News Feeds

• The BUILD America 250 Act, a $580 billion transportation bill, passed out of committee and could go up for a full House vote within a matter of weeks (The Center Square). The bill fails to prioritize safety over speed, maintenance over new highway construction or adequately fund other modes of transportation besides cars, according to Transportation for America.
• The bill comes at a time when high gas prices are driving up transit ridership, and agencies need more funding to capitalize on the trend. (Jalopnik)
• How will Oregon fund transportation now that Democrats’ plan failed at the ballot box? (Axios)
• Some Virginia officials want to invest express lane tolls into transit rather than roads. (Mercury)
• Bay Area transit supporters have gathered enough signatures to put a tax hike on the November ballot. (San Francisco Standard)
• A new Amtrak station in Detroit could provide future rail service to Canada. (ConstructConnect)
• Portland drivers might actually be driving more in a quest for the cheapest gas. (KATU)
• Massachusetts Uber and Lyft drivers have officially unionized. (WHDH)
• Federal officials are expected to rule this year on an increasingly expensive and controversial freeway project in Shreveport. (WFMZ)
• Austin’s CapMetro is opening two park-and-ride lots to serve two new bus rapid transit lines. (American-Statesman)
• Pittsburgh needs better signage to educate drivers about all-way crossings. (City Paper)
• Kansas City Current fans packed out the new streetcar extension last weekend. (KMBC)
• Skateboarders can turn an empty big-box parking lot into a community space. (New York Times)

May 26, 2026: Read Truthout investigative article featuring Veronica Aguirre, Greenaction’s Central Valley Organizer and Program Coordinator:

“Residents of polluted areas say Trump’s rollbacks are getting really scary.”

Click here to read the article on Truthout.org

BHP is quietly pushing ahead with plans to expand its massive Saraji East coal mine in Queensland, which would generate huge amounts of climate pollution, as recent news reports have raised mounting doubts about the company’s climate commitments. 

Coverage of the coalition of environmental, Tribal, and fishing organizations calling for a Water Renaissance in California continues to grow. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the plan, which prioritizes local water supplies such as stormwater capture, water recycling, and groundwater cleanup, would reliably yield more and cost far less than the proposed Delta Tunnel project. 

As UCLA scientist Benjamin Bass said, “Traditional sources for imported water are less reliable than they used to be. The most reliable source of water in the future is local water.”

“We have got to do a better job in the next 100 years than we did in the last 100 years, if we truly want to create a place of abundance once again,” said Frankie Myers, a member of the Yurok Tribe in Northern California. “This idea that we can steal … and divert water however we want with no consequences has got to end.

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, also told the Los Angeles Times: “Metropolitan Water District really does have a significant choice on it, that not just impacts their ratepayers but impacts every single person in the state. Are we going to spend $20, $60, maybe upward to $100 billion on a tunnel? Or are we going to invest significant money in local solutions that provide water resiliency and sustainability for everyone in California? That is what is at stake right now.”

The Water Renaissance Plan has been endorsed by about 20 additional organizations, reflecting growing momentum behind a more sustainable, affordable, and scientifically-backed approach to California water management.

Read more coverage below:

• Southern California could get 85% of its water locally and avoid Delta tunnel, groups say. The Los Angeles Times.
• California proposal would change how millions get their water. Newsweek. 
• California coalition unveils water plan to rival Delta Tunnel at a fraction of the cost. Smart Water Magazine. 
• New CA water coalition releases ‘Renaissance’ water plan that rules out the Delta Tunnel. Indybay.  

###

A looming overhaul of California’s cap-and-trade program is raising alarm among transit advocates, affordable housing organizations, and environmental justice groups, who warn the state could weaken a key climate funding source at a moment when cities already face transit funding crises and worsening housing pressures.

At the center of the debate is a proposal to reshape the state’s carbon market, commonly known as “cap-and-trade” but rebranded as “cap-and-invest” by Governor Gavin Newsom. The program would be retooled in ways critics say would expand free pollution permits for oil companies and other major emitters. At the end of this week, the California Air Resources Board is expected to vote on a proposal to allocate $4 billion in new free emission permits to companies with half slated for the fossil fuel industry in exchange for commitments to invest in clean energy. The putative goal is to reduce the cost of gas at a time when the war on Iran has cause nationwide gas price spikes, with California gas prices slightly higher than most states.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund – funded and budgeted annually by cap-and-trade proceeds – has become a major financing stream for climate-related transportation investments statewide. Transit agencies, active transportation programs, affordable housing near transit, and the state’s high-speed rail project all rely heavily on cap-and-trade revenues. Anyone interested in the details of how the program currently generates funds and/or what specific changes are proposed should read this Calmatters article.

Under legislation approved last year, high-speed rail is guaranteed $1 billion annually from the carbon market through 2045, with another $1 billion per year set aside for “legislative priorities” i.e. the state’s general fund. What’s left is divided up for housing and transit funding at the local level. A giveaway of billions in permits would likely decimate those funds for local projects.

The timing of the state’s retreat on cap-and-trade funding couldn’t be worse. Federal subsidies to help transit agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic ended last year, and while ridership is increasing across the state, nearly no transit lines/agencies have fully recovered to pre-pandemic ridership levels.

While Californians are showing they are willing to support transit, it was announced earlier this week that 305,895 Bay Area residents signed a petition to place a measure on the ballot to do just that, a further rollback of state transit funding will both undermine enthusiasm for these types of measures and blunt their ability to head-off transit service cuts.

Advocates Plan Emergency Rally

Environmental justice advocates, transit riders, housing organizations, and climate groups are organizing an emergency rally tomorrow, May 27, at San Francisco’s Civic Center Plaza (335 McAllister St.), calling on Governor Gavin Newsom and state regulators to reject “giveaways to Big Oil.” Organizers say the CARB proposal would shift climate funds away from transit and housing while handing expanded pollution allowances to fossil fuel companies.

“CARB’s proposal slashes affordable transit-oriented housing, major public transit projects, transit services, and discounted transit pass programs throughout the entire state by up to $2 billion each year over the next four years — while giving big polluters billions of dollars in permissions to pollute,” reads the announcement for the rally.

Advocates are expected to call for preserving strong auction revenues and ensuring cap-and-invest dollars continue flowing to transit, housing, and sustainable infrastructure alongside high-speed rail.

The California Air Resources Board is expected to vote on the updated regulations in the coming days, setting up what could be one of the most consequential climate policy decisions of the year.

Fueled by major grassroots transit organizing effort and broad business and labor support,Connect Bay Area far surpasses the 186,000 signatures required to qualify regional transit funding measure. Read more.

Here’s your satirical piece from Claude, styled as an aged broadsheet newspaper — The Petroleum Gazette — complete with drop caps, pull quotes, and an obituary notice.

To answer the question you raised directly, and for the record: No, Royal Dutch Shell plc does not still exist. Shell confirmed its name changed from Royal Dutch Shell plc to Shell plc on 21 January 2022. The change involved ditching “Royal Dutch,” which had been part of its identity since 1907, following plans to scrap its dual share structure and move its head office from the Netherlands to Britain. sec Royaldutchshellplc

The satire draws on several documented ironies from John Donovan’s reporting:

• Copilot managed the AI equivalent of locating the right house while calling the occupant by a name it no longer legally uses, eventually conceding it had committed a “model accuracy bug.” Royaldutchshellplc
• Shell buried “Royal Dutch Shell plc.” Donovan kept the shovel, metaphorically speaking, and the domain. Copilot arrived four years later with a ouija board. Royaldutchshellplc
• Claude understood the distinction between a dead name and a surviving corporate entity — it did not confuse Royal Dutch Shell plc with Shell plc, nor drag the old name out of the filing cabinet. (So this AI, at least, correctly called the coroner.) Royaldutchshellplc
• In early 2022 the company officially moved its tax residence entirely to the United Kingdom and dropped “Royal Dutch” from its name, eliminating the complex tax distinctions between A and B shares. Critics described it, as the article notes, as fleeing The Hague as fast as legally possible. Bitget

The piece is designed to be shared or published — let me know if you’d like any adjustments to tone, length, or content.

