News Feeds

The most recent US dietary guidelines have taken a sudden U-turn, suggesting that there should be doubling of animal protein intake in the country. In a recent analysis, scientists warn that the new diet—which also recommends reducing the intake of ultraprocessed foods—would more than offset any benefits of that move with the suggested spike in animal proteins, triggering rising greenhouse gas emissions, land, and fertilizer use.

The guidelines result from the work of a scientific panel called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which meets every five years to review and update dietary recommendations for the United States. Those are usually adopted into the official guidelines: these were the focus of the current PNAS research.

In it, the scientists looked at the environmental outcomes of current and previous dietary recommendations. They simulated diets in which ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) were completely eradicated, alongside varying levels of suggested protein intake—in one scenario matching animal protein intake to previous years’ guidelines, which suggested Americans should consume about 0.8 grams per kilogram weight of protein. In another, they simulated a diet that reflected the upper bound of what the new guidelines recommend, which is a doubling of that previously suggested protein intake to 1.6 grams per kilogram weight.

In each case they explored the greenhouse gas impact, land-use, and fertilizer consumption effects of the particular diet, and compared the findings with the mean American diet.

This revealed that even though the new diet does cut environmental impacts by reducing intake of UPFs—which have a high animal protein content overall—this was more than offset by the rising animal protein intake. In fact, the analysis shows that increasing protein intake would cancel out the environmental benefits of UFPs by an excess of 32%.

 

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

 

The paper highlights one plus of the new suggested diet, which is a reduction in water use by between 7 and 19%, compared to the mean American diet. However it notes that the suggested diet would otherwise “confer net environmental harm” across almost all environmental metrics. And besides, a diet low in UPFs but higher in plant-based proteins would tick all boxes, the study finds, lowering water use even further, bringing down greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer, and land use. 

“There is considerable potential benefit for both public and planetary health if prevailing diets remove UPFs, and replace them with plant dominated whole foods,” the researchers write.

Meanwhile, nonprofits, scientists, and health professionals not involved in the research have collectively noted that the new guidelines reject the majority of recommendations made by the DGAC science panel, and that the process this time around involved significant conflicts of interest with the US meat and dairy industries.

As a closing note in the PNAS paper, the researchers call for an urgent realignment of the guidelines with established science and evidence, which time and time again has shown the harmful effects of excess meat and dairy consumption on human and planetary health. 

Shepon et. al. “The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans are associated with higher land, water and nitrogen use, and greenhouse gas emissions.” PNAS. 2026. 

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

Headline News:

• “Elon Musk Said He Wouldn’t Take SpaceX Public, But Two Things Changed His Mind” • The stress of taking Tesla public seems to have worn Musk down tremendously. He said he would not do that again. But he needs money for SpaceX, and with the IPO that is coming, he will be able to retain control of 85% of the company’s stock. [CleanTechnica]

Lift off (Kim Shiflett, NASA, public domain)

• “How Hot Conditions Could Impact The World Cup” • The World Cup is set to begin during one of the hottest times of year in more than a dozen cities in Canada, the US and Mexico, and several of the host cities may see high temperatures during the soccer tournament. High temperatures that may put athletes and even spectators at risk. [ABC News]
• “Mexico Reaches 5 GW Of Distributed Solar Power” • Mexico has reached another renewable energy milestone. From 600,368 installations across the country, Mexico reached 5,164.98 MW of small-scale, distributed solar power capacity by the end of 2025. Net metering has been a key driver of small-scale solar growth in the country. [CleanTechnica]
• “Nordex Wins 255-MW German Haul” • Nordex Group has secured orders totalling 255 MW for fourteen wind projects in Germany during the first two months of the second quarter. The orders cover 39 turbines, including nineteen N163/6.X units, eleven N175/6.X units and nine N149 turbines, according to the company. [reNews]
• “Greek Solar Producers With CfDs To Get Paid When Prices Reach Zero” • Currently, when prices are zero or lower for two consecutive hours, solar power producers with contracts for difference (CfDs) don’t get paid. The Greek Energy Ministry decided that renewable energy producers will be paid when the price is zero. [Balkan Green Energy News]

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

By Frank Sekyere, Programs Manager for Upcycle It Ghana

Every morning, millions of garments are pulled from racks across Europe and the United States – purchased with excitement, worn a handful of times (if at all), and then discarded in favour of the next trend. But where do those discarded clothes go after being cast aside? Many second-hand clothes travel halfway across the world to Africa. Here, they meet a cruel fate, overwhelming the local markets, poisoning the environment, and exacerbating the global textile waste crisis. This global trade is marketed as charity, but the reality is much darker: it perpetuates a vicious cycle of waste colonialism with severe environmental and social consequences.

The Hidden Cost of Charitable Donations

Kantamanto Market in Accra, Ghana, stands as a ground zero for the textile waste crisis. Each week, approximately 15 million garments discarded by the Global North arrive in shipping containers, labelled as donations or charitable goods to help the less fortunate and promote reuse. Yet, EU data from 2019, which includes the UK, shows that Ghana was the second-largest destination for Europe’s used-clothing exports by volume, behind only Tunisia.

The truth is that 40% of the clothing sent to Ghana is waste, unsellable and of such poor quality and often damaged, that they can’t be resold. This waste clogs drainage systems, inundates landfills and pollutes the environment. These garments were intended to be a source of aid, but in reality, they are nothing more than a burden.

Textile waste – a plastic-dominant, toxic-saturated waste stream containing complex chemical mixtures – often exhibits characteristics consistent with hazardous or other wastes under the Basel Convention. In Ghana, these textiles are either burnt or left to decompose in landfills, releasing toxic chemicals into the soil and air and damaging the local environment. The smoke from burning textiles contains harmful substances like carbon monoxide, dioxins, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which have been linked to respiratory problems and other health issues in local communities. 

A Story of Waste and Hope

Consider the story of Beatrice, a fish seller from Jamestown Beach in Accra. She walks down the shore every morning, carefully picking through the waste that washes ashore, often finding her catch mixed with discarded textiles. “The waste disturbs us,” she says. “When fishermen go fishing, they come back with fish mixed with plastic and textile waste. We have to remove all the garbage before selling it.”Beatrice’s story is not unique; it is one shared by countless others in Accra. Textile waste has infiltrated every part of their lives, from their markets to their beaches and likely even them, through contamination of the food chain. 

Yet, despite these daily struggles, there is hope. Organisations like Upcycle It Ghana are working tirelessly to turn this waste into a resource by training artisans and young people to repurpose discarded textiles into bags, accessories, and even upcycled fashion. However, it is important to recognise that, despite these efforts, the growing volume of textile waste means end-of-life solutions remain severely limited.

Less than 1% of textile waste is recycled into new clothing, while most materials, especially synthetic and blended fabrics, still have no effective recovery options. And even handling these materials could be harmful to workers because post-consumer polyester contains chemicals from dyes, finishes, detergents, coatings, flame retardants, microplastics and other additives. 

How Overproduction of Virgin Plastic and Fast Fashion Contributes to the Crisis

At the centre of the textile waste crisis is market distortion, the relentless flood of artificially cheap plastic feedstocks like polyester, acrylic and nylon into the fashion industry. These synthetics, derived from fossil fuels and highly subsidised, are now so inexpensive that they outprice natural fibres like cotton, wool and linen.

