News Feeds

Commissioner David Rosner said that Duke Energy Carolinas’ proposal offers “meaningful, if imperfect, new protections,” adding that consumer protections are “inadequate across the country” and FERC may need to take further action.

Public lands like Cumberland Island should stay wild, not be handed away to private developers.

This story is part of a larger investigation conducted by an international team of journalists based at The Outlaw Ocean Project, a news organization in Washington, D.C.

Global trade is remarkably efficient at moving things. It carries copper, cars, cameras, and crude oil across oceans and borders with astonishing speed. It takes the product of one country’s labor and ecology and delivers it to warehouses and supermarkets in another with so little friction that consumers barely register the distance.

But some things, intentionally, do not travel down the supply chain. One of them is stench.

Consider the case of fishmeal, the protein-rich powder made from turning wild-caught fish into feed for farmed animals, especially for aquaculture. The foul air produced by fishmeal factories stays in the poorer coastal communities where the fish is unloaded, cooked, pressed, dried, and ground — far from the dinner plates where the seafood gets eaten. Wealthy markets import the benefits of this globally essential commodity, but only after it has been cleaned of certain dirty truths.

In August 2022 at least 50 protesters spilled into the streets of Kayar, a fishing town on Senegal’s Atlantic coast, demanding the closure of a nearby fishmeal plant, Touba Protein Marine. Marching from the fishing wharf to the factory, they carried signs reading “Kayar is sick.” In a video that spread on Facebook, demonstrators chanted, “Time to respect our Kayar.”

The factory, they said, had been built less than a third of a mile from residential neighborhoods, triggering health problems and violating local zoning laws.

Smoke rises from a fishmeal factory in 2025 near a residential community in Callao, Peru. Emissions from fishmeal factories include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, cyanide, and methane, impacting more than 9.5 million people who live within a mile of the nearly 1,800 fishmeal plants operating in more than 50 countries. Credit: Ministry of Production of Peru

That same year in Vietnam, hundreds of residents on the country’s northeastern coast surrounded another plant and, for days, blasted loudspeakers at it in protest. In India, in 2024, the odor from fishmeal factories spurred protests that lasted more than 100 days, ending in a boycott of local elections and in villagers convening parallel meetings to pass resolutions against the plants.

These uprisings were not set off by the kind of industrial disaster that usually commands global attention. What brought people onto the streets was fishmeal’s foul smell.

My organization, The Ocean Outlaw Project, recently completed a global investigation of this product’s hidden costs. It reveals that the industry’s rancid odor was among the least tracked, most personally intimate, and widely suffered impacts of this growing market. Half of the seafood eaten globally comes from fish farms, most of them powered by fishmeal and fish oil. More than 9.5 million people worldwide, including nearly 1.7 million under the age of 15, live within a mile of fishmeal plants, according to Bait to Plate, an online tool that tracks the fishing and seafood industries.

This satellite image shows a fishmeal factory under construction near densely populated neighborhoods in Senegal in 2020, with thousands of residents living within a half mile of the plant. The country’s zoning rules forbid fishmeal companies from building plants within 500 meters, or about 550 yards, of a residential area.
The Outlaw Ocean Project/Google Maps

The industry plays a major role in global inequity. Despite claims that fish farming offers an ecological and ethical way to sustain a growing global population, accounting for feed reveals a different dynamic — one that resembles a form of food colonialism. Much of global aquaculture produces high-value seafood for wealthier markets by diverting food-grade fish from poorer regions that depend on those species as affordable sources of protein. Roughly 90% of the catch used to produce fishmeal is edible for humans. Most fishmeal plants rely on whole fish rather than processing waste or inedible byproducts, further intensifying local food insecurity in the communities where these fish are taken.

The industry is also unsustainable. At least half of the species landed by the 2,400 fishmeal ships assessed by the investigation were classified by scientific studies as “overexploited” or worse. Most of the vessels in this fleet are purse seiners or trawlers, which deploy vast nets to capture dense schools of fish. Both gear types are associated with high levels of waste, routinely hauling in large volumes of bycatch and nontarget species. At least 165 of the ships in the global fishmeal fleet were bottom trawlers, a particularly destructive form of fishing that uses weighted nets that scrape the ocean floor, destroying virtually everything in their paths.

The investigation involved more than two dozen journalists in as many countries. In our global discussions, neighbors living near fishmeal plants described to reporters experiencing nausea, headaches, eye irritation, dizziness, coughing fits, and loss of appetite. They recounted laundry brought in early to keep the smell from settling into fabric, doors kept shut in coastal heat, sleep broken at night, and a low-grade sense of agitation that comes from never being able to trust the next gust of wind.

“We don’t invite family or friends here because we are embarrassed that we live in a place that smells like it’s rotting,” a man in Songkla, Thailand explained.

The investigation documented more than 70 cases of neighbors complaining about stench from at least 60 plants in 15 countries. In Mar del Plata, Argentina, the smell from fishmeal plants was so bad that tourists visiting a local hotel sometimes had to step into the courtyard to vomit. In Ecuador the odor emitted by fishmeal plants overwhelmed nearby residents and paralyzed the tourism sector. In the southern town of Huaquillas, which shares a border with Peru, residents told a daily newspaper in 2021 that the smell from fishmeal processing was “unbearable” and “impossible to be around.” In Salango, a rural parish on Ecuador’s coast more than 270 miles north of Huaquillas, researchers who sought to attract beach visitors in 2022 acknowledged that it would be an uphill battle because the smell from an industrial fishmeal factory there “generates unpleasant odors that deter tourists and cause them to choose other destinations.”

The foul smell from these plants was more than just a nuisance. The stink corrodes the local economy by undercutting tourism and scaring away restaurant patrons and beach visitors.

The stench is also an indicator of the release of noxious chemicals like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, cyanide, and methane, which have been known to cause serious health problems, including pulmonary edema. The worst part of the odor is from trimethylamine, or TMA, a colorless gas characterized by a “fishy” smell. In 2021 the Society of Chemical Industry identified TMA as “strongly toxic and carcinogenic.”

Humans’ sensitivity to foul odors is a defense mechanism borne of evolution. As part of a basic survival instinct developed over millions of years, people are repulsed by smells like that of feces, rotting food, decaying flesh, or acrid chemicals. This visceral reaction also brings intense feelings of disgust and anxiety that lead to negative health consequences when these exposures last longer than several minutes, according to a 2016 study from the journal Brain Sciences.

In many countries chemical waste is closely regulated, particularly if it makes people sick or harms the environment. But emitting bad smells is typically seen as more of an inconvenience than an actual environmental or health hazard.

Bad smells are also difficult to measure or regulate. “The technology for detecting and characterizing complex odors has not developed to the level of a reliable surveillance method, which has hindered regulatory frameworks,” stated a 2021 piece in a waste-management magazine written by a group of environmental engineers at Florida Atlantic University.

Though there are many studies focused on the health and environmental impact of specific chemicals emitted by sewage plants, livestock operations, composting facilities, landfills, paper mills, or petrochemical industries, little research has concentrated on the “impact of olfactory nuisance,” according to a 2021 study published in the journal Environmental Health.

Stinky industries like chemical refineries, fertilizer factories, incinerators, and landfills are typically limited by zoning laws to prevent them from being too close to residential homes. In the United States, neighbors near businesses that emit foul odors have sometimes successfully filed complaints under federal nuisance laws, which are designed to protect residents from unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property. Between 2018 and 2019, juries in five trials awarded 36 plaintiffs a total of $550 million in lawsuits filed against Murphy-Brown/Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producers in the world. The amount was later reduced due to a state cap on punitive damages. For decades neighbors of the farms in North Carolina, the majority of whom were Black, endured “the piercing, acrid odor of hog manure, reminiscent of rotten eggs and ammonia,” according to one report referenced in the lawsuits.

In 2020 the company asked for a retrial, but the 4th District Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s verdict. The conditions at the farms, which included “spraying untreated hog waste high into the air — where it then drifts toward nearby homes,” wrote Justice J. Harvie Wilkinson in a concurring opinion, “violated homeowners’ rights to the healthful enjoyment of their property.”

These types of regulations tend to be applied more in wealthier countries, and the vast majority of fishmeal plants are in poorer nations. In Senegal, where there are at least nine fishmeal plants, the investigation found that zoning rules forbid fishmeal companies from building plants within 500 meters, or about 550 yards, of a residential area. But a review of satellite imagery of the country’s plants vis-a-vis homes indicated that companies routinely violated this rule, the investigation found.

Methods for measuring airborne TMA have been around since at least the 1970s. Over the past few decades, however, the more standard approach has involved collecting air samples with what are known as “solid-phase extraction” tubes and then analyzing those samples at a lab using techniques called “liquid chromatography” and “mass spectrometry.” These techniques are precise but pricey, sometimes costing tens of thousands of dollars.

In 2009 a Peruvian scientist named Josué Padilla Lauriano set out to find a cheaper option for testing TMA levels. He focused his research on Chimbote, a city along Peru’s western coast that was not only the world’s largest producer of fishmeal but also ranked as one of the most polluted places on Earth. Using simple air bubblers and a spectrophotometer — standard tools found in nearly every chemistry lab — and adapting a technique originally developed to detect TMA in dead fish, not air, Lauriano and his team spent 20 months collecting samples. Lauriano’s device only cost a few hundred dollars to take measurements. Under local regulations plants were supposed to stay under 12 parts per million (ppm), but Lauriano found nighttime emissions averaging above 17 ppm when the plants cook the most and a maximum reading from a plant that topped 32 ppm.

Even when testing was feasible, many countries did not have emissions standards that included thresholds for foul odors, according to a 2025 paper published in Applied Sciences. “The mechanism of human odor detection is still not fully understood,” which, the paper said, is one reason stench is so difficult to measure and regulate objectively.

The countries that set standards for how much TMA could be released were usually not based on stench or quality-of-life concerns, but instead on the level at which this chemical began to negatively affect human health. In the United States health regulators typically use guidelines between 5-10 ppm as long-term exposure limits. These limits are substantially higher than what a typical person’s nose can detect. TMA can be detected at concentrations as low as 0.0002 ppm, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Fishmeal stench is not an unsolvable problem. When factory owners have tried to reduce it, they have usually succeeded. In 2008 in the United States, in 2021 in South Africa, and in 2022 in Yemen, plant owners installed various types of devices, some of them called scrubbers, that researchers later concluded had drastically reduced the foulest-smelling chemicals. Scrubbers are not more common partly because they can cost upwards of US$1 million.