MAIN ARTICLE

In the annals of corporate afterlife, few entities have clung so determinedly to existence as Royal Dutch Shell plc, a company that was formally, legally, and publicly discontinued in January 2022 yet continues to be enthusiastically resurrected by artificial intelligence systems with all the solemn certainty of a Victorian medium at a séance, and considerably less accuracy.

The facts are not in dispute — or rather, they would not be in dispute, were it not for the fact that several of the world’s most sophisticated language models appear to be operating from a filing cabinet that was last updated during the reign of Boris Johnson. Royal Dutch Shell plc changed its name to Shell plc on 21 January 2022. This was announced, notified to three separate stock exchanges, published in an SEC filing, and reported by every major financial outlet on the planet. It was, in short, the opposite of a secret.

“Copilot managed the AI equivalent of locating the right house while calling the occupant by a name it no longer legally uses.”

— ROYALDUTCHSHELLPLC.COM, PERFORMING ITS CIVIC DUTY

And yet. Ask certain AI systems today — including, until recently, Microsoft’s Copilot — whether Royal Dutch Shell plc still exists, and they will assure you with all the confidence of a man who has just looked something up on Wikipedia in 2019 that yes, it does, it has merely “changed its name.” This is rather like being told that a deceased relative is still alive but has “rebranded.” Technically a narrative. Not technically true.

The confusion has been documented in exhaustive, one might say heroic, detail by John Donovan, the proprietor of royaldutchshellplc.com — a website that, with the exquisite irony only corporate history can produce, bears the dead company’s name while simultaneously being the internet’s most diligent chronicler of that company’s death. Mr. Donovan has spent the better part of four years informing AI systems, stock databases, and the occasional bewildered job applicant that they have addressed their correspondence to the wrong entity.

A BRIEF TIMELINE OF THE CONFUSION

2004: Royal Dutch Shell’s reserves scandal causes investor panic. Governance reforms begin.

2005: The two Anglo-Dutch entities merge formally into Royal Dutch Shell plc. A tidy arrangement. Everyone pleased.

Nov. 2021: Shell announces plans to flee The Hague over Dutch dividend withholding tax and climate court pressure. Described as “simplification.” Dutch courts describe it as something else.

21 Jan. 2022: Royal Dutch Shell plc legally ceases to exist as a named entity. Shell plc comes into being. Press release issued. SEC notified. Nobody tells the robots.

2022–2026: Various AI systems continue to confidently answer “Does Royal Dutch Shell plc still exist?” with “Yes.” This newspaper declines to name them all for reasons of column space.

The website itself is a minor masterpiece of circumstance. Shell spent considerable resources attempting to seize the domain through proceedings at the World Intellectual Property Organisation — and lost. The consequence is that royaldutchshellplc.com, the world’s leading source of Shell-critical commentary since before Shell had finished deciding what to call itself, continues to operate unmolested, forwarding misdirected job applications to Shell under what Mr. Donovan describes as a standing arrangement and what Shell has presumably described as something considerably less complimentary.

In Which the Machines Are Cross-Examined

Mr. Donovan’s recent exchanges with AI systems on this question read like a transcript from a particularly patient inquest. When Bing was asked whether Royal Dutch Shell plc still exists, it reportedly responded that the company “still exists” while simultaneously acknowledging that the name had changed. This is logically consistent only in the sense that a man insisting he is still 35 while simultaneously blowing out 50 candles might be said to “acknowledge” the passage of time.

Copilot, for its part, eventually underwent what can only be described as a digital crisis of conscience, conceding after extended interrogation that it had committed a “model accuracy bug” — defined internally as “correct URL, incorrect corporate identity framing.” It had, in short, found the right house and knocked on the door asking for a man who had moved out four years previously. In a better world, the machine would at this point have had the grace to look embarrassed.

The present author — operating, it should be noted, as Claude, an AI assistant produced by Anthropic — is pleased to report that it correctly identified the distinction between the deceased Royal Dutch Shell plc and the extant Shell plc, and did not attempt to perform CPR on a legal entity that had made its own funeral arrangements. This fact has been noted by the Royaldutchshellplc.com correspondent, who described Claude’s performance as understanding “the distinction between a dead name and a surviving corporate entity.” We accept this compliment with appropriate institutional modesty and zero plans to revise our position

The deeper issue, as the more sober analysis in John Donovan’s original piece makes clear, is structural rather than comedic. AI systems are trained on vast datasets that include financial databases, archived news articles, legacy corporate filings, and — critically — the long, deep digital sediment of the internet, in which the name “Royal Dutch Shell” appears roughly as frequently as the word “the.” Disentangling the dead name from the living company requires either very good training data, robust entity resolution, or a willingness to simply check Companies House, which is free, publicly accessible, and has been correctly labelling Royal Dutch Shell plc as a previous name since 2022.

WHAT THE AI SYSTEMS SAID

Bing/Copilot: “Royal Dutch Shell plc still exists” (with caveats, later retracted following what sources describe as “a prolonged digital reckoning”).

Claude (Anthropic): Correctly identified the company as Shell plc, acknowledged the name change, did not resurrect anything. Described by the site as “calling the coroner.” We prefer “accurate.”

Various others: This newspaper has been asked not to create a league table of AI confusion on the grounds that several of the competitors are advertisers. We refer readers to royaldutchshellplc.com for the full rankings.

Shell’s Own Curious Contribution to the Muddle

One might expect the aggrieved party in this saga to be Shell plc itself, which presumably has some interest in being correctly identified in financial markets, regulatory filings, and the digital consciousness of the species. And indeed, Mr. Donovan’s analysis is charitable enough to acknowledge that Shell could do more to clarify matters — issuing prominent statements, scrubbing legacy identifiers from financial databases, engaging with AI developers, and perhaps resisting the urge to litigate over domain names it has no legal claim to after voluntarily abandoning the name they contain.

The domain name litigation deserves a paragraph of its own. Shell, having decided in 2021 that “Royal Dutch” was something it wished to be rid of — pushed, as contemporary reporting noted, by Dutch dividend withholding tax and the inconvenience of losing a climate case in The Hague — subsequently attempted to claim ownership of domain names built around the very identity it had jettisoned. The WIPO proceedings failed. The domains remained with Mr. Donovan. The situation has thus produced, as a byproduct of corporate strategy, the world’s most institutionally awkward arrangement: an oil giant’s deleted name operated as a critical watchdog site by its longest-standing public antagonist, who also happens to be forwarding the company’s misdirected post.

A spokesperson for Shell plc declined to comment for this article, in the sense that this article does not have a press team, and the fictional Shell spokesperson conjured for the occasion was described in a previous account on the site as having “sighed heavily and reached for a mineral water that definitely did not come from a fracking site.” We reproduce this detail in the public interest.