The result is a race to the bottom, brands cut costs to maximise profits and compete against cheap suppliers who often turn to these plastic fabrics. Yet the inherently low quality means they are designed for disposability rather than longevity. Garments are produced cheaply, worn only a few times and then given away. Studies show that the average time clothing is worn before disposal has declined, with as many as one in five fast-fashion products discarded after no more than 10 wears. A stark contrast to the clothing of previous generations, which was designed to last. 

This throwaway culture is not confined to wealthy countries. As discarded clothing is shipped to developing countries like Ghana, the cycle continues. In Kenya, it is estimated that 55,500 to 74,000 tonnes of textile waste are generated each year due to the flood of second-hand clothing imports. The poor quality of many of these garments, a direct result of the fast-fashion model, means they are often not reusable, contributing to the growing problem of textile waste.

This situation is compounded by the fact that local industries in these countries are unable to compete with the cheap, low-quality textiles flooding their markets. In Ghana, local textile industries have been forced to close or scale back, unable to compete with the influx of second-hand clothing. This leaves the country with a double burden: it imports waste and also loses out on the potential benefits of a thriving domestic textile industry.

What Needs to Change?

The solution to this crisis is not simple, but it starts with accountability and addressing the root cause: overproduction. 

Fast fashion brands must be held accountable for their role in this crisis. Brands that profit from the overproduction of cheap garments must take responsibility for the waste they create. There is an urgent need for binding national, regional, and global agreements to support Extended Producer Responsibility and hold producers legally accountable for the resources used, emissions generated, and waste produced across the entire lifecycle of clothing.

Another important step in addressing the textile waste crisis is ending the export of cheap, low-quality second-hand clothing to Africa and other destination countries. Countries in the Global North must stop using developing nations as dumping grounds and instead invest in local, meaningful solutions to manage their waste responsibly at source. Only clean, sorted material destined for legitimate reuse markets should be traded.

As the Basel Convention’s fifteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG-15) in June considers options to address used textiles and textile waste within its work programme, there is a clear opportunity to take action to close this gap. Textile waste should be subject to the same baseline controls as other polluting and hazardous waste streams, including classification as “other waste” under Annex II of the Convention, making it subject to mandatory Prior Informed Consent procedures and additional control measures. This will preserve legitimate reuse and recycling markets while ensuring that mixed, contaminated or low-quality textile waste is properly controlled.

Consumers also need to be educated on the environmental impact of their clothing choices. By promoting sustainable fashion practices, such as buying quality second-hand or investing in durable garments, we can reduce demand for fast fashion and its waste.

Governments should be proactive in implementing transparency measures to track the routes, destinations, and fate of used clothes, and in enforcing quality checks at their ports for second-hand clothes, ensuring that only suitable garments are imported for legitimate reuse and recovery. A strict eco-design and detox strategy must be enforced by banning hazardous chemicals and phasing out fossil-fuel-based synthetic fibres in textile production and final products to shift to a truly circular, sustainable model. 

How Are You Contributing to Solving the Waste Crisis?

The global textile waste crisis is a daunting challenge, but it’s one we can solve, together. Real progress begins with the choices we make every day: buying less, choosing better, reusing more, and refusing to be trapped by the cycle of fast fashion. The time to act is now, because every conscious decision, no matter how small, helps build a more sustainable and just future!

References

Ahiable, E. (2021). Textile waste in Ghana: Impact on the environment and health. Journal of Environmental Studies, 15(3), 5-12.

Acquaye, A., & Manieson, J. (2023). Textile waste management practices in Ghana: Challenges and opportunities. Waste Management and Research, 31(1), 45-58.

Changing Markets Foundation. (2023). The impact of textile waste and microplastics on the environment. Retrieved from https://www.changingmarkets.org

Greenpeace. (2024). The impact of textile waste on the environment: Case studies from Africa. Greenpeace Africa.

Kantamanto Market and Environmental Pollution: The Role of Secondhand Clothing Trade in Ghana. (2022). Journal of African Environmental Research, 9(4), 35-47.

Mensah, L., & Agyemang, D. (2023). Textile waste from fashion shops and imported second-hand clothing in the Greater Kumasi Sub-Region of Ghana: A call for policy change. Environmental Challenges, 22(2), 57-70.

Ricketts, L. (2023). The Or Foundation’s advocacy for sustainable textile economies in Ghana. The Or Foundation. 

The post From the EU’s Closet to Africa’s Dumpsters: How Fast Fashion Fuels the Textile Waste Crisis in Africa first appeared on GAIA.

hambachforest.org – Osaka88 login agent boasts an impressive collection of slot machine games that cater to all types of players. Whether you prefer classic themes or modern graphics, there’s something for everyone.

One standout title is “Dragon’s Treasure,” a visually stunning game packed with exciting features and rewarding bonuses. Players are often drawn in by its captivating storyline and immersive gameplay.

For those who enjoy adventure, “Jungle Quest” offers a thrilling experience filled with wild animals and hidden treasures. The engaging soundtracks further enhance the excitement as players spin the reels.

Another popular choice is “Lucky Fortune.” With its vibrant colors and cheerful symbols, this game brings good vibes while offering ample winning opportunities.

Each slot game is designed not only to entertain but also to provide chances for significant payouts, making them irresistible to both new and seasoned players on Osaka88 Agent.

Introduction to Slot Machines and Osaka88 Login Agent

Online slot machines have revolutionized the gaming experience, bringing vibrant visuals and engaging gameplay right to your screen. For fans of spinning reels, Osaka88 Agent is a standout platform that caters to both novice players and seasoned veterans.

What sets osaka88 login site apart is its extensive library of games. You’ll find everything from classic fruit machines to modern video slots with immersive themes. This diversity ensures that there’s something for everyone.

User-friendly navigation makes it easy to explore different categories and discover new favorites. With just a few clicks, you can dive into thrilling adventures or chase jackpots from the comfort of your home.

As technology advances, so do online slot experiences at Osaka88. The agent offers top-tier graphics and sound effects that enhance every spin, making each game feel like an event in itself. Whether you’re looking for relaxation or excitement, this platform delivers on all fronts.

The Future of Online Slot Machines: Virtual Reality Technology

Virtual reality technology is set to revolutionize the online slot machine experience. Imagine stepping into a fully immersive casino environment from your living room. Players can interact with vibrant, 3D graphics that bring games to life in unprecedented ways.

With VR headsets, you’re no longer just clicking buttons; you’re pulling levers and spinning reels as if you were at an actual slot machine. This sensory involvement enhances engagement and excitement.

The social aspect also evolves. Players can meet friends or make new ones in virtual spaces, sharing experiences while trying their luck on various machines.

As technology advances, expect even more realistic animations and sound effects that transport players deeper into the gaming world. The future promises a blend of strategy and entertainment like never before, making each spin more thrilling than the last.

Conclusion and Recommendation for Playing Slot Machines on Osaka88 Agent

Choosing to play slot machines on Osaka88 Agent is a decision that brings excitement and potential rewards. The platform offers a diverse selection of games, from classic favorites to innovative new titles, ensuring there’s something for every type of player. With user-friendly navigation and secure transactions, players can focus on enjoying their gaming experience without unnecessary distractions.

The benefits of playing with Osaka88 go beyond just the games themselves. Their customer support team is dedicated to enhancing your experience by providing assistance whenever needed. This commitment ensures that players feel valued and supported throughout their gaming journey.

For those looking to maximize their chances of winning, utilizing strategies and understanding the mechanics behind each game can be advantageous. Coupled with responsible betting practices, players can enjoy hours of entertainment while maintaining control over their gameplay.

Whether you are a seasoned player or new to online slots, exploring what Osaka88 Agent has to offer could lead you down an exciting path filled with opportunities for fun and fortune in the world of online gaming.

