without eliminating response.
And a recovering population can still require protection from cumulative industrial pressure.
That is what the 2015 experiment eventually revealed.
Source RecordThe principal behavioural paper is Glenn Gailey et al., “Western gray whale behavioral response to seismic surveys during their foraging season,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 194, Article 740, published 18 October 2022. It records the 1,270 tracks, 401 focal follows, acoustic exposure data, statistically significant behavioural responses and the conclusion that mitigation did not eliminate short-term behavioural response. (Springer)
The principal distribution paper is Glenn Gailey et al., “Gray whale density during seismic surveys near their Sakhalin feeding ground,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 194, Article 739, published 18 October 2022. It analyses more than 10,000 shore-based scans and reports declining local whale density associated with increased cumulative seismic and vessel sound after controlling for major natural and habitat variables. (Springer)
Gailey et al. — Gray whale density during seismic surveys near their Sakhalin feeding ground
The supporting bioenergetics paper is Lisa Schwarz et al., “Gray whale habitat use and reproductive success during seismic surveys near their feeding grounds: comparing state-dependent life history models and field data,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 194, Article 733, published 18 October 2022. It found broadly similar reproductive-success predictions with and without the 2015 acoustic-disturbance scenario and compared those predictions with field observations, including the 14 calves identified in 2016. (Springer)
Schwarz et al. — Gray whale habitat use and reproductive success during seismic surveys
The programme-level scientific paper is Lisanne Aerts et al., “Seismic surveys near gray whale feeding areas off Sakhalin Island, Russia: assessing impact and mitigation effectiveness,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2022. It documents the 2015 mitigation architecture, monitoring strategy and the relationship between behavioural, distributional, acoustic and bioenergetic studies. (Springer)
Aerts et al. — Assessing impact and mitigation effectiveness in the 2015 Sakhalin surveys
The contemporaneous warning is the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel Statement of Concern with respect to proposed seismic activity on the Sakhalin shelf in 2015, dated 8 May 2015. It records WGWAP’s information concerns and its scientific apprehension about the cumulative scale of the planned seismic season. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
WGWAP — Statement of Concern, 8 May 2015
Sakhalin Energy’s contemporaneous response records the company’s operational reasons for proceeding, its engagement with WGWAP and the purpose of the Piltun-Astokh 4-D survey. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
Sakhalin Energy — Response to the May 2015 WGWAP Statement
Royal Dutch Shell plc’s authenticated Sustainability Report 2015 records Shell’s relationship with IUCN, its stated aim of minimising impacts on western gray whales and Sakhalin Energy’s use of an IUCN Independent Observer during the 2015 seismic programme. (Shell)
Royal Dutch Shell plc — Sustainability Report 2015
IUCN’s 3 September 2016 statement records the estimated population increase from 115 animals in 2004 to 174 in 2015 while warning that industrial activity continued to pose a threat. (IUCN)
IUCN — Western gray whales recovering, but industry still poses a threat, 3 September 2016
IUCN’s 24 April 2019 announcement records the 2018 change in conservation status from Critically Endangered to Endangered and the continuation of WGWAP work on cumulative impacts and underwater noise. (IUCN)
IUCN — Scientific panel to continue advising on endangered gray whales, 24 April 2019
The historical judicial record remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin). It is used here only to establish that the sensitivity of western gray-whale habitat formed part of the British governmental and legal record surrounding Sakhalin II years before the 2015 survey. (vLex)
Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth — [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Research-provenance note: Several papers in the 2022 special collection acknowledge financial, logistical or safety support from Exxon Neftegas Limited, and some authors held ExxonMobil affiliations. This is disclosed here as part of the provenance of the evidence. The papers were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and, importantly, reported measurable whale responses rather than concluding that industrial effects were absent. (Springer)
Archive disclaimer: The evidence distinguishes detectable behavioural and distributional responses from demonstrated population-level injury. No court judgment cited here determines the biological consequences of the 2015 seismic programme, and no population trend is attributed solely to Shell, Sakhalin Energy, Exxon Neftegas, WGWAP or any single conservation measure.
Site wide disclaimer also applies.
Next Archive File SLF-2007-055 — The Sakhalin Papers XLV: From Critically Endangered to Endangered — Who Gets Credit for the Recovery?In September 2016, IUCN announced a striking figure.
115 whales in 2004.
174 in 2015.
An estimated annual increase of 3–4%. (IUCN)
Two years later, the conservation classification changed from Critically Endangered to Endangered.
For Shell and IUCN, the Sakhalin collaboration could now be presented as evidence that independent scientific oversight and industrial development were capable of coexisting.
But the story was less simple than the headline.
The Red List reassessment drew upon a changing understanding of whales seen away from Sakhalin.