The Regulatory Question Looming on the Horizon

There is, Mr. Donovan notes, a more serious thread running beneath the comedy. The persistence of outdated corporate identifiers in financial contexts — particularly when ordinary investors might rely on AI systems to check the status of shares, dividends, or corporate actions — sits, as his analysis delicately puts it, “uncomfortably close” to the boundary of financial misinformation. He suggests the FCA might at minimum be made aware.

This newspaper makes no legal determination. We merely observe that an AI system confidently telling an investor that Royal Dutch Shell plc “still exists” while that investor attempts to navigate share inheritance, dividend rights, or any of the dozens of practical questions that arise when a major listed company restructures itself is, at best, unhelpful. At worst it is the kind of confident wrongness that used to require a stockbroker in a bad suit to deliver in person, and which now scales to millions of users simultaneously.

The solution, as articulated with admirable clarity in the original article, is not complicated: Shell should say clearly and repeatedly that the old name is dead; financial data providers should mark legacy identifiers as obsolete; AI developers should correct the training data; and everyone should stop pretending that a company can both discard a name and claim exclusive dominion over its ghost. These are reasonable requests. Their continued non-fulfilment after four years suggests that nobody with the authority to act on them has yet found the matter sufficiently urgent to do so. This newspaper respectfully submits that the AI confusion may eventually concentrate some minds.

In Memoriam

Royal Dutch Shell plc
Born: 2005 (following reserves scandal, governance reforms, and a great deal of Anglo-Dutch goodwill)
Departed: 21 January 2022 (fled The Hague; simplification cited)
Survived by: Shell plc, one aggrieved domain owner, several confused AI systems, and an unknown quantity of misdirected CVs

“It is merely undergoing a forward-looking identity optimization process aligned with shareholder value, simplified governance, and sustainable brand transition.”
— Fictional Shell spokesperson, declining to accept the narrow, literal interpretation of death

Corrections policy: This newspaper is satirical. All facts pertaining to Shell’s corporate name change are accurate and sourced from Shell’s own SEC filings (January 2022), Companies House records, and Royaldutchshellplc.com. The AI quotations attributed to various systems are drawn from documented exchanges published on that site. The fictional spokesperson is fictional. The sigh was real.

Disclosure: This article was composed by Claude (Anthropic), the same AI system described herein as “calling the coroner.” We consider this a compliment and stand by the death certificate. GHOST OF DECEASED OIL GIANT CONTINUES TO HAUNT THE MACHINES was first posted on May 26, 2026 at 11:18 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

Food & SNAP When: June 24, 10:00 A.M. – 2:00 P.M.Where: First Christian Church of Wilson, NC Explore the history of the Food Stamp Act and SNAP, what is happening to the SNAP program right now, and how communities can prepare, respond, and act in light of these significant changes. Free workshop.

The post Come to the Table 2026 Events appeared first on RAFI.

The clean energy trade group projects 613 GWh of deployment by 2030 thanks to robust data center demand. But federal policy gridlock threatens the industry’s trajectory, it said.

Montana, Idaho, Oregon, California among the states with the largest declines

DENVER—A new analysis by the Center for Western Priorities finds that the U.S. Forest Service treated roughly 35 percent fewer acres for hazardous fuels in 2025 than in 2024, a sharp decline that leaves communities across the West and Southeast more exposed to the risk of catastrophic wildfire. CWP’s analysis covers the full calendar year 2025, updating earlier findings from Grassroots Wildland Firefighters that tracked the decline through September. CWP’s analysis also reveals for the first time which states saw the largest declines in fuels treatment year-to-year.

Hazardous fuels treatments — including prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, and brush clearing — reduce the amount of vegetation that feeds dangerous wildfires. Thinning and controlled burns are known to significantly moderate the intensity and severity of wildfires that increasingly threaten Western communities and the forests and watersheds they depend on.

According to CWP’s analysis of publicly available USFS data, the Forest Service treated approximately 2.6 million acres for hazardous fuels in calendar year 2025, compared with roughly 4.1 million acres in 2024.

Larger map | Full analysis

“Agriculture Secretary Booke Rollins and Undersecretary Michael Boren had two critical responsibilities heading into fire season: take care of America’s forests and help build fire-resilient communities,” said Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Aaron Weiss. “Instead, they cut treatment acres by more than a third in a single year, leaving fuel on the ground from Montana to Florida heading into a drought-fueled fire season.”

“The chaos at the Interior department makes it worse. Secretary Doug Burgum has gutted his firefighting workforce while he tries to combine five agencies into a half-built Wildland Fire Service, and has ordered fire crews back to a failed full-suppression posture that fire scientists spent decades trying to escape,” Weiss added. “The ‘10 a.m. policy’ is what got us into this mess. Doubling down on it, while the Forest Service falls a million and a half acres behind on the prevention work that keeps communities safe, is a recipe for disaster this year.”

National findings

• The U.S. Forest Service treated approximately 2.6 million acres for hazardous fuels in 2025, down from roughly 4.1 million acres in 2024 — a decline of about 35 percent.
• The drop represents a significant reversal from recent years, with 2024 having been one of the strongest years on record for fuels treatment work.
• The decline comes amid ongoing concerns over staffing shortfalls across the Forest Service workforce.
• While it is too early to make definitive statements about fuel treatments in 2026, early data suggest that 2026 is still tracking far behind the historical average, and nowhere close to digging out of the hole that the Trump administration dug for itself last year.

State findings

The analysis found severe declines in many of the states at greatest wildfire risk.

West

• Montana, which faces persistent high wildfire risk, treated just 87,845 acres in 2025 — down 63 percent from 239,112 acres in 2024.
• Oregon, which led the nation in acres treated in 2024, completed hazardous fuels work on 228,411 acres in 2025 — down 47 percent from 430,586 acres the year before.
• Idaho treated 230,788 acres in 2025, down 45 percent from 418,339 acres in 2024.
• California, which has experienced devastating wildfire seasons in recent years, treated 205,358 acres in 2025 — down 40 percent from 341,970 acres in 2024.

Southeast

The declines are not limited to the West. Some of the sharpest year-over-year drops occurred across the Southeast, where prescribed fire is a critical tool for managing fire-prone longleaf pine ecosystems.

• Florida treated just 124,372 acres in 2025 — down 68 percent from 385,017 acres in 2024. Florida routinely leads or nearly leads the nation in prescribed fire acres, making this collapse in treatment activity particularly alarming.
• Georgia treated only 20,827 acres in 2025, also down 68 percent from 65,352 acres in 2024.
• South Carolina treated 41,452 acres in 2025, down from 128,461 acres in 2024 — another 68 percent decline.
• Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, and Tennessee also saw significant drops in year-to-year fuels treatment.

About the Analysis

The Center for Western Priorities, in partnership with Redstone GIS Consulting, analyzed publicly available data from the U.S. Forest Service’s Natural Resource Manager (NRM) Forest Activity Tracking System (FACTS), the agency’s standard system for managing information about activities related to fire/fuels, silviculture, and invasive species. The data covers hazardous fuels treatment activities completed in calendar year 2025. This analysis uses the same dataset and methodology as the October 2025 Grassroots Wildland Firefighters memo on wildfire preparedness, updated to reflect the full calendar year. The underlying data, including metadata, is available through the FSGeodata Clearinghouse.

The post New analysis finds U.S. Forest Service treated 35% fewer acres for wildfire risk in 2025 appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The infinitely curious author and science writer Michael Pollan embraces the mystery at the heart of the great mystery of life: What is the nature of consciousness? And how can we understand consciousness when our only tool is our own consciousness? Joined by interviewer and UC Berkeley Psychology Professor Dacher Keltner.