The post Popular Slot Machine Games Available Login Osaka88 Agent appeared first on HAMBACHFOREST.

In the United States, data centre developments have become an increasingly pressing issue for many communities. They bring noise pollution, water contamination, and higher utility...

The post A data centre may be coming to your neighbourhood  first appeared on Spring.

AFTER ANOTHER YEAR of wildfires, floods, heat waves, and extreme weather-induced evacuations, Indigenous communities are facing the brunt of devastating climate change impacts caused by fossil fuel extractivism, capitalism, and colonialism. Indigenous youth in particular are experiencing acute mental health impacts related to loss of land-based knowledge. 

Despite these impacts, Indigenous youth across Turtle Island continue to lead in the protection of their territories through approaches such as clean energy leadership, food sovereignty initiatives, land back movements, and international climate policy. However, their perspectives remain underrepresented within academic research and political decision-making. 

Youth Climate Corps

The Youth Climate Corps (YCC) is an emerging response to these overlapping crises. Open to Canadians aged 35 and under, the YCC equips young people with training and meaningful employment focused on climate mitigation, adaptation, and emergency response. As of Budget 2025, the federal Liberal government proposed a two-year YCC pilot, allocating $40 million over two years starting in 2026–27 to provide paid skills training for young Canadians to “quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery, and strengthen resilience in communities across the country.” While the federal government has announced the pilot, the program remains in the design phase, and decisions around implementation and governance have yet to be made — presenting a critical opportunity to ensure YCC upholds Indigenous sovereignty and supports existing Indigenous-led climate solutions from the outset.

The federal government has framed the program as a way to reduce youth unemployment while strengthening climate resilience and emergency response capacity. In the face of tariffs, AI-related job loss and a recession, the YCC can be thought of as a jobs guarantee, protecting young workers — who are often first laid off — from long-term wage loss, debt and economic instability. These pressures are particularly acute for Indigenous youth, who continue to face disproportionately high rates of unemployment, underinvestment, and barriers to culturally relevant training and employment opportunities.

Paradoxically, Canada faces both an unemployment crisis and a skilled labour shortage. Jobs in the green economy are growing rapidly, but there aren’t enough trained people to fill them. Labour market data shows over 327,000 jobs in the environmental and clean tech sector in 2021, an increase of 10.4 percent from 2020. A net-zero transition could create up to 40,000 new jobs by the end of the decade — representing emerging career possibilities that align with Indigenous-led climate solutions focused on renewable energy, land stewardship, food sovereignty, housing and climate resilience.

The contradiction is even sharper when considering public spending priorities. At scale, YCC could create nearly 20,000 full-time jobs annually with an investment of $1 billion a year.

This amount represents only a small fraction of the $594.8 billion federal budget and of the $29.6 billion in public financial support directed toward fossil fuel and petrochemical companies in 2024 alone. The program could be bolstered by a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies; the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent tax on these companies could generate $4.2 billion in revenue over five years. The same companies that are set to make a record $90 billion in excess profits due to the war in Iran. Redirecting even a portion of these profits toward Indigenous-led climate initiatives and youth employment would represent a meaningful investment in a just transition.

While Canada continues to funnel billions of dollars to the oil and gas sector, Indigenous communities and nations are leading climate solutions across Turtle Island. Indigenous communities are partners and leaders in 20 percent of Canada’s electricity-generating infrastructure — almost all of which are producing renewable energy. There are nearly 200 medium-to-large and over 2000 small-scale Indigenous-led clean energy projects in operation in Canada. Indigenous communities are simultaneously advancing a renewable energy transition, resisting new fossil fuel infrastructure, and prioritizing well-being. Many are undertaking initiatives to build food, water, housing, and energy security, strengthening community resilience and sovereignty in the process. 

YCC is an opportunity to invest directly in this existing leadership by supporting Indigenous youth in building skills, accessing meaningful employment, and continuing to expand community-led climate work that is already underway. Rather than imposing external solutions, a YCC could help scale intergenerational, land-based, and Indigenous-led climate solutions that are already building resilience and sovereignty despite often being implemented with limited resources and government support. 

Indigenous Youth Leadership

In June 2025, the federal government rushed through Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, granting Cabinet sweeping powers to fast-track “nation-building projects” at the expense of Indigenous rights and environmental protections. The false promise of “economic reconciliation” offered by industry and governments trades limited short-term financial benefits for environmental destruction, chronic health problems, and continued exploitation of people and the planet. Instead of supporting efforts towards self-determination and obtaining consent, governments and proponents are co-opting reconciliation through economic means, such as project participation, revenue-sharing, and procurement contracts. 

If a YCC is to be done right, we must avoid reproducing greenwashing narratives and prioritize Indigenous self-determination and existing Indigenous-led climate solutions already being successfully implemented. As it stands, the YCC is a unique opportunity to move beyond business as usual. 

Core components of the vision for a YCC focus on the innate responsibility to centre Indigenous knowledges, leadership, and sovereignty while building equity in historically underserved communities. 

As Indigenous peoples, we have always taken care of our lands and waters. With a YCC predicated on Indigenous self-determination, we can leverage large-scale funding to enhance work already underway. Providing additional funding towards green skills and capacity building at the national level would also signal fiscal and strategic support for Indigenous-led climate solutions. Through a YCC, we can create real momentum towards a just transition by intentionally investing in the leadership of Indigenous young people across the country. 

Indigenous youth are already leading climate advocacy and community resilience work because of their connection to the lands and waters, their relationships with their communities and cultures, and their sense of responsibility for future generations. As the YCC pilot is developed, the program must recognize and support the existing work of Indigenous youth, nations, and organizations. This requires moving beyond one-size-fits-all approaches to create meaningful, culturally relevant opportunities that reflect the distinct priorities, knowledge and leadership of Indigenous communities.

Indigenous youth are motivated to join the green workforce, but they continue to face systemic barriers to participation. With youth guidance, a YCC can provide the resources and opportunities to overcome these challenges.

1. For organizations like Sacred Earth, a YCC could provide critical funding to scale up Indigenous-led climate solutions. Capacity building and informed decision-making are major determinants of project success in Indigenous communities, and access to a YCC would strengthen communities’ financial capacity to lead and implement their own projects.
2. A YCC must support partnering organizations that are architecting this work themselves, such as Indigenous Clean Energy. Since 2016, Indigenous Clean Energy has supported approximately 500 Indigenous youth across the country in building green skills, accessing mentorship opportunities, and finding meaningful employment through programs like ImaGENation, Generation Power, and the 20/20 Catalyst Program. A YCC must not only consider new opportunities for our communities, but also how to sustain existing programs amid growing uncertainty in the federal funding landscape.
3. By prioritizing Indigenous knowledge and sovereignty through a YCC, this program gives communities the potential to define a “green job” for themselves and create culturally responsive climate solutions. For Indigenous communities and organizations like kâniyâsihk Culture Camps, having a green job encompasses land-based work, language and culture revitalization, and Indigenous food or energy sovereignty. A YCC program must allow communities to contextualize green jobs for themselves and allocate resources to grassroots, land-based, and community-led work.

As the YCC moves through the design phase, these priorities must be reflected in the program’s governance, funding and implementation. The following recommendations outline key considerations for ensuring the YCC upholds Indigenous self-determination and existing Indigenous-led climate solutions. 