The number of reproductive females remained small.
Fishing-net entanglement emerged as a major threat.
Other oil companies were not bound into the WGWAP relationship in the same way as Sakhalin Energy.
And population recovery itself could not establish how much credit belonged to the Panel, to Shell’s mitigation measures, to international whaling protection, to changing survey knowledge — or simply to the biology of a remnant population recovering from historic exploitation.
SLF-2007-055 will examine the celebrated recovery claim, the evidence behind the Red List change, what WGWAP could legitimately claim to have achieved, and the limits of using a growing whale population as a corporate environmental success story. (IUCN)
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 11, 2026 at 8:12 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
Trump Launches New Attack Against Canada’s Currency
U.S. President Donald Trump has opened another front in his trade war against Canada, suggesting that Canada is taking advantage of the U.S. through its currency. Both currencies are called the dollar, but Canada’s trades for less than the U.S. currency, and Trump argues this creates an unfair advantage.
More than 25 countries in the world have a currency called “the dollar”. Apparently, according to Donald Trump, 24 of them must be taking advantage of America because their dollars are different from his.
Canada has had a flexible exchange rate since 1970 (and also had a flexible rate between 1950 and 1962). It was one of the first industrial countries to abandon fixed exchange rates as the Bretton Woods financial system was dismantled in the early 1970s. The exchange rate is determined by numerous factors, including financial capital flows, comparative interest rates, comparative inflation, and investor expectations. The present exchange rate (about 72 cents U.S.) is well within the range of its historical fluctuations, and is in fact slightly stronger than when Trump took office for the second time in January 2025.
Of course, the fact that America’s dollar is used (for now, anyway) as a global reserve currency, hence allowing the US to run trade deficits every year for 50 years, is a unique privilege, not a sign of victimisation. America consumes far more than it produces, year after year. But inflows of capital from other countries, and holdings of U.S. dollars by foreign investors and institutions, allow the U.S. to maintain this ongoing trade deficit.
The world (including Canada) supplies the US with trillions of dollars of purchasing power every year, allowing this permanent trade deficit to continue. We explained this relationship in our research report, Who’s Subsidizing Whom? Over the past decade, new purchases of U.S. debt (mostly from the federal government) have almost perfectly offset the cumulative U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Canada over that same period. In short, it is Canada subsidizing America (with transfers of money), not the other way around.
Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford commented on Trump’s arguments about the currency on Global News’ national television broadcast.
The post Trump Launches New Attack Against Canada’s Currency appeared first on Centre for Future Work.
Call for Applications: Consultancy on Ultra-Processed Foods Among Youth in Africa
Application deadline: Sunday, 20 September 2026 at 5:00 p.m. EAT
The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) invites qualified consultants to apply for an assignment to synthesise country studies and a desk review on the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) among young people in Africa.
The consultancy supports the work of AFSA’s Youth and Agroecology Working Group, which is developing a continental youth campaign promoting healthier, locally produced and agroecologically produced foods. AFSA and its partners are conducting participatory studies in Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Togo, alongside a youth-led review of relevant research, policies, regulatory frameworks and international experiences concerning UPFs.
The selected consultant will review and integrate the findings from the four country studies and the desk review into a coherent, evidence-based Continental Background Study. The assignment will identify common themes, differences and emerging patterns; integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence; and develop clear recommendations and messages to inform the continental campaign.
Key deliverables will include an inception note, evidence synthesis matrix, presentation of preliminary findings, draft and final Continental Background Study, and a campaign evidence and messaging brief. The assignment is expected to be completed within two weeks of contract signing.
Applicants should hold a postgraduate qualification in social sciences, public health, nutrition, agriculture, food systems, development studies or a related field. They should demonstrate strong experience in research synthesis, mixed-methods analysis, report writing and food systems or related issues. Knowledge of youth and food systems and experience translating research into policy advocacy or campaign messages will be particularly valuable.
How to apply
Interested consultants should submit:
- A brief technical proposal;
- A proposed work plan and timeline;
- A financial proposal in USD;
- An updated CV;
- Evidence of relevant previous assignments; and
- At least two relevant references.
Applications must be emailed to afsa@afsafrica.org by Sunday, 20 September 2026 at 5:00 p.m. EAT, with the subject line:
“Consultancy Services for the UPF Synthesis”
Requests for clarification may be submitted to afsa@afsafrica.org before 15 September 2026.
August CPI Report Shows Price Hikes Accelerating as Trump Brushes Off Working Families’ Affordability Worries
Today’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) report shows prices rose 0.4% in August and are up 3.4% over the past year. Core prices, which exclude food and energy, rose 0.3% in August alone. Gas prices reached their highest ever recorded for August, and the pressure has not let up, climbing $4.29 per gallon, up 14 cents since hitting a Labor Day record. Diesel surged past $6 per gallon for the first time ever, up more than 70 cents from a month ago, which will show up on grocery store shelves for months to come as it costs more and more to transport essentials.