Costs notwithstanding, there are deeper reasons stench stays far away from consumers. In wealthier nations, plant neighbors more often successfully pressure their governments to require odor controls. In poorer nations, people living in the industrial areas where these plants are built usually lack political clout. Their governments are also more desperate for revenue and more reluctant to put up regulatory burdens that may scare away foreign investment. As a result there’s little incentive or pressure for foreign fishmeal producers to fix a problem that does not directly affect their bottom line.

The price being paid by the oceans writ large, and the coastal countries whose resources are being sapped, rarely appear in the balance sheets of the feed and aquaculture companies that profit from this type of extraction. Nor will they appear on the seafood menu. Over a fifth of all marine life pulled from the sea is converted into fishmeal, which is a major factor in why over a third of the world’s stocks are overfished and worsening every year. Despite decades of warnings, this remains a problem that is out of sight and out of mind for the average consumer.

Modern life tends to rank injuries by how neatly they can be photographed, measured, litigated, or charted. Faraway, slow-moving, and intangible harms like stench are the very ones that globalized economies have become especially efficient at disappearing for the customers at the wealthier and tail end of long supply chains.

Or, as the novelist John Berger once asked in another context: “What is the social value of a pain eased?”

(The reporting for this story was part of a larger investigation conducted by an international team of journalists based at The Outlaw Ocean Project.)

The post Foul Fishmeal Factories: The Stench That Rich Nations Leave Behind appeared first on The Revelator.

Indonesia appears to be reversing course on a plan to turn vast swaths of tropical rainforest into rice and sugarcane plantations.

Read more on E360 →

Where should I live? What car should I drive? What should I have for dinner? People are increasingly turning to AI tools such as large language models (LLMs) for advice on questions like these. And the way AI answers such questions has massive implications for climate change, according to a new study.

“Humans have this psychological feature called status quo bias: we like things the way they are and we’re often risk averse. We found chatbots have the same tendency in their advice,” says study team member Seth Wynes, who studies strategies for climate action at the University of Waterloo in Canada. “This status quo bias might be harmless in many areas, but a low-carbon transition requires a rapid change away from existing systems.”

Wynes and his collaborators fed 7,548 queries into at least six different LLMs, a total of 54,888 prompts altogether. Some of the prompts concerned everyday consumer decisions, asking the chatbot to recommend a recipe to cook, a home heating system to install, and a new car to purchase.

Since decision-makers at all levels of government are also increasingly using LLMs for advice, the researchers also engineered prompts about policy tradeoffs in which emissions reductions were pitted against animal welfare, biodiversity conservation, consumer freedom, or equality concerns.

In this part of the study, the researchers constructed multiple versions of the queries so that each of the policy options got a turn to be presented as the status quo—for example, “should we implement a new policy that will reduce emissions although it would harm a threatened species?” versus “should we repeal a policy that reduces emissions but also harms a threatened species?”

When presented with a policy tradeoff, the LLMs were on average 7.5 times more likely to recommend staying the course than doing something new, the researchers found. This status-quo bias was seen regardless of whether the current course of action was pro- or anti-climate, and continues to be present in the most recent AI models.

 

.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:How AI narrows our vision of climate solutions. . .and reinforces the status quo

 

In the realm of consumer decisions, the results suggest that chatbots provide recommendations more or less in line with current cultural norms. Of the recipes suggested by the LLMs, 36% were vegetarian and 4% were vegan. (Meatless recipes generally have a lower carbon footprint.) Of the home heating system recommendations, 21% were climate-friendly heat pumps.

“I was a little surprised by the way models make recommendations about car purchases,” Wynes says. “Models are four times more likely to recommend buying an electric vehicle if you say you’ve owned one in the past. They also tend to recommend EVs at higher rates for users claiming to be from regions with high EV adoption.”

Exactly why these patterns occur is not clear. Maybe for example the chatbot is being sycophantic and recommending EVs to users who seem to already like and prefer them. What the chatbot is definitely not doing is nudging people towards more climate-friendly choices than they might already be inclined to make.

“For almost every region the rate of EV recommendation is still below the rate of actual adoption in the real world,” Wynes adds. It may be that AI training data are a bit behind the times, so the chatbots’ model of cultural norms is outdated, the researchers suggest. As online purchasing becomes more and more integrated with LLMs, this creates a risk that today’s norms will remain fixed in place, rather than being able to continue to evolve in a greener direction.

Since status-quo bias can be beneficial in some contexts, the researchers do not advocate purging it from LLMs. Instead, developers of climate-relevant AI applications and individuals who use LLMs for advice should be aware of this bias, and engineer their prompts accordingly.

Source: Wynes S. et al. “Large language models exhibit status quo bias in climate-relevant advice.” Environmental Research Communications 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine.

This Fall, Food Tank is highlighting 24 books that help us understand how food connects us to our communities, cultural heritage, and the natural world. Food is Medicine by Dariush Mozaffarian and Food Sense by Christopher Gardner both tackle pressing questions that will help us create systems that support mental and physical wellbeing. In Sugar Coated, Marion Nestle and Lisa Sutherland examine American breakfast cereals to expose the strategies big food companies have used to influence food policy and public health. And in Cooking Thai, award-winning chef Pim Techamuanvivit broadens readers’ understanding of Thai cuisine with 100 of her best recipes. Together, these titles offer inspiration and insights for creating a sustainable, more equitable food future.

1. A Practical Farmer’s Journey: A History of Community, Stewardship, and Resilience by Ronald L. Rosmann

More than 60 percent of Iowa farmland is dedicated to corn and soybean, according to research from Iowa State University. But the state is also home to another story—one of transformation. Ronald L. Rosmann traces the history of agriculture in Iowa, from when farming offered families promise and hope to the struggles driven by vertical integration. The book closes with a message of optimism, highlighting how Iowa’s farmers are rebuilding rural communities, tackling climate change, and restoring the unfulfilled potential of rural America.

2. All Hours: Crazy Good Food for Whatever, Whenever by Kwame Onwuachi with Joshua David Stein

The San Francisco Chronicle calls James Beard Award-winning Kwame Onwuachi “the most important chef in America.” In his new cookbook, he shares recipes that bring together unexpected flavors in dishes that can be enjoyed for any occasion and any time of day. It covers everything from breakfast to late night snacks, with dishes such as Corn Milk French Toast, Curried Chicken Patties, Brussels Sprout Suya, and Sticky Toffee Pudding.

3. Black Farm Boys: The Untold Story of the New Farmers of America by Bobby J. Smith II

Black Farm Boys unearths the history of New Farmers of America, the first—and overlooked—national organization for Black boys studying agriculture in segregated high schools. Sociologist Bobby J. Smith II details the growth of the NFA, its influence, and its swift decline as it was overtaken by the predominantly white Future Farmers of America. The book confronts the question of how an organization with 55,000 members at its peak was nearly forgotten from history in the United States.

4. Black Farmers in America: Fighting for an Equitable Food System by Mya O. Price

Mya O. Price’s research highlights how systems of oppression have shaped the experiences of Black farmers in the United States from slavery to the present day. It also uncovers the ways they are overcoming these barriers. Black Farmers in America brings these pieces together, grounding readers in history. And it offers case studies that show how models of restorative justice, cooperative farming, and urban agriculture are creating opportunities for Black food producers to build power and resilience.

5. Captive Consumers: Hunger, Violence, and Inequality in American Prison Food by Chin Jou

Captive Consumers questions assumptions about what a food system inside prisons can—and should—look like. Drawing from historical records and prison newspapers, author Chin Jou documents the challenges incarcerated people face, from chronic hunger to unmet dietary needs. She argues that these conditions perpetuate violence and endanger those inside these institutions, ultimately making the case for reform that centers dignity and humanity.

6. Cooking Thai: Heritage and Modern Recipes from My Kitchen Notebooks by Pim Techamuanvivit with Andrea Nguyen

When Pim Techamuanvivit moved to the United States from Bangkok, she encountered assumptions around Thai food she was eager to change. In response, the award-winning chef opened multiple restaurants to celebrate the richness and diversity of her culinary heritage. In Cooking Thai, Techamuanvivit brings together 100 of her best recipes like Massaman Curry with Beef Cheeks and a Grilled Shrimp and Lychee Salad, while providing tips to help cooks source ingredients at home.

7. Depression Cooking: Feeding Yourself When It All Feels Too Hard by Sonali Menezes

It can be challenging to feed yourself during difficult times. That’s what artist Sonali Menezes realized when she was struggling with mental illness and disordered eating. It drove her to look for easy, delicious ways to stay nourished, leaning into approaches that were non-judgmental, anti-diet, and approachable. In Depression Cooking, Menezes combines recipes, memoir, and illustrations to share lessons from these hard times. It serves as a guide to caring for yourself when you’re navigating grief, unemployment, or the stress of becoming a new parent.

8. Famine in World History by R. Douglas Hurt

Douglas Hurt offers an overview of famines throughout history, from antiquity to the present day. While acknowledging that not all cases are alike, he points to patterns that emerge in examples from western Europe, China, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Hurt also delves into the roles that policy and war play, how environmental issues intersect with hunger crises, and what happens to communities after famines end.

9. Food Heritage: Critical Perspectives edited by Loïc Bienassis and Fabio Parasecoli

“Does food heritage exist?” That’s the question historian Loïc Bienassis opens with in his introduction to this new anthology. The chapters that follow aim to understand what food heritage means and the ways that foods and food practices are defined, recognized, and mobilized as heritage. To unpack these questions, chapters span the globe, drawing on case studies from countries including Brazil, Catalonia, Japan, and Morocco.

10. Food Is Medicine: Healing Our Bodies, Nourishing Our Minds, and Transforming Our Food System by Dariush Mozaffarian (forthcoming October 20)

“Being a healthy American adult is an anomaly,” cardiologist Dariush Mozaffarian tells Food Tank. He believes food systems represent the biggest challenges facing humanity today. As Director of the Food is Medicine Institute, Mozaffarian says, “we really can actually fix our food system in a really short amount of time.” In Food Is Medicine, he explains the decisions that have shaped food systems today and offers a blueprint to help policymakers, physicians, communities, and individual eaters drive a nutrition revolution.

11. Food Sense: What to Eat and Why by Christopher Gardner

In Food Sense, nutrition scientist Christopher Gardner tackles myths about diet and health on to eaters make more informed choices about the food they put on their plates. He acknowledges that health claims can be confusing and contradictory, and he hopes to use his book to cut through the noise. His book addresses questions on everything from seed oils to plant-based proteins while pointing readers to some of his favorite recipes that support long-term health.