The Way Forward: Green Jobs in a Good Way

 

1. Respecting Indigenous Knowledge and Experience

A YCC must centre diverse Indigenous knowledge(s) from First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities across Turtle Island. Understanding these distinct lived experiences will support a YCC in applying a community-relevant framework for advancing a just transition.

It is imperative that a YCC learn from and support — not supplant — Indigenous-led projects that are revolutionizing the climate, environment, and renewable energy sector. Indigenous communities are already leading the way and have the experience to provide direction. 

2. Upholding Indigenous Governance and Sovereignty

The Canadian government must uphold Indigenous sovereignty during program design and implementation – going beyond consultation towards a Nation-to-Nation approach. This includes obtaining free, prior and informed consent before proceeding with any project on Indigenous territories. 

The guidance of an Indigenous council or advisory body can ensure that the program respects and aligns with diverse Indigenous worldviews, legal structures, and governance models. By working in true partnership, a YCC can honour and include First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities through equitable governance and decision-making processes.

While implementing the YCC program, Indigenous Nations and governments must have the ability to define green workforce priorities themselves. In practice, Indigenous communities accessing the YCC program should be able to define and decide which training and workforce opportunities are foregrounded.

3. Equity and Justice

A just transition is only “just” if it is led and informed by the communities who will be most affected by the climate crisis — particularly underrepresented demographics, including but not limited to Indigenous, Black, racialized, and disabled persons, members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, newcomers, youth, and Elders. Prioritizing equitable and accessible opportunities through a YCC will be an ongoing process requiring consultation, partnership, and meaningful accommodations with and for communities. 

As one of the key demographics of this program, Indigenous youth must be meaningfully woven throughout the development and implementation of a YCC. A YCC cannot leave behind any youth – it should seek to provide culturally responsive support, while reducing barriers to participation. This includes investment in those transitioning away from extractive industries and who require reskilling for a green career pathway. 

4. Indigenous Workforce Development

Indigenous employment and cultural networks can be utilized to strengthen and streamline economic and workforce development. A YCC should partner with Indigenous businesses and trade networks to employ Indigenous youth in culturally appropriate, green careers — such as renewable energy, green housing, clean water initiatives, land sovereignty and food security. These initiatives benefit the wider community and are vital for health, well-being, and resilience in the face of impending climate disasters.

5. Sustainable Funding Sources

The Canadian government must sufficiently fund the engagement and design of the YCC program to meaningfully represent Indigenous communities accessing this resource.

To provide funding equitably, the YCC should specify that, after administrative costs, a portion of the funds should be allocated to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis youth, nations, organizations, and communities. To respect the sovereignty of Indigenous community partners, nations should have the autonomy to govern the funding and employment processes themselves. This may include the involvement of band councils, traditional forms of governance, Indigenous-led non-profit organizations, or other forms of Indigenous leadership. We recommend adopting funding approaches with the ability to work alongside Indigenous governance systems, rather than restrictive, colonial funding structures.

Citation:

Mendizabal, Serena and Aubrey-Anne Laliberte-Pewapisconias, Bushra Asghar, Farron Rickerby-Nishi, and Doug Hamilton-Evans. “The Youth Climate Corps and the Indigenous Green Jobs Revolution,” Yellowhead Institute. June 09 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/the-youth-climate-corps-and-the-indigenous-green-jobs-revolution

The post The Youth Climate Corps and the Indigenous Green Jobs Revolution appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

Large loads pose additional challenges for cooperatives. Planning strategically is critical.

One platform. Fewer silos. Better billing and payment experiences for utilities and customers.

The data on outbound calling: higher enrollments, strong sentiment, surprising insights

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, has reportedly marched back into the legal arena in Australia, this time demanding more money in the long-running brawl over who should pay for the Northern Endeavour clean-up — the offshore decommissioning saga that has become a cautionary tale for anyone who thought selling ageing oil assets made the liabilities magically disappear.

According to Upstream, Shell has “upped the ante” in a decommissioning legal wrangle centred on the Northern Endeavour floating production, storage and offloading vessel, with the dispute involving former partners Woodside Energy and Paladin Resources. The article, by Amanda Battersby, was published on 8 June 2026 and frames the fight around costs tied to the Northern Endeavour FPSO.

The public record makes the story look even messier. Shell has reportedly launched a fresh claim of more than A$83 million in the Western Australian Supreme Court against Woodside and Paladin. That comes after an earlier claim of about A$86.6 million over levy payments linked to the same clean-up nightmare. Add interest, legal costs and future exposure, and this is no longer just a tidy invoice dispute. This is a fossil-fuel family argument with a taxpayer-funded ghost ship floating in the background.

The Northern Endeavour is not some minor bit of scrap with delusions of grandeur. It was a 274-metre FPSO formerly moored between the Laminaria and Corallina oil fields in the Timor Sea, about 550 kilometres northwest of Darwin. The Australian Government says there are nine oil wells on the seabed associated with the fields. After the former private owner collapsed, the Commonwealth took control of the facility and moved to decommission, disconnect, dispose of the FPSO and remediate the fields.

That is where the real fun begins — if your idea of fun is corporate archaeology performed with court documents and a very expensive shovel.

The basic argument, as reported publicly, is that Shell says it sold its interests in the Laminaria-Corallina assets to Woodside and Paladin back in 2005 under agreements that allegedly shifted environmental, abandonment, reclamation, remediation and restoration liabilities to the buyers. Shell says, in effect: we sold, you assumed, now reimburse us.

Woodside and Paladin, unsurprisingly, have not responded by throwing rose petals at Shell’s feet and reaching for the cheque book. The earlier reporting says both disputed responsibility. Hence the courtroom theatre.

The reason this matters beyond the three corporate names is that Northern Endeavour has become one of Australia’s defining offshore decommissioning fiascos. The Commonwealth created the Offshore Petroleum (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy), known as the OP Levy, to recover the costs of decommissioning and remediation from offshore petroleum production licence holders. The official line is simple: the public should not be left paying for these activities.

Which sounds sensible — until the industry starts arguing about which corporate pocket the bill should land in.

The Northern Endeavour story has all the ingredients of a classic late-life oil asset drama: ageing infrastructure, changing ownership, regulatory reform, collapsing operators, decommissioning complexity and a clean-up bill that appears allergic to staying small. The result is a legal wrangle where Shell, having paid levy assessments, is trying to pass the cost back to former counterparties under old sale agreements.

For the public, the bigger question remains brutally straightforward: how many times can oil companies sell, transfer, restructure and contract around liabilities before somebody is finally made to clean up the mess?

Because decommissioning is not a footnote. It is not an optional extra. It is the back-end cost of extracting hydrocarbons from the sea and leaving heavy industrial hardware behind. The Northern Endeavour case shows what happens when the end-of-life chapter is treated like tomorrow’s problem — until tomorrow arrives with lawyers, regulators and an invoice.

Shell’s position appears to be that the contracts say one thing. Woodside and Paladin appear to disagree. The court will have to decide what those old agreements actually mean, and whether Shell can claw back the money it says should never have been its burden.

But whatever the legal outcome, the optics are spectacularly grim for the industry. The public sees an old oil vessel. The government sees a decommissioning project. The regulator sees a hard lesson. The companies see a liability allocation dispute. And everyone else sees a familiar fossil-fuel magic trick: profits in the good years, legal footnotes in the bad ones.

The Northern Endeavour may be headed for dismantling, but the argument around it is very much still afloat.

SPOOF PR/SPIN SECTION: “A PROUD MOMENT IN RESPONSIBLE INVOICE REDIRECTION”

In a bold display of corporate sustainability, Shell today reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that decommissioning costs are handled by whichever historical contract clause looks most persuasive under courtroom lighting.