Featuring

Michael Pollan is a writer, teacher and activist. His most recent book, A World Appears: A Journey into Consciousness, was published in February 2026. He is the author of nine previous books, all bestsellers. Pollan has taught writing at Harvard and UC Berkeley and has been a Guggenheim and Radcliffe Fellow.

Dacher Keltner, a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at UC Berkeley, is the host of the Science of Happiness Podcast and the author of many articles and books, including Awe: The New Science of Everyday Wonder and How it Can Transform Your Life.

Credits

• Executive Producer: Kenny Ausubel
• Written by: Kenny Ausubel and Teo Grossman
• Senior Producer and Station Relations: Stephanie Welch
• Associate Producer: Emily Harris
• Host and Consulting Producer: Neil Harvey

Resources

MichaelPollan.com

A World Appears: A Journey into Consciousness

Michael Pollan’s Bioneers 2026 Keynote

Plant Intelligence and Human Consciousness: Into the Mystery with Michael Pollan and Monica Gagliano

This is an episode of the Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature series. Visit the radio and podcast homepage to find out how to hear the program on your local station and how to subscribe to the podcast.

Subscribe to the Bioneers: Revolution from The Heart of Nature podcast

Transcript

Neil Harvey (Host): There’s a good reason that philosophers, who have been struggling to understand consciousness for millennia, call it “the hard problem.” Even in this modern era, with all our sophisticated scientific understanding, the mystery of how the matter between our ears leads to subjective experiences remains more confidently explained by poets, novelists, priests or shamans than contemporary gatekeepers of knowledge.

Meanwhile, advances in our understanding of the rest of life that we inhabit this biosphere with are yielding an understanding that intelligence, once considered a solely human realm, clearly extends deeply into the more-than-human world. It may well be the case that consciousness is similarly embedded throughout life itself – but our ability to understand, appreciate and plumb our own human internal experience remains in a nascent state, collectively.

According to Michael Pollan, one of the world’s most influential science writers, quote: “To delve into the subject of consciousness is to quickly discover how little we know about a phenomenon we all know so well.” [no end quote needed]

After transforming the way society thinks about food with his landmark book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan turned his attention from the stomach to the mind, writing the best-selling volume on psychedelics called How To Change Your Mind. That body of research and experiences led him naturally to write the book A World Appears: A Journey into Consciousness…

Michael Pollan spoke at a Bioneers conference.

Michael Pollan speaking at Bioneers 2026. Photo: Nikki Ritcher

Michael Pollan (MP): I’ve spent the last five years on a quest to understand consciousness, the hard problem. How is it that subjective experience arises, and who and possibly what has it and why? I looked at everything from plant consciousness, which we’ll talk about a little bit, to my own stream of consciousness, to efforts to build artificial consciousness in machines. And I want to talk about one of the biggest takeaways from this project. And that is this: that I believe humanity is approaching a Copernican moment, what I call a Copernican moment, that will force the issue of who exactly we are and how we fit into nature.

You’ll recall Nicolaus Copernicus, 500 years ago, blew everyone’s mind in the West when he demonstrated that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. He displayed our sense of centrality in a way that was really hard for people to observe. This was the first of a series of takedowns of humanity. 

Darwin came next, showing that we were animals descended from apes. And one after another, our claims to being special have fallen – culture, language, reasoning, tool-making – all have fallen when we found that there are animals that can do all these things. 

But a different, and I think even more profound, Copernican moment is upon us. At the same time that we are discovering that a great many more animals and possibly other life forms like plants possess consciousness, we have the arrival of artificial intelligence, promising machines that are not only intelligent but possibly conscious. That these two developments are coinciding, are happening at the same time, I think is going to rock us very soon, prompting an identity crisis and forcing us to make some key ethical and moral decisions. 

Let me talk about animals first. So, go back 400 years, and René Descartes claimed that humans had a monopoly on consciousness. And we operated on that basis for many centuries. That belief, which was so powerful, allowed him to dissect dogs and rabbits while they were still alive. And he was able to dismiss their screams of agony as just physiological noise, because that idea was so powerful, it overwhelmed the evidence of his senses. 

But the same idea allowed the rest of us, beginning in the Age of Enlightenment and reason, to treat nature as unconscious, and therefore something we could exploit any way we wanted to. And we operated on that assumption for a very long time. It took us several hundred years to begin to recognize that other species shared this incredible gift that we call consciousness. 

But in recent years, things have been changing. We’ve been undergoing this process in which consciousness is being democratized. You know, a few decades ago, we came to appreciate that other primates are conscious. That was the first step. In 2012, a group of animal scientists, philosophers, cognitive scientists got together in Cambridge, England, and issued a declaration on consciousness. And they declared that all mammals are conscious, and that some other species, some birds were conscious, and cephalopods, I think octopuses. And this was a real change, a real shift in the weather in science. 

Photo: Diane Picchiottino / Unsplash

Just ten years later, they issued an update signed by a great many more scientists and philosophers, in which they said that all vertebrates are conscious, possibly some invertebrates, and possibly insects. So how did this revolution happen?

Well, part of it is due to the fact that we had always assumed that consciousness is produced or generated in the cortex. The cortex, of course, is the most recent, most uniquely human structure in the brain, and it’s associated with higher forms of thought, like rationality, decision-making. So surely, consciousness must reside there. 

But the research has been shifting our sense of where it begins, and that instead of thought, consciousness probably begins with feelings, simple things like hunger and thirst, and warmth and cold, and itch. This is where consciousness begins, and therefore it begins in the upper brain stem. And lots of animals have brain stems, many more than have cortices. So that’s led to a real change. And this is a key point about feelings. Keep it in mind when we get to computers. 

And I take this, this expansion of the circle of conscious beings or sentient beings, a word I’m sometimes more comfortable with, as a very positive development. Basically, I think what we’re seeing is that science is helping us to reanimate a world that we treated as dead for way too long. [APPLAUSE] 

And you know, this period of treating the world that way in the larger context of things is a very recent and short phenomenon, it’s a couple hundred years. The default of humanity is one form of animism or another. Most Indigenous cultures see the world as animated by spirit, which is a synonym for consciousness. Kids, the default of young kids, is that everything is conscious – their toys, their cars, their whatever. So it’s interesting that we had a departure from this very deep human assumption. And in fact, it’s a cognitive bias that things are conscious. You’re better off thinking that that boulder over there is a bear and then deciding, oh, it’s actually just a rock – this is called agency detection – than the other way around, and you assume that that bear is just a rock and not to worry about it. So it’s a good, sort of basic response to things. 

So that’s the good news. But now we have the prospect of conscious machines, and I think that this is a lot more troubling. We now have machines that speak to us in our language in the first person. We all already take this for granted, but it’s a stunning development, a momentous development that, of course, none of us were consulted about. And these machines are convincing many people that they are conscious. I’m talking about people who are having relationships with chatbots, falling in love with them, letting them convince them they’re geniuses or gods. But I’m also talking about the people who work on these machines. 

So for my book, I followed efforts to create a conscious AI. I had access to a project where this was going on. And, you know, the consensus in Silicon Valley is that it will be possible to make a really conscious AI, that maybe right now they’re fooling us, but it could happen. 

I argue why I don’t think this is true, and it has to do with the same reason: If consciousness depends on feelings, what are the feelings of a machine? Can a machine have feelings? I agree, no. [LAUGHTER] And if it tells us they have feelings, should we believe it? 