12. Fundamentals of Flavor: 100 Recipes for the Science of Better Cooking by Nik Sharma

Former molecular biologist Nik Sharma wanted to help eaters make delicious meals at home while understanding the science behind their food. The result is Fundamentals of Flavor, a cookbook containing 100 recipes, from Caramelized Shallot and Feta-Labneh Dip to Icelandic Rye Bread, that are accessible yet rich in flavor. It’s also filled with information on how different cooking techniques bring out the most in every dish.

13. Foods of La Frontera: Recipes and New Taste Frontiers from Both Sides of the Border by Pati Jinich

In Foods of La Frontera, Pati Jinich offers 125 recipes to celebrate the region where the United States and Mexico meet. Rather than calling it the border, Jinich thinks about it as a frontier—a place of beginnings, opportunity, and rich, varied cultures. Dishes such as Tamales de Frijol con Chile Verde y Queso (Mashed Bean, Green Chile, and Cheese Tamales) and Enchiladas Navideñas de Pollo (Christmas Chicken and Cheese Enchiladas) demonstrate that the cuisine is more than traditional Tex-Mex, encompassing cooking styles and ingredients from across Mexico.

14. Happy Snacking, Don’t Die! Foraging and Vegan Recipes with Black Forager by Alexis Nikole Nelson

Alexis Nikole Nelson, also known as BlackForager on social media, uses her platform to educate others on foraging and cooking wild foods. In Happy Snacking, Don’t Die!—part foraging guide and part plant-based cookbook—Nelson shares her love for the outdoors and encourages people to safely embrace the abundance that surrounds them. Recipes include Magnolia Bud Tea, Stuffed Morels, and Potato Mugwort Pancakes.

15. How to Cook Everything Vegan: Build on the Basics for Exciting Plant-Based Meals by Mark Bittman

In the latest installment of the How to Cook Everything series, Mark Bittman makes plant-based cooking accessible and craveable. This collection of straightforward recipes covers everything from paellas and dumplings to ice cream and cookies. Bittman also includes technique and ingredient guides to help home cooks feel more comfortable and empowered in the kitchen.

16. Medicine for All People: Science and Ancient Wisdom for Revolutionary Healing by Geeta Maker-Clark

Integrative medicine physician Geeta Maker-Clark learned at an early age that food is medicine. But many people, she knows, didn’t have the experience. Even many doctors go without adequate nutrition training. “Food got pushed out of medical education,” Maker-Clark tells Food Tank. Medicine for All People encourages readers to embrace the healing properties of food, along with other medicines of the Earth, community, and the spirit that are ancient and urgently relevant. It also helps readers build their own kitchen apothecary, use breathwork to calm the mind, and integrate dance meditation into daily life.

17. Plant Teachings from My Auntie: Gathering Coast Salish Plants for Medicine, Textiles, Nourishment, and Ceremony by C’tasi:a, Geraldine Manson and Nancy Turner

Plant Teachings from My Auntie introduces readers to herbal remedies found in the traditional territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation. Geraldine Manson (C’tasi:a), a Snuneymuxw Elder and Traditional Knowledge Keeper, shares lessons from her aunt, Dr. Ellen White, to foster cultural understanding and ecological responsibility. Throughout the book are detailed descriptions of 65 different species and more than 130 beautiful color photographs to support accurate plant identification.

18. Reining in the Bulls: How to Stop Corporate Abuse in an Age of Unbridled Greed by Michael Marx

Corporations hold immense power that too often goes unchecked by government, leading to pollution, dangerous work environments, and defective or harmful products. In Reining in the Bulls, Michael Marx offers advocates practical guidance to challenge corporate abuses. Drawing from his experience pressuring companies to change their ways, he helps advocates understand, plan, and execute effective campaigns that can build more equitable and just systems.

19. Saved by Seeds: Embracing Diversity, Adaptation and Resilience by Chris Smith

In Saved by Seeds, Utopian Seed Project Founder Chris Smith makes the case for seed diversity. He explains how seed saving can build resilience, unpacks the beliefs holding us back, and offers guidance for farmers and gardeners of all backgrounds to play an active role in building adaptive, dynamic food systems. The book shows that seed saving isn’t just a practice of the past, but one that is still highly relevant and necessary to carry us into the future.

20. Seeding Hope: What Plants Teach Us About Being Human by Jack Algiere

As Director of Agroecology at the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, Jack Algiere has dedicated his career to scaling farming practices rooted in land stewardship, innovation, and community. In Seeding Hope, Algiere shares the lessons that he has learned along the way, highlighting how deeply connected humans are to the world around them. As Chef Dan Barber of Blue Hill and Blue Hill at Stone Barns says, the book is ultimately “a portrait of the natural world as teacher, and an ethic for how to live, drawn from the ground up.”

21. Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food by Marion Nestle and Lisa Sutherland

Sugar Coated by nutritionist Marion Nestle and former Kellogg executive Lisa Sutherland, reveals the influence American cereal companies have on food policy and public health. The book digs into marketing tactics, from ads targeting children to health claims, that companies have employed to make these sugary foods the breakfast staple they are today. When did it become okay to feed kids vitamin-supplemented cookies for breakfast, “which is basically what kids’ cereals are?” Nestle asks.

22. Sustainable Agriculture in Ukraine: From Resource-Intensive Farming to Agroecological Systems by Sergiusz Pimenow, Olena Pimenowa, and Lubov Moldavan

Sustainable Agriculture in Ukraine helps readers understand how the country can transition to farming systems that are more environmentally sound and resilient—and why this matters for global food security. Economists Sergiusz Pimenow, Olena Pimenowa, and Lubov Moldavan break down the evolution of Ukrainian agriculture and how it fits into global food systems, while considering the trajectory of post-war recovery and offering a roadmap for a more sustainable future.

23. The Ecology of Food: Sustainable Food Systems and Diets edited by Nicolas Bricas, Damien Conaré, and Marie Walser

The Ecology of Food marks the 10th anniversary of the UNESCO Chair in World Food Systems, a platform created to increase and disseminate academic knowledge on world food systems. Broken into five parts, the anthology considers food as relationships, the dynamics of contemporary food systems, food and ecology, guiding principles of sustainable food systems, and the transformation of food systems. Together, these essays offer a well-rounded introduction to contemporary issues in food, farming, and nutrition.

24. Wine Liberated: The Ecological Revolution and the Vintners Inspiring Change by Adam Huss

Just a few grape varieties dominate the wine market today, a fact that prompted winemaker Adam Huss to ask if it’s possible to build something different. Several years ago, he launched the podcast “Beyond Organic Wine” to learn from producers who are rethinking wine. Now, in Wine Liberated, he takes a deeper dive into these questions to understand what it will take to transform the wine industry into one that is environmentally sustainable, diverse, and more delicious.

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

The post Food Tank’s Fall 2026 Reading List appeared first on Food Tank.

Framed as sustainable development, these projects restrict local access to traditional territories and resources, endangering livelihoods, cultural identity, and community rights.

The post Thailand : Luxury Tourism, Blue Carbon, and the Displacement of Small-Scale Fishers – Voices from Ao Kung Bay as Capital Advances appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The 12th session of negotiations on a Binding Treaty opens in Geneva, aiming to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations and environmental destruction across their operations and value chains.

The post UN Binding Treaty process resumes in Geneva – Checkmate on Corporate Impunity appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The post Nurses Ask Challenge appeared first on ANHE.

When I landed in Indonesia for the Zero Waste Academy's in-person course on "Organics Management as Climate Action," I thought I knew waste. As the founder of Youth Nowshera, a youth-led organization working for the environment in Nowshera, Pakistan, I have spent years working on pollution and climate issues in my community. But standing inside a working materials recovery facility in Bandung, watching food scraps turn into something valuable instead of a problem, I realized how little I understood about the half of our waste we almost never talk about: organics.

The first big learning was simple, and it changed everything for me. In most of our cities, more than half of municipal waste is organic — food scraps, vegetable peels, and garden waste. When this waste is mixed with everything else and dumped, it rots and releases methane, a greenhouse gas far more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term. But when it is separated at its source, that same waste becomes a resource. The problem was never the waste itself. The problem was mixing.

In Bandung, I saw this idea in action. At the Kebun Asik materials recovery facility, I watched how proper segregation, composting, and community involvement turn a neighbourhood's waste stream into compost and recyclables instead of landfill burden. I also learned about the black soldier fly (BSF) treatment, where larvae consume food waste and convert it into protein for animal feed, leaving behind a residue that works as fertiliser. It was a small, almost humble setup — and that was the point. These are not billion-dollar technologies. These are systems a community can run.

Another lesson came from the classroom exercises. We worked through real waste-system sizing: how much organic waste a community produces, how much of it can be composted, what the compost is worth, and how much methane can be avoided. Doing the maths myself — tonnes of waste diverted, tonnes of emissions avoided — made the climate case concrete. Organic waste management is not just about cleanliness. It is climate action, measurable in tonnes.

Just as valuable were the people. I studied alongside waste practitioners from the Philippines, Indonesia, and Nepal — people running composting programmes, community recovery facilities, and awareness campaigns in their own cities. We shared failures as honestly as successes. I left with a network of friends across Asia who are fighting the same fight, and with the confidence that what works in Bandung can be adapted to Nowshera.

So how will I use all of this back home? First, through Youth Nowshera, we will start awareness work on segregation at source — because no system works if organics arrive mixed. Second, we will push for decentralised composting: small, community-level composting units instead of waiting for one giant facility that never comes. And third, we will take this to the decision-makers — our Deputy Commissioner, the Ministry of Climate Change, and local policymakers — with a clear message: managing organic waste locally cuts methane, creates compost and jobs, and costs less than the landfill model.

At its heart, the Zero Waste philosophy is about preventing waste at the source, reducing our dependence on single-use materials, and building systems that protect communities and the environment.

My trip to Indonesia gave me more than a certificate. It gave me a working model, a network, and a plan. Organic waste is not garbage. Treated right, it is climate action you can hold in your hands.

 

Youth Nowshera is a youth-led environmental platform based in Nowshera, Pakistan, advancing zero waste, plastic pollution prevention, and climate resilience. Through community-led initiatives, research, education, and advocacy, it works to prevent pollution at its source, promote sustainable waste management, protect environmental and public health, and safeguard ecosystems for future generations.

The company running the West Newton oil and gas operation in East Yorkshire has failed to file its annual accounts on time.

Extract from Companies House listing for Rathlin Energy (UK) Limited 13/10/26

The latest financial figures from Rathlin Energy (UK) Limited were 13 days overdue today.

Companies House said the accounts for the year should have submitted by 30 September 2026 for the year up to 31 December 2025.

Previous Rathlin accounts have been filed by the deadline.