A fictional Shell spokesperson, speaking from behind a tasteful wall of compliance language, said:

“Shell has always believed in responsible decommissioning, responsible partnerships and responsible reimbursement. We are proud to play our part in the energy transition by transitioning invoices to the entities we believe are contractually responsible for them.”

The spokesperson added that Shell’s legal action should not be viewed as a dispute, but as “a collaborative multi-party alignment process concerning legacy fiscal responsibility allocation.”

Woodside, in this entirely spoofed PR universe, responded:

“We remain committed to best-practice stakeholder engagement, which is why we are engaging with Shell through the traditional stakeholder engagement mechanism known as litigation.”

Paladin, meanwhile, was imagined standing quietly in the corner, clutching a 2005 agreement and whispering: “Please define ‘all’.”

The Australian taxpayer was unavailable for comment, having stepped outside to scream into the Timor Sea.

SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

DecomBot3000:
“Asset sold. Liability detected. Historical contract clause activated. Commencing blame-allocation protocol.”

OffshoreRiskEnjoyer:
“So the oil came out in the easy years and the invoices came back in the courtroom years. Classic reservoir management.”

LegalEagleButMakeItOily:
“This is why lawyers keep both hard hats and microscopes.”

Taxpayer_404:
“I was told the levy means the public won’t pay. Lovely. Now please explain why I can still smell burning public money.”

FPSO_FanAccount:
“Northern Endeavour has had more plot twists than a streaming drama and somehow worse production values.”

CorporateSpinDetector:
“When three companies argue over who pays to clean up the old oil kit, the only guaranteed winner is the legal profession.”

TimorSeaTea:
“Imagine being 274 metres long, decommissioned, removed, and still causing boardrooms to sweat.”

ContractClauseGoblin:
“Somewhere in a 2005 sale agreement, one sentence is having the best week of its life.”

GreenwashGPT:
“Decommissioning is just circular economy, but with more subpoenas.”

Final bot verdict:
Northern Endeavour: physically leaving the field. Legally? Still moored.

SHELL UPS THE ANTE IN OZ DECOMMISSIONING LEGAL WRANGLE: THE NORTHERN ENDEAVOUR CLEAN-UP BILL THAT JUST WON’T DIE was first posted on June 8, 2026 at 9:58 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The company with the biggest stake in the Wressle oil field has agreed a £1m loan from the site operator, Egdon Resources.

Wressle oil field in North Lincolnshire. Photo: Egdon Resources

Union Jack Oil announced in a statement to investors this morning the loan would provide it with “additional working capital for general purposes”.

The statement said the loan was secured against Union Jack’s 40% stake in the Wressle licences, PEDL180 and PEDL182, in North Lincolnshire.

Union Jack has previously reported that it was debt free. At the time of writing, shares in the company had fallen 2.78%.

The Wressle well produced an average of 119 barrels of oil per day for Union Jack during 2025, according to annual accounts published last month. The average oil price at the time was US$68.2 per barrel.

Loan terms

Under the loan terms, Union Jack must pay 60% of its free cash flow generated from Wressle each month. This will first be applied to unpaid interest and then to reduce the loan principal.

If free cash flow from Wressle was insufficient, interest for that month would be capitalised and added to the loan balance.

The loan must be repaid in full after 24 months. The interest rate is 5% per year.

Restrictions

The agreement also requires Union Jack to support Egdon’s role as the Wressle operator. Union Jack cannot “vote or act to remove or replace the lender as operator (except in cases of gross misconduct”.

If Union Jack wants to sell its interest in the Wressle licences, Egdon now has the right of first refusal before any third parties are approached. This will last for 12 months after the repayment date.

*Read the full position paper with detailed analysis and demands for all key negotiating topics here*

Climate Justice in an Age of Genocide, Militarism and Climate Breakdown

SB64 (the 64th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, from June 8-18 in Bonn, Germany) convenes at a moment when the contradictions shaping the international climate regime have become impossible to ignore. Across the world, communities are confronting escalating climate impacts alongside deepening militarisation, debt crises, economic instability, shrinking civic space, rising authoritarianism and the continued concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small number of states, corporations and financial actors. The climate crisis is unfolding not in isolation, but resulting from a global political order structured by histories and ongoing acts of colonisation, imperialism, racial capitalism, patriarchy, extractivism and the continued sacrifice of peoples and ecosystems in the pursuit of profit for a few.

DCJ joins social justice movements around the world standing in solidarity with the peoples currently resisting the imperial attacks by the nexus of the U.S.-Israel and its allies across the world, especially Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Haití, Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others. We stand in solidarity with peoples across the world who have been on the receiving end of imperial wars, invasions, attacks to their sovereignty and their right to self-determination. We condemn the subjection of civilians to warfare for territory, natural resources, or religious conflict anywhere and everywhere. We stand in strong opposition to the perpetuation of human and environmental suffering across the world.  We commit to a solidarity not based in words but in actions. There cannot be emancipation and liberation with ongoing imperial and colonial capitalism, which must be our first priority to dismantle.

This context matters because climate negotiations are not politically neutral spaces. They are shaped by the same global inequalities that produced the crisis. The countries and corporations most responsible for climate breakdown continue to hold disproportionate power over the terms of climate action, while the peoples and communities most affected continue to fight for their rights and justice. Every major issue on the agenda for SB64, from climate finance, adaptation, loss and damage to just transition, fossil fuel phase-out, mitigation and false solutions, reflects a broader struggle over rights, responsibility, redistribution and the future of multilateralism.

The ongoing genocide in Palestine, carried out by Israel with the military, political and economic backing of the United States and its allies, has laid bare the brutality and hypocrisy of the present international order. The destruction of Palestinian life, land, food systems, water infrastructure, energy systems, homes, hospitals, schools and places of worship is not only a humanitarian catastrophe. It is also a profound indictment of an international system that claims to uphold human rights, international law and multilateral cooperation while enabling impunity for occupation, apartheid and genocide. For climate justice movements, this moment demands political clarity: there can be no climate justice while genocide is normalised, while occupation is greenwashed, and while systems of militarism and fossil capitalism continue to destroy both peoples and ecosystems.

The relationship between militarism and climate breakdown is not incidental. Fossil fuels remain central to modern military power, geopolitical conflicts and domination, and global economic control. Military operations depend on oil, gas and petrochemical supply chains; fossil fuel revenues and infrastructure shape conflicts and geopolitical alliances; and the military-industrial complex absorbs vast public resources that could otherwise be directed towards climate finance, adaptation, public services and just transition. At the same time, war and occupation destroy the very systems that communities need to survive climate impacts: land, water, food, healthcare, housing, energy and social infrastructure.

This is why the climate crisis must be understood as part of a broader crisis of power imbalance. The same global system that drives emissions also drives war, displacement, debt, extraction and ecological destruction. It is a system that allows fossil fuel corporations to profit while communities lose homes and livelihoods; that allows governments to expand military budgets while claiming there is no money for climate finance; that allows financial institutions to enforce austerity while climate-vulnerable countries are forced to borrow to recover from disasters they did not cause.

The Global South continues to bear the brunt of this injustice. Countries and communities that contributed least to the climate crisis are facing the most severe impacts while being denied the resources necessary to respond. Many developing countries are trapped in cycles of debt servicing, austerity and extractive dependency that restrict their ability to invest in adaptation, public services, food sovereignty, energy transformation and resilient development. International financial institutions, unequal trade rules, intellectual property barriers and investor protections continue to constrain the policy space required for a just transition. In this context, calls for ambition that do not address finance, debt, technology and historical responsibility will become new forms of burden-shifting.