Rather than address the pain families are feeling at the grocery store and the gas pump, Trump this week floated an absurd rebate program, promising checks sent directly to Americans if his party is successful in the midterm elections – after promising 15 similar payments that never materialized during his second term. Under Trump’s watch, wage growth has slowed to its lowest point since 2021, while inflation has shot up and shows no signs of easing. Every day in Trump’s economy is more expensive than the last for working families.
Today’s report is the final inflation print before the Federal Reserve meets next week to decide where interest rates go next, and it’s already out of date. Most of the August data was collected before Trump’s 50% tariffs on Canadian imports took effect on August 22, hitting products including wine, furniture, and dairy products, and before Trump further escalated his war in Iran and sent oil prices past $100 per barrel.
Groundwork’s Senior Vice President of Policy, Advocacy, and Research Alex Jacquez, released the following statement:
“Trump’s economy is setting all the wrong kinds of records. Working families are being forced to use credit cards to cover the basics as gas prices hit historic highs. Meanwhile, the president has imposed further tariffs on one of our closest trading partners and continues escalation in Iran. Trump promised to lower costs and improve daily life for Americans. He’s not only failed to deliver on that promise, he’s driven our economy over a cliff.”
Call for Applications: Lead Consultant for the Model Law on African Food Systems
The Pan-African Parliament (PAP), through its Committee on Rural Economy, Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, in partnership with the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), invites applications from qualified individual consultants to develop the Legal and Policy Framework Paper for the Model Law on African Food Systems.
The proposed Model Law will help establish a coherent continental framework for African food systems, bringing together issues relating to agriculture, nutrition, environment, land, trade and consumer protection. It will place agroecology, food sovereignty and the rights of food producers at the centre of how food is produced, traded and consumed across Africa.
The Lead Consultant will prepare the Legal and Policy Framework Paper, an annotated outline of the proposed Model Law, and a roadmap for the subsequent drafting and consultation process. The consultant will also provide technical support to a Pan-African Parliament Committee workshop. The assignment is an individual consultancy requiring 25 consultancy days.
Applicants must have an advanced degree in law, at least ten years of relevant professional experience, and demonstrated expertise in legislative drafting, public policy and African food, agriculture, environment, land or natural-resources law.
How to apply
Submit a single PDF application pack containing:
- A technical proposal of no more than six pages;
- A CV of no more than five pages;
- Two relevant writing samples;
- A financial proposal for the 25 consultancy days; and
- Contact details for three professional referees.
Applications should be emailed to afsa@afsafrica.org by 18 September 2026 at 17:00 East Africa Time, with the subject line:
“Lead Consultant: Model Law on African Food System”
Please refer to the full Terms of Reference for the complete scope, qualifications, deliverables and application requirements. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.
Consulte le cahier des charges complet pour connaître le périmètre exact de la mission, les qualifications requises, les livrables et les conditions de candidature. Seuls les candidats présélectionnés seront contactés.
UN experts: Honduras must immediately halt mass evictions of peasant, Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities
Honduras must immediately stop the execution of over 1000 eviction orders issued under a new law that shields agro-industrial land from historic tenure claims- says the UN experts.
The post UN experts: Honduras must immediately halt mass evictions of peasant, Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.
A popular movement in Kashmir defies severe repression
This article A popular movement in Kashmir defies severe repression was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.
When activist Shahzaib Habib was killed by unidentified men on the night of June 6 in Rawalakot, Pakistan, protesters took custody of his body from the combined military hospital and staged a sit-in outside the hospital, demanding that an investigation be opened into his murder. Habib was a close associate of the leadership of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee, or JAAC, a coalition of local traders, civil society members and political activists who spent the past three years organizing demonstrations across Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
According to JAAC, security forces opened fire on the vehicle Habib was traveling in. Police say they intercepted a “suspicious vehicle” whose armed occupants fired first.
Habib’s killing came in a week when a crackdown on the JAAC was intensifying day by day. Two days earlier, on June 5, Pakistan’s government had banned JAAC, declaring the nonviolent coalition — which came together around electricity bills and wheat prices — a proscribed organization under the 2014 anti-terrorism act. In the days that followed, a curfew was imposed on Rawalakot, phone and internet were cut across the region of Azaad Jammu and Kashmir, and the government deployed the Pakistan Rangers, a paramilitary force. Protests were met with violence, leaving 11 dead.