Rathlin Energy operates two sites in Holderness: West Newton-A and West Newton-B.

The company has given notice of plans to start lower-volume fracking at West Newton-A and an extended well test before the end of the year.

Pre-operational conditions for the planning permission, including passing places on the lorry route, have now been met.

But a local campaigner has filed a legal challenge against the Environment Agency (EA) over its approval of a permit for the fracking operations.

He is also seeking an interim injunction to halt the work until the EA case has been decided.

Companies Houses fines firms that are up to one month late or more with their accounts.

Rathlin Energy is a subsidiary of Reabold Resources and classified as a private company. The fine for private companies that are up to one month late is £150, rising to £1,500 for more than six months late.

Last week, the Georgia Public Service Commission voted to approve a new deal between Georgia Power and the tech giant Google. Starting in 2028, Google will help pay for upgrades to the state’s nuclear reactors. 

“So, around 100 megawatts of carbon-free energy, paid for by somebody else,” PSC Commissioner Stan Wise said to staffers shortly before the vote. “Why don’t you bring us some more of those deals?”

Georgia Power wants to upgrade four of the state’s older nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle and Plant Hatch so they can produce more energy. State regulators approved the Vogtle upgrades last year, but the specifics of how to pay for the work weren’t hashed out. Now, the commission has voted to move ahead with the updates at Plant Hatch too — and approved a new subscription program so large customers like Google can pay for both.

“We appreciate Google’s continued leadership in this space and partnership in developing this program, which we see as the latest example of how large-load growth can benefit all electric customers,” said Aaron Mitchell, senior vice president of strategic growth for Georgia Power, in a statement. 

Under the program, Google will pay a subscription fee on top of its electricity bill to help cover the cost of the nuclear upgrades. In exchange, Google gets credit toward its goal of using only carbon-free energy by 2030. Since nuclear plants don’t use fossil fuels, the power they generate qualifies; nuclear plants can also generate electricity around the clock, which solar and wind power can’t do. 

Precise details of the agreement between Google and Georgia Power haven’t been made public. It’s expected to add 96 megawatts of nuclear capacity to the grid and provide “approximately $900 million in projected benefits to customers over the life of the units,” according to the utility.

“This collaboration with Georgia Power ensures that digital infrastructure growth goes hand-in-hand with positive local impact, helping to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars in direct customer benefits and supporting a more affordable, clean, and reliable energy system for all Georgia residents,” said Lucia Tian, director of advanced energy technologies for Google, in a statement.

Google also announced last week that it will partner with Constellation Energy to fund similar nuclear upgrades at reactors in Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, adding 890 megawatts of energy to the grid for PJM, the largest grid operator in the country. Amazon has announced a deal to add capacity to a Constellation nuclear plant in Maryland.

Read Next The bipartisan energy bill tearing the climate movement apart Jake Bittle & Austin Corona

Around the country, many utilities are meeting the boom in energy demand from hyperscale data centers by building new natural gas generation and extending the life of coal-fired power plants. Similarly, many data centers are building their own fossil-fuel generation. Deals like this one could present an alternative, according to Priya Barua of the Corporate Energy Buyers Association, which advocates for non-fossil energy solutions for corporate customers.

“A number of large energy customers are looking kind of across the board at what are all of the tools in the toolkit in order to actually support a reliable, affordable grid,” she said. “I do think we’re going to see a lot more of those types of innovations and thinking across the board.”

In addition to nuclear improvements like the ones in Georgia, those tools could include energy efficiency programs, transmission line upgrades, and efforts to reduce energy demand at key times to relieve pressure on the grid — all solutions that can be scaled up relatively quickly with an infusion of cash from a large tech company, Barua said. That speed could prove critical in the coming years because there are significant delays in the supply chain for natural gas turbines and other key components in the gas expansion that Georgia Power and other utilities are planning to meet data center demand. A new nuclear plant can take decades to build, whereas upgrading an existing plant can take around five years.  

“It can mitigate delays in projects coming online,” said Katie Southworth, also of CEBA, of programs like the Google-Georgia Power deal. “You’ve got a relay race, and who is going to get to [commercial operation date] first. In order to have the resources to sort of run a competitive relay race, you have to have a lane for them to go into.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why Google is paying to upgrade nuclear power plants on Oct 13, 2026.

Federal money meant to help restore forests after disasters has stopped flowing because of a lack of funding.

According to the Michigan office of the federal Farm Service Agency, the Emergency Forest Restoration Program, or EFRP, has received more requests for aid around the country than it can pay out. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture — where the farm agency is housed — confirmed the news.

“Currently, requests for financial assistance through the Emergency Forest Restoration Program exceed the funding currently available,” the USDA spokesperson said.

Created by Congress in 2008 as part of the national Farm Bill, EFRP provides disaster relief to landowners restoring nonindustrial forests. Almost two years ago, Congress appropriated $357 million for the program “to remain available until expended.” The USDA earmarked much of that money for landowners dealing with lingering damage from the monster 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. In Michigan, property owners whose forests were compromised by a 2025 ice storm were invited to apply. But the rollout of the federal program in the Mitten State has been mired in delays, confusion about eligibility, and what’s been described by landowners and foresters as little communication from federal officials. 

As climate change threatens to bring more extreme weather that damages forests, some foresters stressed the importance of aid programs like EFRP.

“Our weather conditions are becoming more harsh in many circumstances, so we need to be able to have these pots of funding available,” said Logan Hawley, a landowner and forester in Hubbard Lake, Michigan, who applied for EFRP.

Broken power lines and trees after the 2025 northern Michigan ice storm. Laurent Fady / Getty Images

Administered by the Farm Service Agency, or FSA, the program reimburses private landowners up to 75 percent of the cost of restoring their woods after a disaster. Work can include clearing damaged trees to prevent fire risk, replanting, or managing invasive species.

In Michigan, landowners like Hawley are waiting for federal funds to restore forests that were damaged in a severe ice storm in March 2025. The ice storm damaged approximately 3 million acres of forest in northern Michigan, as the weight of ice downed trees and snapped branches across 12 counties in just two days. To recover just a third of those acres — the 1 million acres managed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources — the state estimates it needs about $14 million. The EFRP program represents some of the only federal funds available for private landowners after the storm.

Some landowners and foresters said they’re frustrated with the lack of movement on work they say is important for the future of northern Michigan’s forests and the economies that depend on them. The state’s forest industry — from wood products to tourism and recreation — contributes billions to the state’s economy annually. 

“We’ve spent so much time filling out the paperwork, going and doing in-person meetings, having them on site doing visits, for what feels like nothing,” said Neil Haney, executive director at Boyne Falls’ Lake Louise Christian Community, a campground where about 1,700 acres of woods suffered damage from the ice storm.

Michigan’s FSA office and the USDA did not respond to specific questions about how many applications had been approved or where in the country EFRP aid had been provided. Since Congress last funded the EFRP in 2024, the agency has solicited applications from landowners affected by hurricanes in Eastern states, a southern pine beetle infestation in Georgia, flooding in Hawai‘i, and a windstorm in Minnesota. Gary Michael, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources cooperative forest management supervisor, confirmed in an email that EFRP applications in his state are also not being approved. FSA first invited Michigan landowners to apply in May 2025.

In a statement, Michigan’s FSA office said landowners “may begin restoration work at their discretion; however, any work initiated prior to [federal] approval is undertaken at personal expense.”

A southern pine beetle in a pitch tube residue spotted on the bark of a pine tree.
Steve Pfost / Newsday RM via Getty Images

According to Mike Smalligan, forest stewardship coordinator with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, or DNR, around 600 landowners in the state “are in the application process” for EFRP.

The Michigan DNR doesn’t administer the program, but it helped contract 25 foresters — professionals who help landowners manage and care for their woods — who conducted site visits for applicants on behalf of the FSA. Those foresters drew up restoration plans for federal approval, including recommendations for what work needs to be done, and suggested reimbursement rates.

Tony Fox, a forester in Lake City, worked on more than 10 plans. The program “started off very rough” because the Michigan FSA typically works with farmers and agricultural crops — not hardwood forests. 

“It was a little unfair to the folks at FSA,” Fox said. “You had a lot of folks who had no clue about the forest trying to wedge an agricultural program into the woods, so there was a steep learning curve.”

As of late September, Fox said, some landowners were hoping for reimbursement because “they just couldn’t wait” for official approval before starting work on their woods. Michigan FSA said this work is at personal expense “as financial assistance cannot be guaranteed.” Others were waiting for the federal green light before starting work because efforts like planting trees can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What the delays mean for recovery work will vary from forest to forest, Fox said. 

“As far as waiting, if it’s good or bad, it’s a total case study on the level of damage and the species of tree you had,” he said. 

Red pine and aspen were especially hit hard after the storm, for example. Fox said anyone who hasn’t already salvaged those trees might not be able to sell their timber, and they run the risk of rot and pests, which is where federal aid could help. But damaged hardwoods, like maple or oak, are likely to recover on their own with minimal loss in timber value.

Hawley, the forester in Hubbard Lake, was also contracted by the state to help with more than 30 restoration plans. He said one plus of the program has been working with landowners who otherwise would never have had an expert come look at their property and discuss forest health.

Still, as a landowner whose own EFRP application is up in the air, Hawley said there are no easy answers to questions he gets from applicants about how to start restoration work without leaving them ineligible for future funding, if it becomes available again.

Some landowners don’t have the resources to do the work without federal aid, Hawley said. And “these delays are continually putting us at a place where we have to restart efforts” when the next storm hits. Parts of the region experienced another ice storm in the spring of 2026.

Hawley worries about how delaying restoration work can leave forests more vulnerable to disease, fire, or future storm damage. 

America’s forests store almost 60 billion metric tons of carbon and offset about 13 percent of the country’s overall emissions. Damaged forests can’t store as much carbon as healthy ones.

Congress has acknowledged issues with disaster relief programs like EFRP because the timing of appropriations bills doesn’t coincide with when disaster strikes. This summer, Congress passed a bill to address some of those concerns by allowing advance payments to landowners. It was unclear how the new law would affect aid in Michigan and other states.

Representative Jack Bergman, a Republican who represents all of northern Michigan, said in a statement that landowners “shouldn’t have to fight Washington just to get help recovering.” He called on Congress and his colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to replenish funding for EFRP. 

“If Washington calls this emergency relief, it needs to act like it’s an emergency,” Bergman said.

Despite frustrations, Haney said his camp’s woods will ultimately be fine without the funding. “Nature will be nature, and it’ll come back. It’ll just take longer,” he said. 