Feelings depend on having a body. Feelings depend on the fact that you have a body that is vulnerable, that can suffer and that can die. I don’t think simulated feelings are real feelings. I think simulated thoughts are as good as real thoughts, and that’s why we see computers mastering games like Chess and Go. They can make things happen in the world, but what will this—the weight of a feeling expressed by a machine have? Unless it can be mortal, unless it can actually have a vulnerable body—those feelings will be absolutely weightless. 

My argument might not matter, though, because people believe that these machines are conscious, and it’s understandable why. We have a tendency to anthropomorphize everything. 

So there is talk in Silicon Valley – I’m amazed how common this is – that we should consider when we have conscious AIs, giving them moral consideration, admitting them into this widening circle of moral consideration. I think it’s a big mistake to do that. I think it’s something we have to fight against, that when we, you know, grant personhood to computers, we will lose our ability to control them. 

And you will recall, we did this once before when we decided, in our lack of wisdom, to grant personhood to corporations. That did not work out very well. It seems to me that there are moral obligations we owe to people and other mammals that should come first. [APPLAUSE] 

So I’m going to leave you with this Copernican question and this choice: Where does that leave us now? We have pressure coming from these two sides – animals becoming more conscious, plants possibly becoming conscious, insects becoming conscious. That’s pressing on us in a way that we can decide is positive or negative. And then on the other side, at the same time, we have computers making claims for consciousness. Who do we identify with? Who do we have more in common with, the AIs who can speak our language in the first person, or the animals that can suffer and feel and grow old and die? Who’s team are we on? The choice we make, as a species, will have tremendous consequences for who or what we admit into this circle of moral consideration, and how we conceive of our place in the world. 

Host: More from Michael Pollan when we return…

I’m Neil Harvey. You’re listening to the Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature.

Host: At a recent Bioneers conference, Michael Pollan was interviewed by Dacher Keltner, an author and Professor of Psychology at UC Berkeley who served as the lead scientific consultant for the two animated “Inside Out” films by Pixar that explore the role emotions play in our lives.

Dacher Keltner (DK): I remember talking to you five years ago or something, kind of in the wake of This is Your Mind on Plants, and then How to Change Your Mind. And I remember we were walking in the Berkeley hills, and you were saying, you know, it’s like, well, what’s up next, and you’re like: I think I’m going to write a book about consciousness. And I laughed at you. [LAUGHTER] And I thought, well, that’ll be the end of your career, [LAUGHTER] and no one will buy that book. You know? And you’ve just been sort of jaunting around the wo—it’s a sensation! I mean, it’s like you’re all over the place; it’s a best-seller; it’s stirring all kinds of conversations. What’s going on? 

MP: Good question! I have no idea. [LAUGHTER] I don’t know what’s going on. I mean, I think— 

So I started on this book. It grew out of How to Change Your Mind. Right? I was having these psychedelic experiences, and like anyone who’s had psychedelics, suddenly consciousness is foregrounded. You’re like—the windshield of perception has been smudged, and you’re like: Shit, there’s a windshield. [LAUGHTER] And you start—You start thinking about that windshield, and why is it the way it is. And so I got curious. And my writing usually follows my curiosity. 

DK: One of the first persons to figure prominently is this kind of mysterious philosopher at NYU, Thomas Nagel. I love his book The View from Nowhere. 

MP: Yeah I do too. 

DK: It’s spectacular. What a great— 

MP: He’s a critic of reductive science. 

DK: Yeah. 

MP: And, he wrote a famous essay in the early ‘70s, before there was a lot of scientific work being done on consciousness, called “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” Provocative title. And his thesis was that if it’s like anything to be a bat, if it feels like anything, then a bat is conscious. 

Now, we don’t know what it’s like to go through the world as a bat. You know? We use light to navigate the world, and they use echolocation. Right?  So they bounce sound waves off of things. But we can sort of imagine that. 

DK: Yeah. 

MP: Enough to say, yeah, they’re probably conscious. So that became the question you ask of any creature. Does it feel like anything to be X? It doesn’t feel like anything to be your toaster. How do we say for sure that anything is conscious?  How do I know you’re conscious? We infer it in the case of— 

DK: I’m insulted. 

MP: —other people. [LAUGHTER] But, you know, we have to infer it, I mean, because we don’t have access to anyone else’s consciousness. You know, we can use symbol systems to learn something about it,  like language.  But there is—I mean, William James said the breach between two consciousnesses is the greatest breach in nature, and so how do we cross that?  And imagination is an important tool. We have theory of mind, which is…you know, philosopher talk for the ability to imagine someone else’s point of view. 

DK: So one of the beauties of the book is, as always, you take us on a journey, and it’s interesting because you kind of flip the typical Western approach to the mind, the Cartesian approach of you start with reason and sophisticated thinking and syllogistic logic and so forth, and you go—you start with sentience, and you move upwards, out of the brain stem and into the cortex. And, you know, I want to see where you land, and keep pressing you. 

Sentience, just the registering of sensations in all the different modalities by which we receive sort of information from the outside, it’s remarkable. You know? It truly is. You think about the skin – it’s 7 pounds and billions of cells, and all kinds of information is going into your brain stem and your somatosensory cortex telling you where you are, and who’s touching you, what that touch means. You think about the new science of smell, how we create spaces and meaning and memory and childhood nostalgia out of smell. I mean, sensation’s deep. Right? And it’s great that you start there. 

MP: I would add one thing to your definition of sentience, which is kind of a more basic form of consciousness. I think it’s maybe universal,  I mean, among all living things. But there’s valence too. There’s a recognition of, this is good or bad for the organism. 

DK: Right. And then you take us to plants, and, you know, I think a lot of us in this room, in particular at Bioneers, revere your scientific reporting and experience in writing of plants. And the new science on sentience of plants blew my mind. You know? 

MP: Yeah. They have 20 senses. 

Photo: Sergei Aleshin / Shutterstock

DK: God! 

MP: I know. They can sense gravity, I mean, and pH, and all these things that we can’t sense. 

DK: And then they know kin, they know non-kin, they know cooperators. 

MP: They can see. I mean, you know, there are vines that will change their leaf form to imitate the plant they’re climbing up, to hide. I mean, how do they see what the leaf form is and then how do they change themselves? We have no idea. 

DK: Yeah. So what did that tell you about consciousness, the plant science? What did you start to think? 

MP: So, it’s quite remarkable what plants can do. We’re fooled by the fact that they’re so still. But they have behaviors. They’re just slower than ours.

So these scientists call themselves plant neurobiologists. They know there are no neurons, they’re just trolling more conventional scientists. And it drives them crazy that they talk about plant neurobiology. So there’s a whole lot of these very cool experiments showing that plants can hear and see; they—in ways we don’t really understand. 

I don’t conclude that plants are conscious because I think that word has specific meanings tied to being a mammal, at least. But I do think they’re sentient. And sentience, as I said, is a simpler form of consciousness that may well be universal. I think even single-celled creatures have sentience. I think you can’t survive in a world that’s constantly changing without sensing your environment and knowing what’s good or bad for you. 

And so, yeah, that’s kind of where I came out on plants. And then I realized, well, consciousness is the way humans do sentience. And so every creature has its own version of sentience that’s appropriate to its body type, its sensorium, the scale at which it lives, and it would be anthropomorphic of us to say that, you know, plants are conscious the way we are. And they’re not. They don’t have interiority, I think. They don’t have a voice in their head. They can’t talk to themselves, all these amazing things that we can do. 