Previous CoverageSince the June 5 declaration, dozens of protesters have been arrested and many have reportedly been killed. But putting a precise number on either remains difficult. Media access to the region has been tightly restricted since the crackdown began, with phone and internet remaining suspended across much of the region.
Among those killed was one of the main student organizers: Usama Jamil, a PhD student at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad who was deputy secretary general of the Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation, or JKNSF. On July 27, according to student groups and civil society organizations, he was marching in Rawalakot, chanting for people’s rights, when he was shot and killed by security forces.
The crackdown was not confined to Kashmir. Solidarity protests in Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi were met with arrests. In Lahore, police arrested activists and dozens of bystanders outside the press club during a peaceful demonstration on July 31. In Islamabad, the capital, 88 people were sent into 14-day judicial remand after a solidarity protest the same day. Human rights groups called the arrests part of a broader attempt to criminalize solidarity with Kashmir.
I asked Omer Khan, a member of JKNSF, about the current situation. “I don’t know how to answer this or where to begin,” he said. “A living hell was unleashed upon us, something this region has not witnessed in recent history. Our region was once one of the most peaceful, and now it has almost been turned into a war zone.”
“Dozens have been killed through direct state violence, and countless others have been injured,” he continued. “Food and medicine have been blocked. Frisking, raids and searches have violated the privacy and sanctity of people’s homes” and the entire region is under an undeclared curfew.
He describes collective punishment as one of the more visible forms of state pressure, but says the psychological toll is harder to measure.
#newsletter-block_c3213103c1912d58a2c829ac5fe0be11 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_c3213103c1912d58a2c829ac5fe0be11 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our NewsletterBut for now, despite the killings, crackdowns and internet restrictions, the movement the government tried to outlaw is still organizing. On Sept. 9, the JAAC led a region-wide shutter-down and wheel-jam strike, a form of general strike that aims to shut down all businesses and halt all road traffic. As of today, protesters remain in the streets.
How the movement got thereOrganizers say that the keys to the movement’s durability have been its flat structure, the strong participation of women, and how it has built trust and solidarity by delivering victories that affect people’s everyday lives.
“I consider it the world’s most modern and well-organized movement, and its biggest achievement is that it built solidarity among people,” said Haris Ahmed Khan, a member of Progressive Student Collective, or PSC, who was arrested at a peaceful solidary protest in Lahore on July 31 and later released. “When a call is given, everyone gathers.”
The movement began on May 8, 2023, when residents of Rawalakot, the capital of Kashmir’s Poonch district, held a sit-in over the sharp increase in government-subsidized flour prices. Out of that sit-in came the district’s first organizing body, initially called the Poonch Awami Action Committee.
The movement might have stayed local if the government hadn’t handed it a second grievance. When electricity bills for the month of August 2023 arrived from the state-owned power department, people with higher usage rates found their bill had roughly doubled. What began as a flour protest in one district spread across Azad Jammu and Kashmir, as the Poonch district organizing committee folded electricity into its demands, and organizers in the Muzaffarabad and Rawalakot district joined in with a call for a shutter-down and wheel-jam strike. What started as scattered demonstrations turned into a sit-in in Rawalakot that stretched on for months.
People attend the funeral prayers of a man who was reportedly killed during clashes between protesters and police in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, on August 1, 2026. (Sajjad Qayyum / AFP via Getty Images)Young leaders, lawyers and journalists all joined in. And slowly, the movement started gaining traction on social media.
“They had two or three pages [on Instagram and Facebook] that people trusted, so whenever news came from these pages, people knew it was authentic,” Haris Ahmed Khan explained. Speeches and announcements shared on these pages quickly spread, he said.
But organizers in Kashmir did not consider social media alone to be enough. They went to village councils and formed local committees. In Poonch district, they walked through every bazaar and convinced people to join the movement. They explained to people how they could get flour and electricity at lower prices.
The movement won on its material demands when flour and electricity prices were lowered in 2024. With these wins, Omer Khan said, the movement proved something to people who’d been told for decades they had no power.
“It instilled confidence in people across the state that it is possible to fight and to win,” he said. “In particular, securing the right to electricity at the cost of production was an unprecedented achievement in South Asia.”
By building confidence in the movement, these successes led to bigger demands and marked it as a threat to the state, Haris Ahmed Khan said. “People are now demanding public spending and want the state to spend for the people,” he said. “The state does not want people to reach this point in such a peaceful and organized way. So, this has become a threat to the state structure because people are demanding that the state work for them.”
Previous CoverageIn September 2025, Omer Khan joined more than 60 others at a protest outside the Islamabad Press Club. The demonstration didn’t go long. Police with batons charged the crowd, made arrests and held people for over eight hours.