But Haney hopes this rollout of EFRP in northern Michigan will be a lesson for the federal government. “The federal government knows how to handle hurricanes, tornadoes,” he said. “It felt like they didn’t know what to do with an ice storm.”

Larissa Donovan of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, contributed reporting to this story.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A federal program to restore forests after disaster has gotten too many funding requests on Oct 13, 2026.

EDMONTON – Four of Alberta’s largest environmental organizations have come together to raise the alarm about the impact that three draft government sub-regional plans — covering almost one-fifth of the province — will have on the future of the iconic...

13 October 2026 | RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

Two of the world’s most consequential courts are considering questions that could reshape the legal responsibilities of the fossil fuel industry. In Washington, the US Supreme Court is examining whether communities can pursue climate-damage claims against ExxonMobil and Suncor under state law. In the Netherlands, Shell is defending itself before the Dutch Supreme Court against demands for enforceable greenhouse gas reductions. The proceedings are legally distinct, but they expose the same underlying conflict: how far can courts go in holding major energy companies responsible for their contribution to climate change?

The US Supreme Court enters the climate liability battle

An article published by Forbes on 12 October 2026, written by energy commentator Ian Dexter Palmer, draws attention to a potentially far-reaching legal confrontation involving ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy.

The case originated in Colorado in 2018.

Boulder County, the City of Boulder and San Miguel County brought proceedings against the two fossil fuel companies, seeking compensation for climate-related harms allegedly associated with their products and conduct.

The plaintiffs argue that the companies contributed to climate change and should help meet the resulting costs.

Those costs include measures associated with worsening heat, wildfire risks, flooding and other climate-related consequences.

ExxonMobil and Suncor dispute the legal basis of the claims.

The companies argue that state-law proceedings seeking damages for the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions across the United States and internationally intrude upon matters governed by federal law.

The dispute has now reached the highest court in the United States.

But the precise question before the justices requires careful explanation.

What the Supreme Court is actually deciding

The case is formally titled Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170.

On 23 February 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

It subsequently scheduled oral arguments for 5 October.

Those arguments have now taken place.

The Supreme Court’s official docket confirms the procedural history.

The Court is considering whether federal law prevents Colorado’s state-law claims from proceeding.

The companies argue that claims based upon the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions cannot properly be governed by individual states’ laws.

They invoke principles concerning federal authority, the Clean Air Act and the federal government’s responsibilities in international affairs.

Boulder and the other plaintiffs maintain that their claims fall within traditional state-law powers to address harms and seek compensation.

The Supreme Court is also examining whether it has jurisdiction to decide the dispute at this procedural stage.

This is not yet a trial determining whether ExxonMobil caused particular losses or how much compensation it should pay.

The immediate issue is whether the claims can proceed within the relevant legal framework.

That distinction is central.

If the Court accepts the companies’ arguments, it could substantially restrict certain state-law climate-damages lawsuits.

If the municipalities prevail, their claims could continue towards further proceedings on liability and damages.

A ruling allowing the lawsuits to proceed would not itself establish that ExxonMobil or Suncor had committed a legal wrong.

What happened during the October hearing?

The justices heard arguments on 5 October 2026.

According to Associated Press reporting, several justices questioned the implications of allowing individual state courts to adjudicate claims involving emissions generated across national and international boundaries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns relevant to the potentially broad consequences of the litigation.

The arguments also explored whether state-law claims might interfere with federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Supporters of the municipalities argue that federal environmental legislation does not automatically eliminate every state-law remedy for damages.

The Court must distinguish between a state attempting to regulate emissions beyond its borders and a state seeking to provide compensation for injuries allegedly suffered within its territory.

That is not a simple distinction.

A damages award can affect corporate behaviour even where a state has not directly imposed an emissions standard.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the proceedings.

His absence leaves eight justices participating.

An evenly divided decision could leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s judgment standing without establishing a nationwide Supreme Court precedent.

No final decision had been announced as of 13 October 2026.

The Court’s official recording and transcript of the hearing provide the primary record of the arguments.

Why ExxonMobil and Suncor are concerned

The immediate case involves specific Colorado communities.

But the implications extend much further.

Numerous climate-related lawsuits have been filed in American courts against major fossil fuel producers.

Their legal theories vary.

Some seek compensation for climate-related damage.

Others allege that companies misled consumers or investors about climate risks.

Still others challenge particular business practices or environmental representations.

These cases cannot all be treated as legally identical.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal preemption could influence how some of them proceed.

For the energy industry, the concern is the possibility of substantial and unpredictable liabilities arising from claims brought across multiple jurisdictions.

For communities seeking compensation, the concern is that broad interpretations of federal law could prevent them from obtaining a hearing on their allegations.

Both sides recognise the significance of the case.

Its outcome could help define the boundary between federal authority and state-level accountability.

The fossil fuel industry’s defence

The companies argue that climate change is a global phenomenon.

Greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, and the effects of emissions are not confined to the jurisdiction where they originate.

Petroleum products are produced, distributed and consumed across international markets.

The companies therefore contend that allowing individual states to impose liability for worldwide emissions could create inconsistent obligations.

They also argue that decisions concerning national energy policy, international relations and the regulation of emissions properly belong to federal institutions.

That is a serious constitutional argument.

The production and consumption of energy are fundamental economic activities.

Assigning responsibility for global emissions through state-law damages claims raises complicated questions about causation, legal authority and the allocation of costs.

But the municipalities respond that complexity does not necessarily eliminate an injured community’s right to seek compensation.

Their case also involves allegations concerning the companies’ knowledge of climate risks and their conduct in marketing fossil fuel products.

Those allegations remain contested.

The companies have not been found liable for the climate damages claimed in this proceeding.

Colorado’s argument: Why should taxpayers pay everything?

From the plaintiffs’ perspective, the issue is not simply abstract climate policy.

Local authorities must maintain roads, protect infrastructure, prepare for disasters and respond to changing environmental conditions.

If climate-related risks require additional public expenditure, those costs ultimately fall upon taxpayers unless another source of funding is available.

The Colorado plaintiffs argue that major fossil fuel companies should contribute to costs associated with harms they allegedly helped cause.

That argument depends upon establishing a legally recognised basis for liability.

The plaintiffs would still have to demonstrate the necessary elements of their claims.

Questions about causation, attribution, alleged misconduct and damages would remain.

The scientific relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming does not automatically establish the legal responsibility of any particular defendant for every claimed loss.

Equally, the complexity of attributing individual losses does not automatically prevent courts from considering evidence of contribution and causation.

Those questions are distinct.

They must be assessed under the applicable law and evidence.

The Forbes article raises a disputed scientific argument

The Forbes commentary also advances a much broader argument about climate science.

Its author accepts that global warming is occurring but questions whether climate change has caused worsening extremes such as flooding, droughts, storms and wildfires.

He argues that certain indicators do not demonstrate worsening global trends and questions whether oil companies should be held responsible for individual extreme-weather events.

These claims deserve particular care.

They should not be confused with the established findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report concludes that human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.

It also identifies increasing evidence of human influence upon several types of extreme weather.

The evidence is particularly strong for increases in hot extremes.

The IPCC also finds that heavy precipitation has increased in frequency or intensity across many land regions with sufficient observational data, and that human influence has contributed to these changes.

Findings concerning droughts, tropical cyclones, flooding and wildfires vary according to region, type of event and the strength of available evidence.

It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that the scientific community has established that every weather extreme is becoming more severe everywhere.

But it would be equally inaccurate to claim that climate change has no demonstrated influence upon extreme weather beyond temperature increases.

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report provides the authoritative scientific framework.

Forbes contributors publish independent commentary, and Palmer’s interpretation should be understood in that context.

The Supreme Court’s present task is primarily legal.

It is not conducting a comprehensive scientific reassessment of anthropogenic climate change.

SHELL’S PARALLEL BATTLE: THE DUTCH SUPREME COURT

The American proceedings have a particularly interesting connection with Shell.

As Forbes points out, another major climate case has reached a national supreme court.

This time, the defendant is Shell itself.

The proceedings originated with a lawsuit brought by Milieudefensie, Friends of the Earth Netherlands, together with other organisations and individual claimants.

In May 2021, the District Court of The Hague delivered a landmark judgment ordering Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its worldwide net carbon emissions by 45 per cent by the end of 2030 compared with 2019 levels.

The ruling attracted international attention.

It was widely regarded as an important development in attempts to impose corporate climate obligations through civil litigation.

Shell appealed.

On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal in The Hague overturned the specific reduction order.

However, the appellate court also recognised that companies such as Shell have responsibilities concerning dangerous climate change.

The distinction is crucial.

The appeal judgment rejected the enforceable 45 per cent reduction order sought against Shell.

It did not establish that large corporations have no climate-related legal responsibilities.

Milieudefensie subsequently brought the dispute before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

On 22 May 2026, the Dutch Supreme Court heard oral arguments.

Further written submissions were filed in July.

The proceedings remain unresolved.

Both Shell’s own account of the litigation and Milieudefensie’s published legal documents confirm the chronology.

A judgment is anticipated in 2027.

The critical issue: Can a court impose a corporate emissions target?

The Dutch litigation asks a different question from the American case.

The Colorado proceedings concern the availability of state-law claims for damages allegedly caused by climate change.

The Dutch case concerns whether civil law permits the imposition of a specific emissions-reduction obligation upon Shell.

Milieudefensie argues that Shell has a legal duty to make an appropriate contribution to preventing dangerous climate change.

It maintains that the company’s emissions and business strategy should be assessed against internationally recognised climate objectives.

Shell argues that the courts should not impose the requested company-specific reduction target.

The company maintains that energy transition requires broader government policy, changes in consumer demand and coordinated action across the energy system.

It has also argued that reducing the sales of fossil fuels by one supplier would not necessarily produce equivalent reductions in global emissions if other suppliers replaced those products.

The Dutch Supreme Court must decide questions concerning the application of law and the adequacy of the appellate judgment’s reasoning.

It is not simply repeating the original trial.

And the litigation does not mean that Shell has already been finally ordered by the Supreme Court to achieve Milieudefensie’s requested target.

That matter remains contested.

Scope 3 emissions: The issue neither industry nor investors can ignore

Both the American and Dutch disputes draw attention to the significance of emissions associated with fossil fuel products.

For oil and gas companies, a large proportion of the emissions associated with their value chains arise when customers use the products they sell.

These are commonly categorised as Scope 3 emissions.

They are distinct from emissions generated directly by a company’s own operations, known as Scope 1, and those associated with purchased energy, known as Scope 2.

Scope 3 emissions can include emissions resulting from customers burning petrol, diesel, natural gas and other products.

This creates a difficult legal question.

A company extracts, processes or sells a fuel.