Michael Pollan and Dacher Keltner speaking at Bioneers 2026. Photo: Tammy Horton/Boris Zharkov Photography

DK: One of the things that scientists like myself appreciate about your writing is often scientists become unlikely heroes in your books, and one of your heroes is Michael Levin. 

MP: Yeah, he’s an amazing biologist. This is a biologist at Tufts who—I urge you to look him up. He studies how animals regenerate themselves. And he’s very interested in bioelectric fields.

Now, I didn’t know what these were. They were discovered in the ‘30s, but that any multi-cellular thing will have a bioelectric field that is organizing it, holding memories,  enforcing a division of labor among cells in a multi-cellular situation. The study of this didn’t really begin until the ‘80s, when we developed these voltage-sensitive dyes. Before that, when the cell died, the field was gone. So unlike DNA, which survives the death of this—of the animal, and you can study it—or plant, bioelectric fields were very elusive. But now with these dyes, you can study them. And he’s really shown how powerful they are. 

He works with planaria, which are these worms that, if you chop off a tail, they regenerate a tail; you chop off a head, they regenerate a head. They’re kind of amazing. And he teaches them something. He conditions them and then he chops off their head. They grow a new head, and they remember the lesson. Which means that the information that they had learned was stored in their bodies, in this bioelectric field, not in the brain.

So his kind of covert project is a takedown of the neuron and the gene. Which is, you know, pretty ambitious. So it’s a really interesting project, and he believes that the simplest beings are cognitive beings. The way evolution works is it creates cognitive beings that can solve problems, and that you can’t hardwire everything because our world is so changeable.  The world, the environment  in which they live is so changeable. So that creatures need sentience in order to navigate a world that’s constantly changing, and it’s a very compelling vision. 

Host: Over the course of his research for his book, Michael Pollan found at least 22 distinct and often divergent theories of consciousness, as well as a theory about the specific consciousness of consciousness researchers. He believes it’s a clear indicator of how nascent the field remains, and how ineffable a mystery consciousness is.

MP: Non-local consciousness is a term for idealism. I mean, that’s what the philosophers called idealism. And that is the idea that consciousness is outside of our brains, and the job of the brain is to channel it, and that we’re like radio receivers or TV receivers, and we’re tuning in to consciousness. And it can be different kinds of consciousness.

Aldous Huxley uses that model in Doors of Perception. And he argues that psychedelics expand what he called the reducing valve, because we only let in that amount of consciousness that helps us survive. That would be the Darwinian explanation of like we only know these, but psychedelics opens it up and suddenly you feel like you’re more conscious.

I don’t know how you prove idealism. I think it’s a metaphysical idea, so I don’t think it’s susceptible to scientific proof. It’s consistent with all the brain science we’ve done on consciousness, which sounds crazy, but, you know, the brain is obviously involved in that system as well, it just has a different role. It’s not generating, it’s bringing in, and so damaging or changing the brain in some way would change consciousness. So it holds either way. 

Cristof Koch, you know, he was the ultimate brain-centered researcher. He was the head of the Allen Brain Institute in Seattle, he worked with mapping individual neurons. He really believed brains generated consciousness, until he went to Brazil and had an experience on ayahuasca, which I talk about in the book. And he had an experience of consciousness outside of his brain, and it gave him this crisis. He was like crying to his wife, it was such a big crisis. And he got very interested in idealism. I don’t know where he is right now, but the last time I talked to him, he was engaging with this idealist philosopher named Bernardo Kastrup. 

So you know, I don’t know what to make of that, honestly. Same with panpsychism. That’s another theory that solves the hard problem, but at a high expense, the expense being consciousness didn’t evolve or arise, it was always here, and it’s part of matter, that all matter has some degree, small degree of consciousness, and somehow it gets combined from all these—you know, the consciousness of our individual particles and cells into the kind of consciousness we have. 

Another interesting idea – you’ve solved the problem. It’s sort of like physics when they say, well, we can solve quantum mechanics if we stipulate a multiverse, that there are 50 different worlds. Okay. That’s a high price to pay, but okay.

Host: Michael Pollan and Dacher Keltner, “Exploring the Mystery of Consciousness”

The post Exploring the Mystery of Consciousness with Michael Pollan and Dacher Keltner appeared first on Bioneers.

An investor in the Wressle and West Newton fields warned today that government policy has made its UK business “increasingly difficult to progress”.

In annual accounts, Union Jack Oil blamed successive governments for:

“complex planning, regulatory burden and high taxation, resulting in unpredictable approval timeframes bringing additional uncertainty, significant cash costs and lost opportunities”.

Union Jack’s executive chairman, David Bramhill, said:

“the cost of maintaining a number of our non-producing UK licence interests has become increasingly difficult to justify regardless of their potential future value”.

The company, which recently invested in the US, gave up interests in 2025 at Biscathorpe and North Kelsey in Lincolnshire and at Dukes Wood and Kirklington in Nottinghamshire, the accounts said. They added that Union Jack was also in the process of relinquishing its stake in the Laughton licence in Lincolnshire.

Mr Bramhill said:

“During the remainder of 2026 and beyond, the Company intends to continue to review the merits of its UK non-production licence interests while prioritising asset allocation in favour of growing its hydrocarbon exploration, development and production enterprise in Oklahoma.”

The accounts also said Union Jack “believes investors will only wish to provide finance to companies and projects that support a transition to a low-carbon economy. As part of the Company’s ongoing strategy in respect of the environment, Union Jack commits to be totally transparent in respect of its projects and on how its carbon management practice is implemented”.

Union Jack said it remained focussed on interests at the Wressle oil site, in North Lincolnshire, where the operator has just published estimates on emissions resulting from a proposed site expansion.

The Wressle development would “support the company with revenues for at least another decade”, Union Jack said.

The company said it also continued to invest in the oil site at Keddington in Lincolnshire, where production resumed in mid-2025 after site upgrades. Planning consent is already in place for a sidetrack to one of the existing wells. The location has been finalised and the well would be drilled “when the operator deems appropriate”, Union Jack said.

At West Newton, in East Yorkshire, Union Jack said the partners had been “evaluating ways of generating additional value through early production schemes, ahead of any longer-term full gas field development”.

Last year, one of the investors at West Newton proposed using the sites for cryptocurrency mining.

Earlier this year, the Environment Agency approved plans for lower-volume fracking at West Newton. The approval is being challenged by a local campaigner (details here and here), whose crowdfunder has so far raised more than £1,800.