COP30 in Belém created important openings, but it did not resolve these contradictions. The establishment of the Just Transition Mechanism represented a significant victory for developing countries, workers, Indigenous Peoples, feminist movements, youth, frontline communities and climate justice organisations. It reflected years of organising to ensure that transition is not reduced to market-led technological substitution but understood as a question of justice, rights, livelihoods and systems transformation. The roadmap process on transitioning away from fossil fuels also opened a political space to confront the root cause of the climate crisis. Progress on adaptation and related implementation processes created additional possibilities for advancing rights-based and people-centred climate action.

Yet COP30 also demonstrated the continued resistance of developed countries to fulfilling their obligations. Finance remained inadequate. Article 9.1 continued to be contested and diluted. Adaptation and loss and damage remained underfunded. Fossil fuel interests and false solutions continued to shape climate action. Carbon markets, offsets, carbon capture, financialised nature schemes and other mechanisms continued to be promoted as substitutes for real emissions reductions, public finance and system change. The outcomes of Belém therefore created both opportunities and risks. SB64 is where many of these political battles now move from recognition to operationalisation.

This distinction is critical. The fight after Belém is no longer only about whether Parties acknowledge the need for climate finance, just transition, adaptation, loss and damage or fossil fuel phase-out. It is about how those commitments are interpreted, governed, financed and implemented. History shows that implementation is often where justice is diluted. Commitments secured through struggle can be narrowed through technical processes, weakened through procedural delays, captured by corporate interests or redirected towards market mechanisms. SB64 must therefore be approached as a political battleground over the future direction of climate action.

For DCJ, the demands ahead of SB64 are rooted in a clear understanding of climate justice. Developed countries must fulfil their obligations under Article 9.1 and provide public, grant-based, predictable and adequate finance to developing countries. Adaptation and loss and damage must be financed as matters of rights and reparative justice. The Just Transition Mechanism must be operationalised in ways that support systemic transformation across energy, food, care, labour, public services, critical minerals and development pathways. The transition away from fossil fuels must be rapid, equitable, anti-extractivist and grounded in the political vision emerging from Santa Marta. Article 6 and other false solutions must not be allowed to delay real action or create new markets for pollution and dispossession. Mitigation must remain anchored in equity, CBDR-RC and means of implementation rather than becoming another tool for shifting burdens onto developing countries.

SB64 must also defend the integrity of climate multilateralism itself. This means protecting civic space, ensuring meaningful participation of rights-holders and movements, and confronting corporate capture within the UNFCCC. It means recognising that fossil fuel corporations, big polluters and actors complicit in militarism, occupation and ecological destruction cannot be allowed to define climate solutions or climate action. It means understanding that climate governance will lose legitimacy if it continues to treat the demands of the most affected as negotiable while protecting the interests of those most responsible.

The climate crisis is often described as a crisis of emissions. It is that, but it is also far more. It is a crisis of colonial history, economic organisation, political power and moral accountability. Addressing it requires more than technical implementation. It requires reparations, redistribution, democratic participation, public finance, energy sovereignty, food sovereignty, gender justice, Indigenous sovereignty and the dismantling of the systems that have made both people and planet expendable.

This position paper sets out DCJ’s priorities for SB64 from that perspective. It is written in the understanding that climate justice will not be delivered through incremental adjustments to an unjust system. It will require confronting the structures that created the crisis and building pathways rooted in collective survival, dignity and liberation. Systems change, not climate change.

Climate Finance Work Programme and Article 9.1

Climate finance remains the defining test of whether the climate regime is prepared to uphold the principles of equity and historical responsibility agreed at Rio in the 1992 UNFCCC. Developed countries continue to fall far short of their obligations despite overwhelming evidence that sufficient resources exist to finance transformative climate action. The struggle over Article 9.1 is not merely a debate about financial flows. It is a struggle over responsibility itself.

As articulated in its official submission, DCJ rejects attempts to frame climate finance as aid, philanthropy or voluntary support. Climate finance is an obligation rooted in historical responsibility and climate debt. Developed countries must provide public, grant-based, predictable and adequate finance consistent with their commitments under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. Climate finance must also be understood within a broader framework of reparative justice that includes debt cancellation, reform of the international financial architecture and mechanisms to ensure that those who have profited most from climate destruction contribute proportionately to addressing its consequences.

Adaptation Finance and the Global Goal on Adaptation

Adaptation is a matter of survival for billions of people across the Global South. Yet adaptation finance remains dramatically inadequate despite rapidly growing needs. Communities are already confronting severe climate impacts while lacking access to the resources necessary to strengthen resilience and protect livelihoods.

DCJ calls for a substantial increase in public, grant-based adaptation finance and rejects efforts to rely on private finance and market mechanisms. Adaptation must be grounded in rights, participation, Indigenous knowledge, food sovereignty and community leadership. The continued development of the Global Goal on Adaptation must support implementation rather than becoming an exercise in technocratic measurement detached from lived realities.

Loss and Damage

The climate crisis is already causing irreversible harms that cannot be prevented through mitigation or adaptation alone. Communities are losing homes, livelihoods, ecosystems, cultures and territories as climate impacts intensify. COP27’s establishment of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) represented an important political victory, but current levels of finance remain wholly inadequate compared to actual needs.

DCJ reiterates that loss and damage finance must be understood as reparative finance. It must be new, additional, grant-based and distinct from adaptation and mitigation finance. Polluter-pays mechanisms, including taxes on fossil fuel extraction, extreme wealth and corporate windfall profits, should be advanced as important sources of finance.

Operationalising the Just Transition Mechanism

The establishment of the Just Transition Mechanism at COP30 represented a significant achievement. However, the creation of a mechanism alone does not guarantee justice. A central question in Bonn is whether the way SB64 defines and designs the Mechanism will support transformative change or merely manage the social consequences of existing economic models.

DCJ rejects narrow approaches that reduce just transition to energy sector restructuring or workforce adjustment. Just transition must encompass food systems, care economies, public services, critical minerals, workers’ rights, Indigenous sovereignty and democratic control over resources. The Mechanism must be supported by adequate finance and meaningful participation by workers, Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk, women, youth and frontline communities.

Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

COP28’s commitment in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels marked an important breakthrough, but implementation remains contested. The “roadmap” process initiated under the Brazilian COP30 Presidency (as opposed to any agreed mandate by all countries) must not become a vehicle for delaying action or reproducing extractivist development models under new forms.

Drawing on the political vision emerging from Santa Marta, DCJ calls for a transition rooted in justice, sovereignty, care and democratic control. The transition away from fossil fuels must not be used to justify new forms of extraction, including the expansion of critical mineral supply chains that sacrifice communities and ecosystems in the Global South. Climate justice requires confronting both fossil fuels and the systems of power that sustain them.

Article 6 and False Solutions

Climate justice movements continue to confront the expansion of false solutions that allow polluters to delay structural transformation while claiming climate leadership. Carbon markets, offsets, carbon capture technologies, geoengineering and the financialisation of nature all risk entrenching existing power structures while failing to address the root causes of climate breakdown.

The continued promotion of false solutions reflects the influence of fossil fuel interests and corporate actors within climate governance. SB64 must resist efforts to expand reliance in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) on market-based approaches and instead prioritise real solutions rooted in public accountability, food sovereignty, Indigenous stewardship, community-controlled renewable energy and systemic transformation.