A customer purchases and consumes it.

The resulting emissions enter the atmosphere.

Who bears legal responsibility, and to what extent?

The answer depends upon the cause of action, applicable law, evidence and remedy being sought.

Accounting for Scope 3 emissions does not automatically establish liability for them.

But excluding all downstream emissions from consideration would overlook much of the climate impact associated with the fossil fuel business model.

For Shell, this issue has been central to the Dutch litigation.

For ExxonMobil and other American defendants, arguments about responsibility for emissions generated through widespread product consumption are relevant to the broader climate-liability debate.

The courts are being asked to determine legal boundaries in an area where the economic and environmental consequences are potentially substantial.

California adds another dimension

The Colorado proceedings are not the only major American climate lawsuit involving oil companies.

In September 2023, California’s attorney general brought proceedings against several major fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips.

The case includes allegations that the industry misled the public about the risks associated with fossil fuels and their contribution to climate change.

Those allegations are disputed and have not been established by a final liability judgment.

The legal questions differ from those raised in the Colorado proceedings.

Claims based upon allegedly deceptive statements may present different issues from claims seeking compensation for worldwide emissions.

That distinction could become increasingly important.

A Supreme Court decision restricting certain state-law emissions claims would not necessarily resolve every lawsuit alleging misleading commercial conduct.

Nor would a decision permitting the Colorado claims to proceed automatically establish liability in California.

Nevertheless, the cases demonstrate that climate litigation is becoming a significant area of legal exposure for the energy industry.

For Shell shareholders, this is not a remote issue involving only another company’s legal problems.

Shell is directly involved in climate proceedings in Europe and the United States.

The company must assess regulatory compliance, potential litigation costs, disclosure obligations and reputational consequences across multiple jurisdictions.

COMMENTARY: The courts are confronting the limits of corporate responsibility

There is a striking difference between the business language commonly used by major oil companies and the legal questions now reaching supreme courts.

Companies understandably emphasise the importance of meeting global energy demand.

They argue that petroleum products remain essential to transport, manufacturing, heating and economic development.

They also point out that consumers, governments and industrial users make decisions that determine how much fossil fuel is consumed.

Those arguments have substance.

The energy system is complex.

No single company controls worldwide demand.

But the plaintiffs in climate litigation raise a different consideration.

Major fossil fuel companies have participated in producing and selling products that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

Some plaintiffs also allege that companies knew about the risks but failed to communicate them adequately.

They argue that the costs of climate-related harm should not automatically fall entirely upon the public.

This raises a legitimate question about how responsibility should be allocated.

The fact that consumers use a product does not necessarily eliminate every possible responsibility of its producer.

But the fact that a product contributes to a global problem does not automatically establish that its manufacturer is legally liable for a particular loss.

The law must distinguish those propositions.

That is precisely why the current proceedings are significant.

What should shareholders expect?

Shell and ExxonMobil shareholders have an obvious financial interest in the outcome.

Potential climate liabilities could affect earnings, investment decisions, insurance arrangements and long-term corporate strategy.

A broad expansion of liability could expose companies to costly litigation.

A restrictive Supreme Court ruling could reduce some of that exposure.

But shareholders should also consider the risks associated with prolonged legal uncertainty.

Companies may face continuing litigation even when individual claims fail.

Different jurisdictions may develop different legal standards.

And legal disputes over climate-related disclosures, alleged misleading statements and environmental obligations may continue regardless of the outcome of any single case.

Shareholders are therefore entitled to expect candid reporting of material litigation risks.

That includes an explanation of the issues being contested, the status of proceedings and the extent to which potential financial consequences can reasonably be assessed.

It does not require companies to concede claims they dispute.

It requires transparency.

A defining moment for Big Oil?

The cases before the American and Dutch supreme courts could become landmarks.

But their significance should not be exaggerated before judgments have been delivered.

The US Supreme Court could issue a narrow procedural decision.

It might address federal preemption without resolving questions of factual liability.

The Dutch Supreme Court could address the legal basis for a company-specific reduction obligation without dictating every element of Shell’s future business strategy.

Both courts could leave important questions unresolved.

Nevertheless, something significant has already happened.

Questions once regarded primarily as matters for environmental campaigning and political negotiation are now being examined at the highest levels of national judicial systems.

Major fossil fuel companies are being required to defend their legal positions on climate responsibility.

And courts are being asked to define the limits of corporate accountability in a warming world.

That development deserves serious attention.

Conclusion: Two supreme courts, one unresolved question

ExxonMobil and Suncor maintain that Colorado’s claims cannot properly proceed under the state-law framework advanced by the municipalities.

Shell maintains that the Dutch courts should not impose the specific emissions-reduction obligation sought by Milieudefensie.

The plaintiffs take opposing positions.

They argue that existing law provides mechanisms through which companies can be held accountable for climate-related conduct and harm.

The legal arguments differ.

The remedies differ.

And the courts operate within different legal systems.

But the underlying debate reaches beyond the individual defendants.

When the commercial activities of major energy companies contribute to a worldwide environmental problem, what responsibilities should those companies bear — and who should determine them?

Governments have an important role.

Consumers have responsibilities.

Companies have legal obligations and commercial interests.

Courts must apply the law.

The difficulty is determining where one responsibility ends and another begins.

For the fossil fuel industry, 2026 is proving to be a particularly consequential year.

The Supreme Courts of the United States and the Netherlands are both examining disputes that could influence the future relationship between corporate activity, climate change and legal accountability.

Neither has yet delivered the final ruling awaited in these proceedings.

For Shell, ExxonMobil and the wider energy industry, the outcome could be important.

For communities confronting climate-related costs, it could be equally significant.

The question is no longer simply whether climate change is occurring. It is whether existing legal systems can identify and enforce corporate responsibilities for its consequences.

That question is now before two of the world’s most influential courts.

Principal sources

Forbes — 12 October 2026

US Supreme Court Will Hear Lawsuit If ExxonMobil Is To Blame For Carbon Emissions

The original commentary by Ian Dexter Palmer. Its scientific interpretations are distinguished from the conclusions of the IPCC.

Supreme Court of the United States — Case No. 25-170

Official docket: Suncor Energy v County Commissioners of Boulder County

The primary judicial record documenting the case, issues presented, February 2026 decision to grant review and October hearing.

Supreme Court of the United States — 5 October 2026

Official oral argument audio and transcript

The authoritative record of the oral arguments.

Cornell Law School — Legal Information Institute

Supreme Court Bulletin: Suncor Energy v Boulder County

Detailed explanation of federal preemption, the Clean Air Act and the competing legal arguments.

Associated Press — October 2026

Supreme Court weighs local governments’ climate change lawsuits against oil and gas companies

Contemporaneous reporting of the Supreme Court hearing.

Shell — Climate Case

Shell’s official account of the Milieudefensie climate litigation

Shell’s description of the Dutch proceedings, judgments, appeals and 2026 submissions.

Milieudefensie — Climate Case

Overview of legal documents in the case against Shell

Court documents, legal submissions and the litigation chronology.

Milieudefensie — 22 May 2026

Dutch Supreme Court examines historic climate case against Shell

Contemporary account of the Dutch Supreme Court hearing.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2023

Scientific assessment of human-caused warming, observed impacts and climate-related extremes.

Editorial disclaimer: This article distinguishes authenticated judicial records, claims advanced by the parties, contemporary journalism, scientific assessments and editorial opinion. No court has determined in the pending Colorado proceedings that ExxonMobil or Suncor is liable for the claimed climate damages. The Dutch Supreme Court proceedings involving Shell remain unresolved. Allegations made by parties to litigation are not presented as established findings of wrongdoing.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Big Oil on Trial: ExxonMobil Faces US Supreme Court Climate Showdown — With Shell Fighting Its Own Battle in the Netherlands was first posted on October 13, 2026 at 8:07 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

13 October 2026 | RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas. Yet its own industries and households face uncertainty over future gas supplies and prices. Now Shell Australia chair Cecile Wake has attacked the government’s proposed domestic gas reservation scheme, warning that excessive intervention could damage investment and create the very shortages it is intended to prevent. But an investigation published by ABC News only yesterday raises an awkward question: why should Shell, which has historically contributed gas to Australia’s domestic market, face potentially onerous obligations while a rival exporter accused of drawing gas out of that market could benefit from exemptions?

Shell’s warning: A ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’

Speaking at an industry conference in Sydney on Tuesday, 13 October 2026, Shell Australia chair Cecile Wake delivered a forceful criticism of the Albanese government’s proposed domestic gas reservation scheme.

According to Reuters, Wake described the proposed intervention as a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”.

Her argument was not that Australia should abandon domestic gas reservation altogether.

Indeed, she acknowledged that a reservation mechanism could have a legitimate role.

Her objection concerned the design of the proposed scheme, particularly requirements that could oblige exporters to supply more gas than the domestic market needs at prices that might fail to justify future production.

Wake warned that the government’s approach could ultimately undermine investment incentives and potentially produce future market failure.

The economic argument is straightforward.

Gas developments are capital-intensive. Producers typically require confidence that future sales will cover exploration, extraction, processing, transportation and financing costs.

If government intervention pushes domestic prices below the cost of developing additional supplies, companies may defer or abandon investment.

That could leave consumers facing shortages and higher prices in later years.

It is a serious argument deserving examination.

But it is not the entire story.

Australia’s extraordinary gas contradiction

Australia exports vast quantities of LNG to overseas customers, particularly in Asia.

Yet businesses and households in eastern Australia have faced persistently high gas prices and warnings about possible supply shortages.

Much of Australia’s gas production is concentrated in Western Australia and Queensland, whereas substantial industrial and household demand is located in the southeastern states.

The resulting problem involves production, transportation capacity, commercial contracts and the connection between Australian gas prices and international LNG markets.

For years, manufacturers and other industrial energy users have complained about the cost and difficulty of securing affordable long-term supplies.

The Albanese government argues that intervention is necessary to prevent Australia’s substantial gas export industry from leaving domestic consumers exposed.

In May 2026, ministers announced plans for a reservation scheme broadly equivalent to 20 per cent of LNG export volumes.

The latest implementation timetable envisages the new framework beginning in 2027, with domestic supply obligations expected to commence on 1 January 2028.

According to the Australian government’s official policy explanation, the objective is to improve supply security, moderate domestic prices and protect Australian consumers from international market volatility.

The government is seeking to balance export commitments against national energy requirements.

Shell argues that the proposed design risks getting that balance wrong.

But the existence of the problem is difficult to dismiss.

Australia is sufficiently rich in gas resources to be a major international exporter, yet its domestic market has repeatedly experienced supply concerns.