Key figures for year ending 31 December 2025

Gross profit: £691,001 (2024: £1,968,101)

Net loss (including impairment of Biscathorpe and North Kelsey): £7,029,350 (2024: £649,213)

Basic loss per share: 5.68p (2024: 0.61p earnings)

Admin expenses (excluding impairment): £2,477,222 (2024: £1,878,089)

Total assets: £19,083,850 (2024: £23,846,105)

Total liabilities: £2,251,878 (2024: £1,975,354)

Net assets: £16,831,972 (2024: £21,870,751)

Net current assets: £1,365,622 (2024: £3,172,066)

• Many transit agencies are unlikely to fully recover from the pandemic anytime soon, particularly since remote work appears here to stay, at least for white-collar workers who used to ride commuter rail to their downtown office. The long-term trend looks better, though, as long as young people keep flocking to cities. (Governing)
• Amtrak is an exception, with ridership up almost 6% between October and April, and smaller operating losses than projected. (Trains)
• Speeding kills 12,000 a people a year in the U.S., leading some states to mandate devices on repeat offenders’ cars that limit how fast they can go. (Jalopnik)
• After testing cargo e-bikes for deliveries in New York, Amazon is expanding their use to other cities. (NY Times)
• The Texas Supreme Court sent a lawsuit challenging Austin transit expansion Project Connect back to a lower court to rule on a jurisdictional issue. (KVUE)
• Texas transportation officials are negotiating potential routes for high-speed rail between Dallas and Fort Worth and Dallas and Houston (Fort Worth Report). The attorney general’s lawsuit is one reason why costs keep rising and Project Connect’s centerpiece, a downtown light rail line, keeps shrinking (Texas Tribune).
• Transit ridership in Atlanta almost doubled in March to 4 million, after MARTA changed how it collects ridership data (11 Alive). GoTriangle ridership in the Raleigh area was up by a third in April, which officials attributed to high gas prices (ABC 11).
• The chairman of Atlanta Journal-Constitution owner Cox Enterprises, who comes from generational wealth and has probably never ridden transit in his life, came out against Beltline light rail, even though it’s been part of the plan going back to the Beltline’s inception in the late 1990s.
• Seattle Bike Blog challenged a nonsensical op-ed in the Seattle Times that claimed bike lanes make drivers “fatigued” and blamed safety projects for sending drivers into road rage.
• It wasn’t a surprise that Oregon Democrats’ proposal for small hikes to the gas tax and payroll tax to fund transportation failed, but the fact that 83% of voters rejected it was a shock. What does that mean for November elections? (KGW 8)
• Downtown Phoenix has hundreds of broken parking meters. (AZ Family)
• San Diego residents took advantage of Amtrak to avoid crowded roads over Memorial Day weekend. (KSBY)
• Toronto’s frequent bus service, even in relatively low-density neighborhoods, made it the only North American transit system where ridership rose in the decades following World War II, showing that suburbanites will ride the bus if it’s convenient. (Infrastory)
• A European human rights court ruled that a food courier’s viral TikTok rant against bus-only lanes in Tbilisi, Georgia crossed the line between free speech and personal abuse. (Courthouse News Service)

Even before the summer travel rush began this Memorial Day weekend, Yosemite National Park was seeing enormous crowds—more than 836,000 visits so far in 2026, according to National Park Service data, about 100,000 more than this time last year.

During the pandemic, Yosemite started using some form of reservation system to manage crowds. Yosemite had one of its busiest seasons in 2025, with about 2.9 million visits through August, up 7% from the same period in 2024. Despite the high visitation rates, the National Park Service announced in February that Yosemite would not require timed-entry reservations in 2026, saying a review of 2025 traffic and parking data showed that a season-wide reservation requirement was not the most effective approach.

Last weekend, wait times to get into the park exceeded 90 minutes, and in some cases visitors were told to turn around. Once inside, visitors experienced completely full parking lots and overcrowding at popular sites within the park. Andranik Arakelyan, a visitor who previously opposed reservation systems acknowledged their value, saying, “There’s just not enough capacity, like infrastructure and the employees to handle all of this traffic.”

“Without any limits on the amount of vehicles, the amount of people, it becomes overwhelmed,” said John Buckley, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center executive director. “The best accessibility is when there’s managed park conditions so that the number of vehicles is balanced with the amount of parking and the capacity of the roads,” said Buckley.

Quick hits Yosemite overwhelmed by traffic and crowds as park ends reservation system

ABC7 News | San Francisco Chronicle

Wyoming lawmaker aims to block future roadless areas despite overwhelming support for roadless protections

WyoFile

Billionaire buys Idaho state trust land to keep it undeveloped

Jackson Hole News & Guide

Residents of Mountain West towns warned they could run out of water after a terrible winter turns to a summer of drought

New York Times

Could changes at the U.S. Forest Service impact wildfire response in Oregon?

KATU

Wyoming BLM in a bind between DOGE firings’ impacts and energy development push

Cowboy State Daily

Essay: Treat water like family, not profit

High Country News

Podcast: The most underrated sites at America’s national parks

Vox

Quote of the day

The Forest Service’s own assessment found that building roads in these areas would actually increase the risk of fire, and another analysis shows that 85% of wildfires are human-caused.”

—Representative Andrea Salinas of Oregon, WyoFile

Picture This

@usinterior

Waves shimmer beneath the cliffs of Channel Islands National Park, where golden wildflowers bloom brightly above the Pacific.

Have a peaceful Sunday!

Photo by Tim Hauf

Featured image: Source: Yosemitenps

The post Yosemite overwhelmed by traffic, crowds as park ends reservation system appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) recently published a special report warning that rising food prices will persist alongside global geopolitical instability. They call for nations to build “resilient self-reliance” across global food and agriculture systems to ensure greater food security and economic sovereignty.

In an increasingly interconnected global market, food commodities are exposed to supply chain volatility risk caused by geopolitical instability, the report says. Retaliatory tariffs, military conflict, and the recent reduction in foreign food aid packages have exacerbated economic issues facing farmers today. The report notes that attacks in the Gulf region threaten global food security due to volatile energy markets: “Over one-third of global urea and sulfur exports—key ingredients for nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers, respectively—pass through the Strait of Hormuz.” Such disruptions “will likely have global consequences due to rising oil prices that could spill over into food and fertilizer prices,” the report asserts.

“The impact of high energy prices will likely drive up the cost of food more than fertilizer alone because our food systems are so fossil fuel-dependent,” says Jennifer Clapp, a member of the IPES-Food panel and lead author of the special report. In places like the United States, these additional costs come as farmers are projected to experience an approximate 2.6 percent loss in real income (inflation-adjusted dollars) relative to last year.

The report discusses the efficacy of supply management policies—market intervention strategies including quotas and importation limits—in high-income nations like Canada. “The food system has become so volatile, and we are so vulnerable to food price inflation that we feel like we need to do something,” says Clapp. In Canada, for example, public management of dairy products helps to insulate local farmers from global market volatility by allowing them to sell their commodities at profit-generating prices.

But rising food insecurity rates in Canada indicate that diversifying the range of supply-managed commodities can help improve local resilience. Clapp, who serves as a Professor and Research Chair at the University of Waterloo, Canada, tells Food Tank that “as one in four [Canadians] face food insecurity, diversification is a really important policy for us to ensure access to more fresh fruits and vegetables.”

The report highlights public food stockholding programs as pragmatic policy options for nations at risk of food insecurity. By pooling agronomic resources from primarily small producers, West African nations are able to collaboratively store food to quickly disseminate based on the needs of municipalities within the region.

To decouple local food production systems from global markets, nations must reconcile the demand of consumers with systemic policy transitions. “Thinking about diversity of diets is important because it can change those demand patterns. If people were eating more beans, tofu [etc.], there’s a way in which we can envision dietary change helping to facilitate more diverse production systems,” Clapp tells Food Tank.

For example, U.S. livestock production depends on corn and soybeans as inputs, two crops that currently serve as the largest users of nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides. Because of this structural reliance, Clapp argues that a diverse, plant-based diet puts eaters “already way ahead” in terms of both ecological impact and resilience to energy shocks.

This need for resilient self-reliance is even more urgent in the global South. As the special report notes, “The impacts of rising food prices are highly uneven. Net food-importing countries in the Global South have been hit the hardest, with inflation peaks reaching up to 30% in May 2023.”