“Women were treated especially badly,” Omer Khan said. “Locked up, they struggled to breathe and were refused basic things like light and fans. Some came out with bruises.” One woman who traveled in from outside the region to show solidarity was questioned by a male officer and had her phone searched, Omer Khan said.
Women have been at the center of the movement from the start, and Omer argues that’s not incidental to its resilience. “The movement was banned because it had spread across the state, especially among women, who have been suffering for a long time, arguably even more than the men,” he said. “This was reflected in the extraordinary mobilization of women, in earlier marches as well. They were the ones who organized and sustained the marches wherever they went.”
Both Omer Khan and Haris Ahmed Khan credit the movement’s flat, local and deliberately decentralized leadership, as well as its delivering on concrete demands, for its ability to survive repeated crackdowns.
“The JAAC was not centered around one or a few leaders,” Omer Khan said. “Instead, it was based on representatives from each district. This horizontal structure gave the movement remarkable flexibility, allowing it to absorb pressure and withstand repeated shocks.”
An election without a mandateThe movement has “evolved beyond purely economic demands and began to raise broader political questions, including the right to ownership and the right to self-rule,” Omer Khan said.
The demands have extended to more, harder targets, including an end to special privileges and perks for the political elite, political and constitutional reforms, stronger local government, accountability for deaths and violence during the protests, withdrawal of cases against protesters, and improvements in public services and infrastructure, including health, education, roads and water supply. The government acquiesced to some of the movement’s demands in an October 2025 peace agreement, but JAAC says many of those commitments remain unfulfilled.
One major demand opposed by the government is the abolition of 12 seats in the 45-seat Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly that are reserved for refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir who live elsewhere in Pakistan. JAAC argues the arrangement lets mainstream Pakistani parties engineer the region’s government from outside; Islamabad says the seats are constitutionally protected and can’t be touched without an amendment.
The elections Omer Khan predicted would lack legitimacy have now concluded, with Pakistan Muslim League–Nawaz party, or PML–N, securing the majority. The movement boycotted the elections, arguing that they could not be legitimate while its leaders were facing a ban and the region was emerging from months of unrest.
JAAC had called for the elections to be annulled and for the establishment of a caretaker government, electoral reforms and a new Election Commission before fresh polls. Government officials rejected those claims, saying voters had given the PML–N a clear mandate and that the elections had been conducted fairly.
#support-block_c7b70e7675d78c184ceb9bd43799568f { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support UsWaging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!
DonateTensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir remain unresolved. In the massive shutter-down and wheel-jam strike on Sept. 9, JAAC demanded implementation of the October 2025 agreement, while the government says it has fully implemented some demands and is working on others.
Internet access has been partially restored in several districts, but remains completely suspended in Rawalakot and Sudhnoti, while other areas have restricted access mainly for educational institutions and banks. The banned JAAC continues to demand the withdrawal of its proscription, the release of detained activists and an independent judicial inquiry into the June violence, including the killing of Shahzaib Habib and injuries to other protesters. Meanwhile, police continue to accuse the movement of attacking law enforcement personnel and using protests to challenge state authority.
“So many people have died that the movement has reached a point of no return,” Haris Ahmed Khan concluded. “People are demanding the U.N. intervene and ask Pakistan’s government to remove the Rangers from the ground.” Despite everything, he says, people are still standing with the movement and demanding justice.
This article A popular movement in Kashmir defies severe repression was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.
Court rejects DOE ‘emergency’ order delaying coal plant retirement as overstep
“The Department’s reading of 'emergency' invites frequent federal interventions that are unsupported by the statute and threaten the stability of the energy market,” the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.
Press Release! Latino Leaders and Elected Officials Demand a Fully Funded, Fully Functional FEMA as Philadelphia Families Struggle to Recover from Historic Summer Flooding
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 10, 2026
CONTACT: Katie Valentine, kvalentine@cacampaign.org, (770) 861-0397
Latino Leaders and Elected Officials Demand a Fully Funded, Fully Functional FEMA as Philadelphia Families Struggle to Recover from Historic Summer Flooding
Community Press Conference Marks Hispanic Heritage Month With a Call for Federal Action
View the full press conference here: LINK
PHILADELPHIA, PA — As Hispanic Heritage Month begins, Latino families across Philadelphia are still recovering from a historic summer of severe storms, waiting on federal aid that has been slow to arrive and hard to access.
Today, community members, healthcare professionals, and elected officials gathered at Philadelphia City Hall with a clear message for Congress: stop shortchanging FEMA and build an agency that is fully funded, fully functional, and built to serve every family equitably.
The press conference comes after a summer that brought repeated severe weather events to Philadelphia, including flash flooding, destructive storms, and a microburst that caused widespread building and property damage and displacement of residents across the city. The flooding events threatened to contaminate drinking water and raised the risk of mold-related respiratory risks in homes impacted by water damage even after floodwaters receded.