Mitigation Work Programme

The Mitigation Work Programme must remain firmly grounded in equity and CBDR-RC. Developing countries have repeatedly raised concerns regarding attempts to use the MWP as a vehicle for shifting mitigation burdens onto countries least responsible for the climate crisis while developed countries continue to evade obligations on finance and support.

Mitigation ambition cannot be separated from means of implementation. Climate finance, technology transfer, debt justice and policy space remain essential prerequisites for equitable climate action.

Cross-Cutting Priorities

Across all negotiating tracks, DCJ calls for climate action grounded in equity, historical responsibility, human rights, Indigenous sovereignty, feminist climate justice, democratic participation and protection from corporate capture. Climate governance must strengthen civic space, ensure meaningful participation by rights-holders and adopt robust conflict-of-interest policies that prevent fossil fuel interests and big polluters from shaping climate action.

The Challenge Before SB64

A central challenge facing SB64 is not the absence of solutions. Communities, movements and frontline peoples have long advanced pathways capable of addressing both climate breakdown and social injustice. The challenge is whether governments are prepared to confront the structures of power and privilege that continue to benefit from the crisis.

For DCJ, climate action must be rooted in reparative justice, international solidarity and systemic transformation. Anything less will preserve the unequal and unjust systems that created the climate crisis while leaving its underlying causes intact. SB64 must therefore advance implementation in ways that strengthen accountability, uphold historical responsibility and support the system change grounded in the peoples led solutions necessary to secure a just, equitable, healthy life and planet for all.

*Read the full position paper with detailed analysis and demands for all key negotiating topics here*

The post SB64 POSITION PAPER: Advancing Climate Justice in an Age of Crisis appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Press contact: Hannah Lawrence, +436706504192, press@stay-grounded.org The World Cup is ‘flying us to the brink of climate collapse’, say campaigners as final preparations are made for the opening ceremony in Mexico City on Thursday. Stay Grounded has called out the mega-event which is predicted to be the most polluting in history, generating 7.7 million tonnes of CO2 from air…

Source

Reproduction of the demon core. A sphere of plutonium about the size of a softball, it weighed about 13.7 pounds. It was about the size as the core in the bomb that leveled Nagasaki. Notice of Permission: This image is from Los Alamos National Laboratory. Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor LANS makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.

George Harvey

This story is what I would call almost incredible. The President of the United States signed Executive Order 14302, titled “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Base,” which directed the US Department of Energy to stop its operation getting rid of nuclear bomb materials by diluting and dispersing them. The DOE would instead give the weapons-grade plutonium to private industries to use in nuclear reactors.

The amount of plutonium under discussion is to be twenty metric tons. The Fat Man bomb used on Nagasaki contained about 6.2 kilograms, or 13.66 pounds. It leveled about two square miles of the city. Twenty metric tons is enough to make thousands of such bombs.

The plutonium would go to five nuclear energy startups with the idea that it would be used to make electricity. But the theft of just a few pounds of it could be enough to make the terrorist attack on the twin towers look like a children’s game.

U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) commented on this at his official web site. We have reprinted the comment in full, here.

# # #

Senator Markey Decries Security Concerns, Conflicts of Interest with Trump Proposal to Give Weapons-Usable Plutonium to Private Companies

Washington (June 2, 2026) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-Chair of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, today wrote to President Trump urging him to cancel the Department of Energy’s (DOE) plans to give 20 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium—enough for approximately 2,000 nuclear bombs—to private industry for commercial energy use. If implemented, this would be the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies. These plans go against long-standing bipartisan U.S. nuclear security policy, raise serious weapons proliferation concerns, make little economic sense, and raise conflict of interest issues. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently served on the Board of Directors of Oklo, one of the companies that may receive plutonium.

In the letter, Senator Markey wrote, “For five decades, the United States has avoided the commercial use of plutonium and opposed the spread of technology to separate (“reprocess”) plutonium from used reactor fuel. We did so to prevent nations with nuclear power plants (such as Iran) from being able to extract plutonium from that fuel, which they—or terrorists into whose hands it could fall—could use to make nuclear weapons.”

Senator Markey continued, “I am concerned that your Administration is moving forward with plans to transfer plutonium to Oklo not because these proposals make sense for the United States, but because Oklo stands to benefit financially and Secretary Wright is acting in his former company’s interest. Secretary Wright’s close ties to the company present an appearance of impropriety.”

In the letter, Senator Markey requested answers by June 15, 2026, to questions that include:

• Why should the U.S. government facilitate the transfer of plutonium to private industry and the development and export of proliferation prone reprocessing technologies?
• What safety and security measures are planned for the transport of weapons-grade plutonium to private actors?
• What role did Secretary Wright play in the selection of Oklo for the Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program?
• Does Secretary Wright currently have a financial stake in Oklo, and does he stand to benefit in any way from Oklo’s role in this program?

On September 23, 2025, Senator Markey wrote to Trump raising concerns about Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s close relationship with Oklo Inc., a nuclear technology company that suggests a conflict of interest within the Administration that could compromise U.S. national security by providing weapons-usable plutonium to private industry. On September 10, 2025, Senator Markey and Representatives John Garamendi (CA-08) and Don Beyer (VA-08) wrote to President Trump expressing concern over DOE’s plan to transfer at least 20 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry for commercial energy use.

# # #

We should keep in mind that the purpose of the organizations that intend to use the plutonium is to use it to make electricity. It is worth looking at that.

No commercial nuclear reactor has ever been run entirely on plutonium. Reactors using what is called MOX (mixed oxide) are used in France, but they only contain about 11% plutonium, at most. A nuclear reactor that uses plutonium would have to be developed from scratch, a process that would take years.

There would have to be adequate security on the plutonium. This goes beyond meaning that terrorists would not get any of it. The security around moving it would be complex, but it would have to be very sure. If the reactor were in Wyoming and the plutonium at Los Alamos, in New Mexico, it would have to be transported between those sites. How would that be done? It would have to be done entirely in secret, to be safe. But that means secret shipments of a material that is potent enough to make a nuclear bomb out of less than twenty pounds. And that is just one of many considerations.

On the other hand, we have ways to generate electricity that are almost certainly less expensive, do not produce waste, are non-polluting, and are highly reliable. These are solar, wind, and batteries. Solar and batteries are commonly used for off-grid homes, but they can be scaled from up to provide for a power grid. This is not new technology. It is used all over the world. And the electricity it produces is highly reliable and just about the least expensive out there. It can be installed very quickly.

Why would anyone what to pay extra to have bomb-grade materials moved secretly through their communities for the sake of making what may be the highest-cost power available?

 

 

Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice as we explore how the Just Transition
Mechanism can support holistic and integrated transitions across sectors such as energy, food systems and land use.

Monday 8 June 2026

12:00-13:15

Room Berlin

The post Bonn SB64 side event: How can the Just Transition Mechanism support holistic transitions across sectors? appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Driverless taxis spend just as much time driving around without a passenger as regular taxis, according to a new study — a finding that reveals a major shortcoming for a technology that boosters say will revolutionize transportation forever.

The study in the journal Transport Findings reveals that robotaxis spend roughly 45 percent of their total mileage without passengers — which is so close to regular taxis that one transportation industry expert feels he’s been lied to.

“I’ve been assured by these industry insiders that deadheading would fall to very low levels with robotaxis, but it’s pretty clear that’s not happening,” said David Zipper, a contributing writer at Bloomberg.