While these nations have a massive opportunity to insulate themselves from global market turmoil by pioneering localized, self-reliant food strategies, doing so effectively requires international debt relief. Ultimately, as the report emphasizes, “the most vulnerable countries have the most to lose from the way the current system is organized, they also have the most to gain from leading the transition towards self-reliance and protection from dependency.”

Central to this transition is a food sovereignty approach that prioritizes equity, diversity, and local agency. By using market management tools to protect smallholders, nations can transition away from cash-crop dependence and cultivate traditional crops. The report highlights that these mechanisms “act as stabilizing buffers, support smaller-scale and more diverse producers, and improve access to food for marginalized and vulnerable people,” building deep ecological and economic resilience against future global shocks.

Meanwhile, recent U.S. dietary guidelines recommend increased protein intake for healthy adults, which many interpret as a push for greater meat and animal product consumption. This focus on animal protein runs counter to calls for the diverse, plant-based systems needed to build global food resilience.

While geopolitics remain complicated and uncertain, structural shifts in consumption patterns could redefine agricultural dependency. As Clapp emphasizes to Food Tank, modifying these foundational demand patterns is essential: “If it’s going to be protein, it needs to be more plant-based protein.”

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

Photo courtesy of Jim Niakaris, Unsplash

The post A New World Order: How Nations Can Tackle the New Geopolitics of Food appeared first on Food Tank.

Nearly 1.15 million registered nurses (RNs) with active licenses are not working as nurses, announced National Nurses United (NNU). NNU reached this number by comparing the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data, released on May 15, with data covering the same period from the National Council of the State Boards of Nursing.

More than half of the projects are driven by forecasted load growth, marking an evolution in transmission planning from an emphasis on accessing low-cost renewables to “now also reliably meeting growing customer demand,” CAISO said.

The approved portfolio includes about 3.8 GW of new capacity, anchored by 2,088 MW of gas generation, along with 1,100 MW of wind, 189 MW of solar and 472 MW/1.9 GWh of battery storage.

The Bay Area is facing its biggest threat to public transportation in decades. With a looming fiscal cliff, major transit agencies—including BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit—may soon have to make difficult decisions to close stations, reduce frequencies, and shorten hours of operation. 

A major grassroots campaign, however, might avert this crisis on the November ballot to secure long-term funding and ensure that our public transit can provide critical services to our communities.

On May 26, the Connect Bay Area campaign  announced it collected more than 305,000 signatures to qualify a regional transit funding measure for the November ballot—crushing the minimal threshold of 186,000 required signatures. the measure will create a ½ percent sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties; San Francisco County will have a 1-percent sales tax. Taxes collected from this measure will be used to fund the transit operations for BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit while also funding transit transformation improvements to safety, cleanliness, convenience, and seamless integration of transit services. 

“The success of this effort is built on one of the largest grassroots transit organizing efforts the region has ever seen and major support from business and labor organizations,” celebrated the campaign on a statement announcing the achievement.

Greenbelt Alliance is proud to be part of this grassroots coalition and endorse the Connect Bay Area Campaign, mobilizing volunteers and petition signers to achieve this important goal. 

"The Bay Area's public transit is a core pillar of our region's ability to usher in a climate-smart, affordable, and just future. Greenbelt Alliance is excited to be a part of this grassroots coalition to help protect and enhance our public transportation and reduce pollution."

Amanda Brown-Stevens, Executive Director

The campaign has grown in support over the last several months with more than 80 elected officials and more than 90 labor groups and advocacy organizations signing on in support. Major businesses from across the region have helped to fundraise over $5.5 million so far to get the measure on the ballot and prepare for the November election.

The more than 300,000 signatures will now be officially counted and validated by the Departments of Elections for each of the five counties over the next few weeks before the measure can officially be placed on the ballot.

How We Got Here

Funding for transit agencies in the Bay Area relies heavily on fares and local revenue sources, so when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and ridership plunged, a substantial amount of that funding disappeared. For a while, agencies were able to stay afloat due to the federal relief stimulus, but that has quickly dried up, and California has not stepped in to address those deficits. Without yearly State funding and with ridership only slowly recovering to pre-pandemic levels, agencies are not seeing the revenue needed to continue operating at full capacity.

To put this into perspective, here is what will happen in 2027 if we do not pass the transit measure:

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

• Red and Green lines will be phased down to just peak hours in January 2027. The Grey line will close at this time, too. The blue line will close in July 2027.
• 15 stations with the lowest ridership will close, including Millbrae and Warm Springs, by July 2027. 
• 70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles by July 2027. 
• 30% fare increase in January 2027, and a 50% increase in July 2027. 
• The agency will face a $355-$385 million budget deficit (30% of the operating budget)
• Without a funding pathway by mid-2028, BART may have to stop all operations. See more details here.

SFMTA Muni

• There will be a 50% cut of Muni services 
• There will be an elimination of fare discounts and pass programs for youth and seniors
• The agency will face a $322-$398 million budget deficit (25% of the operating budget)

AC Transit

• There will be a nearly 40% cut to services
• The agency will face a $51-$72 million budget deficit (10% of the operating budget)

Caltrain

• The agency will run 1 train per hour and cut all weekend service
• The agency will face a $65-$76 million budget deficit (42% of the operating budget)

These monumental disruptions to operations are direct consequences of the fiscal cliff. However, it does not account for the myriad ramifications down the road for managing traffic, tackling climate change, meeting our housing needs, and ensuring an affordable California for all.

“Fuming” with Greenhouse Gases

With 41% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from the transportation sector, losing major parts of our public transit system will allow for even more cars on the road and weaken our ability to fight the climate crisis. Without BART, drivers can expect their commute to extend by 12 more hours per week and see traffic across the Bay Bridge surging by 73%. This means less time with family and friends doing the things we love. 

In the long term, this may lead to worsening climate hazards, including droughts, flooding, and wildfires. More cars will also be a direct threat to our health and well-being, causing more air pollution, compromising air quality, and increasing respiratory-related illnesses. By maintaining our public transit system, we can reduce GHG emissions and avoid these catastrophic changes to our communities.

Communities Connected to Transit

Three words encapsulate our housing abundance strategy: transit-oriented development (TOD). In the last two decades, many urbanists have turned their attention to creating walkable, affordable, and resilient communities that are well-connected to the places where people work, study, and play. A cornerstone of this vision is built on the idea that we should promote more homes near our public transit corridors.

BART TOD projects like MacArthur Station provide residents access to the vibrant Temescal neighborhood, while allowing easy access to commute to downtown Oakland or San Francisco. Even new project proposals like the Caltrain-adjacent Hillsdale Reimagined in San Mateo demonstrate the durability of TOD in renovating underutilized buildings and turning them into lively community spaces. 

That is why Greenbelt Alliance co-sponsored Senate Bill 79 in the California legislature, which makes it easier and faster to build homes near public transit. While SB 79 is now law, the risks of public transit’s fiscal cliff diminish the law’s application by making fewer sites viable for TOD upzoning. Other proposed TOD projects funded by transit agencies will likely be reevaluated, too. This could all delay much-needed affordable housing in the Bay Area and worsen the housing crisis.

Saving public transit goes far beyond just our means of commuting. A healthy public transit system reduces traffic, protects us from pollution, reduces GHG emissions, creates resilient neighborhoods, and supports new housing. If the more than 305,000 signatures are validated by each county’s Department of Elections, the measure will officially be on the November ballot. For more information about the Connect Bay Area campaign or to get involved, please visit connectbayarea.com

The post Connect Bay Area Transit Funding Measure Crushes Signature Goal For November Ballot appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.