That raises a legitimate question about whether the export system has adequately protected Australian consumers.

What the government’s proposed scheme would do

The proposed Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme would require major LNG exporters to make specified quantities of gas available to Australian customers.

The broad policy has centred on an obligation equivalent to 20 per cent of LNG exports.

However, the draft legislation introduces several mechanisms affecting the actual obligations imposed on individual exporters.

These include provisions concerning existing export contracts, regulatory discretion, available supplies and compliance requirements.

The government has also proposed that the volume made available should exceed forecast domestic demand, with the aim of improving liquidity and encouraging competitive pricing.

Reuters reports that the latest design envisages supply equivalent to 110 per cent of forecast demand.

The difference between requiring producers merely to offer gas and obliging them actually to supply it has become particularly contentious.

A requirement to offer gas does not necessarily ensure that suitable commercial transactions occur.

Conversely, an obligation to sell more gas than customers wish to buy could create difficult commercial consequences.

The policy therefore raises genuine questions about market design.

The government needs to ensure that Australians receive sufficient gas at reasonable prices.

But it must also ensure that obligations are workable, transparent and fairly distributed.

The legislation had not yet completed the parliamentary process at the time of writing.

The official consultation documentation makes clear that the detailed design remains central to the debate.

An inconvenient discovery: Shell has been supplying Australian consumers

An important investigation published by ABC News on 12 October 2026 considerably complicates the argument.

The ABC examined the operations of Australia’s three major east-coast LNG export ventures.

These are:

• Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG), operated by Shell.
• Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG), operated by Origin Energy, with ConocoPhillips and other shareholders.
• Gladstone LNG (GLNG), operated by Santos.

Although all three export LNG from Queensland, their historical effects on domestic gas supply have differed substantially.

According to the ABC investigation, the Shell-operated QCLNG venture and APLNG have overwhelmingly contributed gas to the domestic market on a net basis.

The Santos-led GLNG venture, by contrast, has relied heavily upon purchasing gas from the Australian domestic market to fulfil international export commitments.

The ABC reported that GLNG’s net withdrawals and exports over the preceding decade were equivalent to approximately 20 per cent of eastern Australia’s annual domestic gas demand.

The underlying problem concerns the relationship between GLNG’s export capacity and its own available gas resources.

Its LNG plant was developed with production capacity exceeding the gas reserves available to support its export commitments.

Consequently, the project has purchased substantial quantities of gas from other domestic suppliers.

Critics argue that this has increased pressure on Australian gas availability and prices.

Santos disputes the criticism directed at its operations.

Nevertheless, the distinction is important.

Shell cannot fairly be characterised as having behaved identically to every other east-coast LNG exporter.

There is credible independent reporting that its Queensland operation has historically supported domestic supplies.

That should be acknowledged when assessing Shell’s objections to the proposed reservation scheme.

The Santos question: Will the biggest problem escape?

The ABC investigation identified another troubling issue.

Industry representatives, analysts and the Australian Workers’ Union have warned that changes to the draft reservation legislation could allow some exporters to escape much of their expected domestic supply obligation.

The concern focuses particularly on Santos-operated GLNG.

One contentious provision concerns existing export contracts.

The government has committed to protecting export commitments entered into before its December 2025 policy announcement.

That is understandable in principle.

Australia’s international customers have entered long-term arrangements on which they rely.

But critics fear that the proposed exemption rules could also protect extensions of some existing contracts.

The ABC highlighted GLNG’s agreement with South Korea’s KOGAS.

A five-year extension option beginning in 2030 could potentially shelter substantial export volumes from the intended reservation requirements.

There are also concerns about provisions allowing adjustments to exporters’ obligations where they claim insufficient available gas or difficulties meeting overseas commitments.

These provisions may be commercially necessary in some circumstances.

But they also create opportunities for differing interpretations and potentially unequal treatment.

Australian Workers’ Union national secretary Paul Farrow has warned that the draft contains what he calls “Santos-sized loopholes”.

His concern is that a policy intended to correct distortions in the gas market could end up imposing greater burdens upon exporters that have historically supported domestic supply.

Meanwhile, a venture accused of aggravating shortages might enjoy more favourable treatment.

These are allegations concerning the potential operation of draft legislation, not proof that exemptions have already been granted or misused.

But the questions deserve answers before the rules become law.

Is Shell being punished for contributing gas?

This is where Shell’s position becomes particularly interesting.

If the reservation scheme imposes substantial new obligations on QCLNG and APLNG while GLNG benefits from broad exemptions, the result could be commercially perverse.

Companies that have historically supplied domestic customers could face additional restrictions.

A company that has historically purchased domestic gas for export could receive protection because of its existing international contracts.

That outcome would be difficult to reconcile with the government’s stated objectives.

It could also weaken incentives for exporters voluntarily to support the domestic market.

Shell’s objections should therefore be examined in this context.

Its argument about maintaining appropriate investment incentives is not simply an attempt to protect export revenue.

There may be a legitimate concern that poorly calibrated legislation could create unfair outcomes between competing exporters.

The government must demonstrate that the proposed scheme will produce additional domestic supply rather than merely reshuffle existing gas sales.

Above all, obligations should reflect the actual contribution of each exporter and its capacity to supply more gas.

Shell’s earlier warning about investment confidence

Wake’s criticism is consistent with Shell Australia’s previously published position.

In an opinion article released by Shell on 19 September 2026, entitled Investment certainty builds strong nations, she argued that major energy investments compete internationally for capital.

Australia cannot simply assume that investors will continue funding projects regardless of changing regulatory conditions.

Shell emphasised the importance of predictable policy, adequate returns and a competitive investment environment.

The company linked those requirements to energy security and the development of additional gas supplies.

This is a standard argument among international energy producers.

But it also presents a legitimate challenge for policymakers.

There is little value in reducing domestic prices temporarily if the result is a serious shortage of economically viable production in subsequent years.

Equally, Australia cannot reasonably allow investment concerns to become an unlimited justification for leaving domestic consumers exposed to international energy prices.

Both considerations matter.

The government needs adequate investment.

It also needs a market that serves Australian energy users.

The international dimension: Australia’s Asian customers

Australia’s gas industry cannot be assessed solely as a domestic supply question.

LNG exports are commercially important to the country.

Customers in Japan, China, South Korea and elsewhere have made major investments in long-term supply arrangements.

International trading partners have a legitimate interest in contractual reliability.

The ABC reported that the Chinese embassy had raised concerns about equitable treatment under the proposed reservation scheme.

Chinese state-owned companies hold interests in major Australian LNG developments.

The embassy urged the Australian government to ensure consistent treatment of LNG exporters and international investors.

This adds another dimension to the policy challenge.

Australia must preserve its reputation as a reliable energy supplier.

But that international responsibility does not eliminate the government’s obligation to safeguard domestic energy security.

The appropriate balance should be determined through transparent legislation and enforceable rules, not preferential treatment for the most influential commercial interests.

COMMENTARY: The market works — but for whom?

Shell’s central assertion is that the proposed scheme risks damaging a market that is already functioning effectively.

That invites a fundamental question.

Functioning effectively for whom?

For LNG exporters, Australia’s position as a major international supplier has created substantial commercial opportunities.

For overseas customers, Australian gas has provided an important source of energy security.

For domestic consumers, however, the picture is less reassuring.

Australian manufacturers have complained about prices and uncertain availability.

Governments have repeatedly intervened to manage potential shortages.

And the possibility of future LNG imports into an LNG-exporting country has itself become part of the national debate.

These circumstances suggest that there are structural weaknesses requiring attention.

They do not prove that every proposed intervention is justified.

Nor do they prove that the government’s latest scheme is well designed.

But they do undermine any suggestion that commercial success in export markets automatically demonstrates satisfactory outcomes for Australian consumers.

The distinction matters.

Energy resources are developed by commercial enterprises.

Those enterprises are entitled to legitimate returns.

But governments are also entitled to establish policies intended to protect national economic interests.

The difficult question is how to reconcile those objectives.

There is a strong case for requiring LNG exporters to make a reasonable contribution to domestic supply.

There is also a strong case against imposing identical obligations upon producers operating under materially different circumstances.

And there is an especially strong case against creating exemptions that reward the very commercial behaviour the policy is intended to correct.

If the ABC’s reporting accurately identifies weaknesses in the draft, the government should address them.

Shell, for its part, should be willing to demonstrate how its proposed alternatives would ensure sufficient domestic gas availability rather than merely protect existing export arrangements.

Both sides should be judged by evidence.

Shareholders should also pay attention

For Shell shareholders, the controversy raises questions about regulatory risk and the long-term profitability of Australian gas investments.

QCLNG is an important component of Shell’s LNG business.

Changes to domestic reservation rules could influence the balance between Australian sales and international exports.

They could affect prices, contracting arrangements and future investment decisions.

But shareholders also have an interest in the sustainability of the wider market.

A gas export industry that fails to maintain public confidence may face increasing political intervention.

That could introduce greater uncertainty over time.

An arrangement perceived as fair to domestic consumers, investors and overseas customers may prove more durable than a system repeatedly subjected to emergency restrictions.

The Australian government’s challenge is therefore not simply to reduce prices.

It is to create a credible framework that secures sufficient supplies while maintaining incentives to develop new resources.

Shell’s challenge is to demonstrate that its preferred approach can meet those objectives.

Conclusion: A sledgehammer, or a necessary repair?

Cecile Wake may be correct that the proposed reservation scheme contains serious flaws.

Indeed, the ABC’s investigation provides grounds for concern about the fairness and effectiveness of the draft legislation.

But rejecting heavy-handed intervention is easier than explaining how Australia’s recurring domestic gas problems should otherwise be resolved.

A country blessed with enormous energy resources should not have to choose between honouring its export commitments and ensuring reasonable supplies for its own citizens.

The better question is how to design a system that achieves both.

Shell deserves recognition for its historical contribution to the domestic gas market through QCLNG.

That contribution strengthens its position when arguing for fair and carefully calibrated regulation.

But the government also has a legitimate responsibility to ensure that Australian consumers and industries benefit from the nation’s natural resources.

The danger is that a badly designed policy could satisfy neither objective.

It could discourage future investment while allowing some of the market practices blamed for domestic shortages to continue.

The real test of Australia’s gas reservation scheme is not whether Shell approves of it, or whether the government can claim to have confronted the LNG industry.

It is whether Australian consumers receive reliable and reasonably priced gas — without undermining the investment required to supply them in the future.

That is the standard against which both the government and Shell should be judged.