Across the Northeast, heavy rainstorms have increased by 60 to 70% since the 1960s, the largest increase of any region in the United States, and Philadelphia’s own Office of Sustainability says that the science confirms these trends are accelerating and will not reverse on their own.
“As Philadelphia marks the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Ida and is now experiencing a summer of record-breaking flash flood warnings, we are reminded that where it rains, it can flood, and every neighborhood must be prepared,” said Joseph Sullivan, Program Manager for Flood Resilience and Compliance Strategy, City of Philadelphia’s Office of Sustainability. “The City’s Flood Management Program brings together key departments to help residents understand their flood risk and access resources to prepare and recover. Critical programs like FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) help enhance Philadelphia’s flood resilience efforts. Through Philadelphia’s collaborative work to reduce flood risk, residents can now receive a 15 percent discount on eligible federal flood insurance policies, making this important protection more affordable.”
“As we honor Hispanic Heritage Month, we must make sure every Philadelphia resident knows how to prepare for flooding and, when disaster strikes, can access FEMA assistance without fear or unnecessary barriers,” said Rep. Danilo Burgos. “Flooding doesn’t discriminate, and neither should our disaster response. Protecting our neighbors means making sure no family is left behind when they need help the most.”
“Our region’s Latino communities suffered the same flooding our non-Latino communities suffered this summer,” said Rep. Greg Scott. “And yet they’re struggling to get the post-disaster support that others have managed to access. A person shouldn’t suffer more or longer because resources aren’t offered in their preferred language or their neighborhood has been deprioritized. It’s time for the federal government to fully fund FEMA, provide necessary paperwork in widely-used languages, and ensure that all of our residents have equal access to aid.”
“The impacts of disaster are not experienced equally, and the response cannot be either,” said Azucena Villalobos, MSN, CRNP, FNP-BC. “We need funding that’s accessible, not just available: Spanish-speaking responders, trusted community organizations involved in the response, more community health workers embedded in community health centers who can help navigate climate-related health risks, multilingual emergency alerts that actually reach people, and resilient neighborhood centers offering cooling, clean water, and emergency support.”
###
About the Climate Action Campaign
Climate Action Campaign (CAC) is a vibrant coalition driving ambitious, durable, equitable federal action to tackle the climate crisis. By cutting carbon pollution and accelerating the transition to clean energy, we will improve public health and create a more resilient economy and a more sustainable future for all.
About The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments is the only national nursing organization focused solely on the intersection of health and the environment. The mission of the Alliance is to support nurses in promoting planetary health and equity globally by educating and leading the nursing profession, advancing research, incorporating planet-safe practice, and influencing policy. http://enviRN.org
The post Press Release! Latino Leaders and Elected Officials Demand a Fully Funded, Fully Functional FEMA as Philadelphia Families Struggle to Recover from Historic Summer Flooding appeared first on ANHE.
New York ISO’s independence is critical when the grid is stressed
This summer’s Champlain Hudson Power Express outage highlights the importance of an independent grid operator, writes Zach Smith, senior vice president of system and resource planning at NYISO.
Project Jupiter in New Mexico: A Would-be Fossil Fuel Polluter for Decades to Come
Project Jupiter, if built, would lock New Mexico into more oil and gas dependence for decades. Tell state regulators to say no to this air pollution permit.
SIGN THE PETITIONOracle, OpenAI, and their partners want to build a massive data center near Santa Teresa, in Doña Ana County. It’s a $165 billion project. At first, they planned to power it with gas turbines and diesel generators. After people pushed back, they switched to something called fuel cells and called it clean energy. It is not since the energy for the fuel cells still comes from fossil fuels.
The fuel cells for this project would still run on natural gas, mostly methane. Fuel cells use an electro-chemical process to turn methane into electricity at high temperature (~800°C) but without combustion. The methane fuel is converted to hydrogen inside the fuel cell and emits CO2 as the byproduct. Since methane, also known as natural gas, is the fuel, upstream methane leaks and impacts from fracking and produced water are as bad as a gas plant per unit of fuel. They even need a new gas pipeline that doesn’t exist yet, and that state regulators already turned down once. This project is anything but clean. In fact:
- This would be one of the largest fuel cell facilities ever built, anywhere;
- The project is expected to release about 10 million tons of pollution every year. That’s roughly as much as all of New Mexico’s biggest cities combined;
- The gas pipeline would cross rivers, streams, undisturbed desert habitat and run nearby residents and water sources.
New Mexico has worked hard to clean up its air and hold the oil and gas industry accountable. Approving this permit would undo a lot of that work, right when we should be investing in wind and solar, not new gas extraction that puts frontline communities and the climate at risk.