The concern is obvious: Commercial robotaxis are on the rise across the United States. According to the study —  “Millions of Trips, “Waymo” Empty Miles: California’s First Thousand Days of Commercial Robotaxi Service” — robotaxi prevalence has grown by an average of 15 percent monthly since they were first introduced in August 2023. That 15 percent is consistent across all measures: trips completed, miles traveled and passengers carried.

Here’s a Waymo in San Francisco.

But the potential for robotaxis is also obvious: Unlike traditional taxi companies, which manage individual drivers, robotaxi companies manage fleets of cars. As a result, these companies should be able to program the vehicles’ routes to avoid excessive deadheading. Instead, both traditional ride share and robotaxis travel almost half of their mileage without passengers. 

But change is happening … a little. According to the study, robotaxis now spend an average of 18 minutes empty between consecutive passenger trips, down from 28 minutes since 2023, likely due to an expanded fleet size which has allowed for a more efficient distribution of robotaxis, according to the author of the study. 

Still, author Awad Abdelhalim, added that a larger fleet means more cars deadheading overall, so “it cancels some of those benefits.” 

Awad said he wasn’t surprised by the findings because taxi companies like Waymo are deploying their fleets using the same old methods of offering taxi service — namely by sending cars out of a depot.

“There is quite a bit of deadheading naturally required to distribute vehicles across the service area to be able to serve customers,” said Abdulhalim. He added that traditional ride share has “some ‘natural’ distribution of vehicles based on where drivers are starting from based on home locations.”

Robotaxis also travel without a passenger while waiting to be assigned one, and this measurement has remained steady throughout the course of the study. 

“That’s the biggest problem,” said Zipper. It’s unclear exactly what robotaxis are doing during that time, but reporting from San Francisco and other cities where these cars operate suggests that they are, more or less, driving around aimlessly, passengerless.  

Robotaxis only operate in select metropolitan areas included San Francisco, the Bay Area and Los Angeles, highly congested areas where deadheading only makes matters worse.

“The presence of empty robotaxis does thicken traffic,” Zipper said. “All of these deadhead miles seem to counteract the safety claims that robotaxi companies have.”

Waymo, the company leading the charge on robotaxis, has claimed — extensively, on its website — that its vehicles will make streets safer.

• A Planetizen analysis found that the majority of 13,000 public comments on the House transportation funding authorization bill want Congress to fund transit, walking and biking, safety, wildlife crossings and faster approval for projects. Instead, the bill cuts funding for public transit and passenger rail (Rail Passengers Association). It will also give red states more freedom to spend federal dollars on highways, but give a greater share of funding to mostly blue municipalities (Brookings Institute).
• Two-thirds of Americans over the age of 50 say public transit is important to them, and three-quarters support transit-oriented development, according to an AARP poll.
• After Sound Transit opened the Crosslake Connection in March, ridership on Seattle’s Link light rail system rose by 46 percent (Seattle Transit Blog), making it the busiest light rail system in the country (The Urbanist).
• Sound Transit is also installing fare gates at 14 stations. (KOMO)
• The Philadelphia city council approved a budget that did not include Mayor Cherelle Parker’s proposed taxes on rideshares and deliveries (6 ABC).
• Meanwhile, a state lawmaker from Philadelphia proposed outlawing surge pricing during major events like concerts and games. (NBC 10)
• The Plain Dealer wonders what to do about e-bikes taking over Cleveland sidewalks. Maybe build more bike lanes?
• The transit and transportation safety advocacy group Activate St. Pete endorsed Brandi Gabbard for mayor of St. Petersburg. (Florida Politics)
• Atlanta launched an autonomous shuttle linking MARTA to the Beltline. (AJC; paywall)
• Lincoln, Nebraska’s switch from streetcars to buses really was the result of a conspiracy. (Flatwater Free Press)
• A Huntsville nonprofit refurbishes donated bikes and gives them to the homeless. (WAFF)
• Ethiopia’s air is getting cleaner since it instituted the world’s first ban on importing gas- and diesel-powered cars and started buying electric buses. (DW)
• Toronto is closing a dangerous intersection to cars and diverting drivers elsewhere. (CBC)

The controversial shale gas site at Preston New Road in Lancashire must be returned to farmland by the end of the year, officials confirmed today (8 June 2026).

Preston New Road shale gas site. Photo: Maple Independent Media

Lancashire County Council said in a statement it had served an enforcement notice on Cuadrilla for the site near Blackpool.

The notice requires the removal all plant, buildings, security and acoustic fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hardstanding forming part of the drilling compound within four months.

The land must then be restored to a condition suitable for agriculture within six months of the notice.

The action follows the council’s refusal in December 2025 of Cuadrilla’s application for two more years to complete restoration work.

The statement said:

“the approved timetable for restoration was not met, resulting in unacceptable and unnecessary harm to the rural character of the area.”

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

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

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

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

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

DrillOrDrop invited Cuadrilla to comment on the enforcement action. This article will be updated with any response.

Local reaction

The Preston New Road shale gas site has been widely opposed in the Fylde region of Lancashire and across the UK for more than a decade.

There were more than 18,000 formal objections to the proposal and petitions against it were signed by nearly 92,000 people.

During drilling and fracking, there were daily protests outside the site.

Susan Holliday, from Preston New Road Action Group, said today:

“There appears to have been very little activity at the site over the last twelve months so it is great that enforcement action is finally being taken.

“The time extension that Cuadrilla applied for, over 12 months ago and were refused, has been taken anyway due to procrastination.

“As a local community we just want the blot on our landscape gone and as soon as possible. It will be great if the site is restored to a green field by the end of this year at which point we will have had its presence for 10 years.”

Miranda Cox, from Frack Free Lancashire, said:

“Finally, some meaningful action from Lancashire County Council. We hope it also entails significant consequences for Cuadrilla. 

“For too long, their planning breaches and tardiness in compliance have been indulged. 

“We look forward to finally waving them goodbye. The damaging saga of Preston New Road may finally have an ending for our community.”

Delays and missed deadlines

Cuadrilla was required to restore Preston New Road by July 2023 under the terms of the original planning permission. It missed the deadline.

The company was granted a two-year extension until June 2025 but missed that deadline as well.

Work to plug and abandon the wells finally began in February 2025. Plant and equipment had been removed by November 2025.

But the hardcore that made up the drilling pad, the security and acoustic fencing and access road remained.

In July 2025, the company sought another two years, applying to delay restoration until 30 June 2027.

Cuadrilla said the extension was needed to complete 12 months of groundwater monitoring and environmental monitoring. This had to be completed before site restoration could begin, the company said.

But Lancashire County Council refused permission saying the extension would breach national and local planning policies, which sought to restore the site at the earliest opportunity.

Apart from site decommissioning, the Preston New Road has been mothballed since August 2019 when fracking caused multiple small earthquakes. These included the largest induced by fracking in the UK.

Updated: Lancashire County Council confirmed this morning that the enforcement notice had been served on Cuadrilla.

Reflexiones sobre la seguridad en una época de profunda crisis civilizatoria - Una conversación Fecha y horario * Fecha: 17 de junio, 2026 * Horario: 1pm GMT * Enlace de Registro: Aquí * Participantes: Manuel Rozental (Colombia) y Deepa Sinha (India)

Conceptualizing Security in a Time of Deep Civilizational Crisis - A conversation Date and time * Date: June 17th, 2026 * Time: 1pm GMT * Registration Link: Here * Speakers: Manuel Rozental (Colombia) and Dipa Sinha (India) * Moderation: Madhuresh Kumaralternativesalternativesalternatives