What you can doThe New Mexico Environment Department is expected to hold a hearing for this permit, but the New Mexico Supreme Court has temporarily halted the permit proceedings, leaving the date and next steps uncertain.
People have raised concerns about the fairness of this process, including hearing date changes, fake comments being submitted to NMED and restricting access to the administrative permit records.
- Sign the petition. Tell NMED to reject this permit until developers can meet sustainable and community drive guardrail protections.
- Share this page. People deserve to know what’s being built in their home state.
- Attend the hearing. Your voice matters. Make sure you are subscribed to our email list for updates on how you can participate at the NMED hearing.
The post Project Jupiter in New Mexico: A Would-be Fossil Fuel Polluter for Decades to Come appeared first on Earthworks.
Pennsylvania PUC to consider ratemaking, ROE and curtailment as data center load grows
The decisions come “amid growing concern about the balance between rapidly increasing electricity demand and the resources available to serve that demand” in PJM territory, the Pennsylvania PUC said.
It’s all food safety delays at the FDA
The Food and Drug Administration has delayed a long list of food chemicals and food safety actions, both promised and legally required. In some cases, these actions have been overdue for more than 30 years.
The chemicals the FDA has ignored have been linked to serious health harms, including cancer and hormone disruption.
The FDA’s record speaks for itself.
Where the federal government is failing, states are stepping in to protect public health. Some chemicals with long overdue pending actions, including butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA, and potassium bromate, have already been banned by individual states – which have a far better track record than the FDA when it comes to food chemicals.
But a draft bill newly proposed in Congress, the FRESH and Affordable Foods Act, could cancel those state laws.
To shine a light on these failures, EWG created a report card showing the cases in which the FDA has missed its own deadlines for oversight of serious food safety issues.
+ CLOSED -> + TO ADD A ROW: copy one ... block and change the text. ===================================================================== --> .dn { display: none !important; } .flipped-vert { transform: rotateX(180deg); } .table-wrapper { margin-bottom: 10px; } .table-cat { border-bottom: 1px solid #000; border-top: 1px solid #000; cursor: pointer; display: flex; font-family: niveau-grotesk, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; justify-content: space-between; padding: 20px 0; } .toggle-wrapper { align-items: center; display: flex; } .toggle { width: 20px; } .table-wrapper table { display: table; width: 100%; } table thead tr { border-top: none; border-bottom: 1px solid #565450; } th, td { text-align: left; vertical-align: top; } .row-title { line-height: 1.4; max-width: 444px; } .row-desc { color: #565450; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 8px; max-width: 444px; } Regulations and guidance ActionKey dates and deadlinesStatusFinalize industry guidance on arsenic in apple juiceProvide information to manufacturers on the action level for inorganic arsenic in apple juice that the FDA considers protective of human health and achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices.The FDA proposed draft guidance in 2013.In 2018, the FDA announced that a draft level would be finalized by year end. The FDA finalized the guidance in 2023.Finalized after a five-year delay.Finalize produce safety ruleEstablish science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing and storage of fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption.The Food Safety Modernization Act was signed into law in 2011.
The FDA originally proposed a produce safety rule in 2013. The proposed rule was modified in 2014.
The final rule was issued in 2015, and a revised final rule addressing contamination from agricultural water was proposed in 2022. The revised rule was finalized in 2024.Finalized after delay.Petitions ActionKey dates and deadlinesStatusRespond to carcinogenic flavors food additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2016.
In 2018 it granted the petition after the organizations involved, including EWG and others, filed a lawsuit.Approved after a two-year delay.Respond to butylated hydroxyanisole food and color additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 1990.Delayed more than 36 years. BHA is under post-market review. The FDA issued a request for information in February but the petition is still pending.Respond to potassium bromate citizen petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2000.Delayed more than 26 years.Respond to caramel coloring citizen petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2011.Delayed more than 15 years.Respond to bioaccumulating PFAS in food contact materials citizen petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2021.Delayed more than five years.Respond to bisphenol A food additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2022.Delayed more than four years.Respond to titanium dioxide color additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2024.Delayed more than three years.Respond to fluorinated polyethylene petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2025.Delayed more than one year.Respond to lead in baby food petition for reconsiderationThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2025.Delayed more than a year.Respond to lead as a food additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2020.Delayed nearly six years.Respond to carcinogenic solvents petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2024.Delayed nearly two years. document.querySelectorAll('.table-cat').forEach(item => { var toggle = item.querySelector('.toggle'); item.addEventListener('click', event => { toggle.classList.toggle('flipped-vert'); item.nextElementSibling.classList.toggle('dn'); }); }); Authors Iris Myers September 14, 2026
Hilary Swank letter urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign diaper ingredients disclosure bill
Attached is actor and children’s health advocate Hilary Swank’s letter urging California Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign AB 1901, a diaper ingredients disclosure bill.
File Download Document hilary-swank-letter-to-gov-newsom-ab-1901.pdf Areas of Focus Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals California Guest Authors Hilary Swank September 11, 2026Governor Shapiro’s Data Center Executive Order Shows Power of Community Organizing – And the Work Ahead
By Melissa Ostroff, Pennsylvania State Field and Policy Manager, and Anaïs Peterson, Petrochemicals Campaigner at Earthworks
On August 18th, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro announced a new executive order on data centers. This executive order, which the Governor called the strictest data center policy in the country, is a mixed bag that leaves many frontline communities still concerned about what comes next.
Even though it neglects to include the most important policy tool available, a moratorium, this executive order still represents some wins for communities who have been demanding leadership from a Governor who had initially welcomed data centers with open arms. It addresses one of the largest concerns around transparency in data center development as it prohibits the use of non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, in connection with data center projects. In addition to increasing transparency, the executive order also removes any existing data center projects from permit fast tracking and bars them from eligibility in the future. And while this announcement falls short in many other ways, it shows the power of community organizing across the state to create pressure and deliver results in Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signs an executive order on data centers on August 18, 2026, calling it the strictest policy of its kind in the country. Frontline communities, however, remain concerned about what the order means in practice. Image credit: APThrough the new order, Governor Shapiro also attempts to protect Pennsylvania ratepayers from the utility price hikes often caused by data centers connecting to the grid through a strategy known as bring your own power (BYOP). While BYOP may reduce the impacts of data centers on utility bills, it can also lead tech companies to build their own gas plants to power these projects. This risk is increased by the weak “clean firm” requirements laid out in this executive order.
As part of the requirements, developers would have to source a growing percentage of their energy from “clean firm” resources located within Pennsylvania. But “clean firm” energy isn’t as clean as it sounds. In fact, the category includes nuclear power and fossil fuels paired with carbon capture alongside real renewables like solar, geothermal and hydropower. The mandatory schedule starts small, requiring just 10% clean firm energy. It then climbs to 32% by 2035. The problem is that Pennsylvania already gets 34% of its energy from clean firm sources today. With this context this “requirement” actually falls short of where we already stand.
By labeling fossil fuels as “clean” and setting a target we already passed back in 2025, the Shapiro administration is sending a clear message: pollution is acceptable in Pennsylvania communities. The Shapiro administration cannot trade utility price hikes for environmental pollution and call that a win for Pennsylvania. What Pennsylvanians avoid paying in utility bills they may end up paying in higher health care costs. The fossil fuel infrastructure used to power these projects leads to increased rates of cancer, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and many other deadly and disabling conditions. And pollution has a cost, too – in the form of poor health, rising healthcare bills, and shortened lives. A stronger data center policy would protect Pennsylvanians both from price increases and pollution.
Governor Shapiro has directed Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection to develop new regulations addressing the cumulative environmental impacts of data centers, including emissions from multiple backup generators.But there is one potential bright spot relative to pollution: Governor Shapiro has directed DEP to develop new regulations around the cumulative environmental impacts of data centers, including the impact of multiple backup generators. We welcome the consideration of cumulative impacts as part of regulations around data centers and other polluting facilities, and look forward to the opportunity for community members and public health experts to speak on this topic.
Governor Shapiro also clarified the role local governments play in data center development, emphasizing that his administration will not consider permits for projects that have not been approved at the local level. We applaud this nod towards community consent, but questions remain about what kind of local opposition will qualify for this protection. People living and working in Pennsylvania know implementation can be complex, and additional clarification is needed to help communities understand how this executive order will impact their own neighborhoods.
This executive order does not address the existing gaps in ordinances and zoning primarily in Pennsylvania’s at-risk rural communities that would empower them to say no to data centers. Local governments are voting to approve data centers simply to avoid lawsuits even when their constituents are showing up and demanding they vote no. Currently approximately 32% of the commonwealth is unzoned leaving them unprotected if and when big tech comes knocking. However, it is unclear from the remarks made by Governor Shapiro and DEP Secretary Shirley if land use permits also fall under this executive order. If they do, a larger portion of the commonwealth may have some protections.
While this executive order makes some much needed progress towards protections it leaves the strongest protective measure still on the table: a moratorium. The call from communities across Pennsylvania has been clear. The best way to protect our commonwealth from the impact of data centers, whether it is rate hikes or increased air pollution, remains a moratorium on data center development.
The post Governor Shapiro’s Data Center Executive Order Shows Power of Community Organizing – And the Work Ahead appeared first on Earthworks.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.