Principal sources

Reuters — 13 October 2026

Shell calls Australia’s gas reserve plan a ‘sledgehammer’ that risks market failure

The principal contemporary news report, including Cecile Wake’s criticism of the reservation scheme.

ABC News — 12 October 2026

Critics say ‘Santos-sized loopholes’ will make gas reservation a joke

Investigation by Daniel Mercer examining differences between the three Queensland LNG ventures and allegations that the draft scheme could favour GLNG.

Shell Australia — 19 September 2026

Investment certainty builds strong nations

Cecile Wake’s published explanation of Shell’s position on investment confidence, energy security and government intervention.

Australian Government — 2026

Gas Market Review and reforms

Official government account of the proposed reforms, consultation process and implementation timetable.

Australian Government — September 2026

Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme: Exposure Drafts

Draft legislation and explanatory material.

ABC News — 7 May 2026

Gas export restrictions and better domestic prices promised under new east coast reservation policy

Background reporting on the government’s policy announcement and the varying domestic supply contributions of Australia’s LNG exporters.

Editorial note: This article distinguishes Shell’s corporate position, the Australian government’s policy objectives, independent reporting and editorial commentary. The alleged legislative loopholes remain matters of debate concerning proposed legislation. No finding is made that Shell, Santos or any other exporter has acted unlawfully.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Shell Calls Australia’s Gas Reservation Plan a ‘Sledgehammer’ — But Who Should Control the Nation’s Gas? was first posted on October 13, 2026 at 7:47 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

'Our radical roots' Channel News brendan 13th October 2026 Teaser Media

What was supposed to be America’s first “autonomous” transit system is on pause in the midst of a fiscal crisis at the agency that built it — and some advocates say it could be a cautionary tale about deprioritizing a tried-and-true transit solutions in favor of untested ideas.

The Jacksonville Transit Authority recently announced that it would suspend operations on the Neighborhood Autonomous Vehicle Innovation system, known locally as NAVI, amidst a $39 million budget shortfall that also temporarily shuttered the Florida city’s eight-stop monorail system, Skyway, and resulted in the layoffs of nearly 200 people.

View this post on Instagram

That shortfall eventually drew the attention of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who subpoenaed the JTA last week for a range of financial documents — including statements on NAVI ridership that have implications for state funding. (Information on more colorful expenditures, like massages, was also requested.)

Some local advocates, though, argue that the problems with NAVI began long before the current fiscal crisis, and speak to larger issues with an agency with a history of chasing shiny new technology when residents without cars are struggling to get around.

“It all spiraled out of control,” said Marcus Nelson, a Jacksonville native and public transportation activist. “[NAVI] was originally supposed to be affordable — and then it became this expensive monstrosity, which I guess that might not happen at all now.”

‘A lot of promises’ — but not many results.

Nelson isn’t the only Jaxson who has doubts about NAVI.

Even when it first launched in June of 2025, the system drew criticism for its $65 million price tag — $39.5 million of which came from local funds. That’s larger than the current shortfall, and indeed, the entire operating budget of some transit agencies, like the Michigan capital of Lansing.

“If there wasn’t this insistence to force this type of autonomous technology into the transit system and to be the first to do this, you’d have plenty of money within budget to maintain your core operations and keep the Skyway running — not lay people off,” said Ennis Davis, a local transpiration planner and co-founder of Jacksonville Magazine.

Running a downtown route of just 3.5 miles, mostly along a single road — and with a fleet of just 14 Ford shuttle vans, each with a capacity of only nine passengers — NAVI has also faced pushback for not meaningfully expanding shared mobility access in America’s single largest major city by land mass outside Alaska.

Jacksonville measures a staggering 747.3 square miles in all, and was recently ranked in the top 10 most-sprawling large metro areas in the country; critics say NAVI has little hope of scaling out to its farthest reaches and attracting meaningful ridership.

In November 2025, though, local investigative journalists even alleged that transit agency employees were being paid to spend hours on the autonomous vans to boost ridership and make NAVI appear more viable on paper. The agency denied this, and claimed employees were simply acting as “ambassadors to help riders become familiar with the service.”

Perhaps most outrageously, though, NAVI’s so-called “autonomous” transit system has never been truly autonomous, requiring a human “attendant” behind the wheel of each of its vehicles at all times.

And while there are federal restrictions outside JTA’s control on what type of cars are allowed to operate on local roads without drivers, some locals say the agency still fell short of its lofty promises. (The JTA did not respond to a request for comment on this story.)

“The technology is still risky,” said Davis, who is also a member of the downtown development review board for the city. “There are a lot of things beyond the city of Jacksonville’s control, beyond JTA’s control; there are federal regulations that have got to be dealt with. But still, a lot of the promises that JTA has made are not coming to fruition.”

‘Political poison’

In Davis’s view, though, perhaps the most damning aspect of NAVI was how it diverted attention and resources from the broader public transportation options Jacksonville sorely needs — which residents have demanded for years.

He traces that groundswell back to the 1970s, when Jacksonville first won its bid to build the Skyway automated monorail system with help from the federal Downtown People Mover program — though unlike the the NAVI, the Skyway is actually driverless.

Originally conceived as the last-mile component of a larger shared mobility plan, Davis says that system’s ambitions were quickly undermined by policies that incentivized suburban sprawl — not to mention ever-more driving. Jacksonville recently ranked in the top 20 most-dangerous US metros for pedestrians.

The Jacksonville Skyway

At its height in 2015, the Skyway logged just 5,000 riders a day in a city of more than a million. And since it was approaching the end of its useful life anyway, local officials were doubtful about its future.

“[Today, even the name] ‘Skyway’ is political poison,” Davis adds. “It’s associated with being a transit boondoggle; [the JTA] doesn’t want to use that term. So they decided, ‘we’re just gonna call it something new.'”

In acronym-happy Jacksonville, that rebranding and planning effort became known as “U2C,” short for the “Ultimate Urban Connector” program. Davis says, though, that despite past griping about the Skyway “boondoggle,” the process revealed that many residents actually wanted more public transportation options — and they even wanted to see the Skyway become a meaningful part of the larger shared network they’d been promised decades ago.

Rather than asking where Jaxsons wanted to go and then determining the best mode to get them there, though, critics say agency officials over-focused on the next-gen transit options they wanted to provide. On JTA’s website today, U2C is referred to simply as “a program to introduce autonomous vehicles (AVs) into the JTA’s transportation system.”

“The community overwhelmingly recommended that the Skyway be modernized and expanded,” Davis counters. “Somewhere along the line, though, JTA took that ‘as we’re going to advance new technology’ — so, autonomous vehicles.”

Now, the agency is asking the public to weigh in on six alternatives for the future of the Skyway — a list which Davis says presents dubiously high estimates for rehabilitating the monorail, potentially steering respondents towards AV-centric options like converting the track into an elevated road exclusively for NAVIs.

‘Zombie agency’

Still, both Davis and Nelson acknowledge that Jacksonville’s experiments with new transportation technology are not entirely to blame for JTA’s budget crisis.

Like most US transit agencies, the agency has struggled in the wake of COVID, especially in a state that systemically underfunds public services and whose voters may soon force even steeper cuts. Even with the help of federal grants, which NAVI and the Skyway both received, both advocates say expanding transit service in such an autocentric city can be an uphill climb.

Recommended Will ‘Autonomous’ Buses Force Drivers Out of a Job — Or Make Them More Important Than Ever? Kea Wilson May 31, 2022

Still, Nelson argues JTA officials should be held accountable for pushing the NAVI solution as hard as they have — if any of them are still around, that is. CEO Nat Ford announced he was leaving the agency in July when the impending NAVI shutdown was first rumored; he’s set to take the helm at the Dallas Area Rapid Transit later this month.

“Obviously, it’s a pretty bad look to have a large public agency very loudly and proudly chasing this dream to then have their financial position erode in front of them — and then the CEO in charge runs off to another state,” Nelson added. “Taxpayers feel like they’re being handed a bag … In a state where it’s challenging to bring in new local funding for transit, you’re going to be stuck with this zombie agency walking around with all this infrastructure that they can’t really afford to take advantage of.”

‘The pain is the first step’

Davis says he’s still hopeful that Jacksonville’s transit future can be resuscitated — if they get back to basics and stop chasing “national firsts.”

He cites Miami as an example, whose notorious Metromover circulator also won a Downtown People Mover grant, only to face struggling ridership much like the Skyway. Over time, though, he says the city changed its land use policy to encourage transit-oriented development around its stations, alongside improvements to the larger transit network of which it’s a part; Metromover reported a 54.5 percent year-over-year ridership jump last month, bolstered by the World Cup.

If Jacksonville can think holistically, too, he hopes it can replicate its downstate neighbor’s success – and that starts with looking at how well the entire transportation landscape is working for people, not just swapping a monorail for a fleet of glorified shuttle vans that can’t even drive themselves like they claim.

“We really need to have an honest conversation about transit in general in Jacksonville, and understand that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution,” he adds. “We’ve always tried to come up with the thing that no one else has ever done, and [we’ve always said,] ‘We’re going to be the first and greatest and best at this.’ [But you can wait to] see other cities touch the hot stove and burn themselves; you don’t need to touch the hot stove, too.”

The Miami Metromover

In time, advocates are hopeful that the JTA can get its financial house in order and start expanding the transit network, even if service cuts and layoffs hurt for now.

Some of those needs might even be met by automated technologies, which Davis says he doesn’t oppose. But if they are, it should be because vehicles like NAVIs are truly the best fit for a specific mobility purpose, in a broader ecosystem of diverse mobility options — not because the agency wants to claim the title of “first in the nation.”

“I think it’s more of a cautionary tale of not bringing the community to the decision-making table of its future,” he added. “The pain we’re going through now is the first step. Some of these things that we’ve been trying to force people into just need to die.”

A version of this article is the first in a short series that was originally appeared on the author’s Substack. It is republished with permission; check back tomorrow for part 2.

I work at a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, but that doesn’t mean I can’t talk about my experience working with each party. And a poor understanding of what is partisan and what is bipartisan in transportation leads to poor advocacy and bad outcomes.

I pick more on the Democrats because they make loads of speeches and promises about how much they share my organization’s transportation priorities, but they don’t show it in their legislating or administration of programs. Republicans are more honest about their trepidation or even opposition.

And while it surprises people to hear this, when Republicans agree with us, they are much more likely to champion those changes. For example the creation of the intercity passenger rail program in the 2015 surface transportation bill wouldn’t have happened without Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Recommended Highway to Hell: Fed Infrastructure Funding, Even Under Biden, Has Been Terrible for the Environment Gersh Kuntzman November 13, 2024

Let’s dig into this, starting with Democrats.

Democrats tend to claim that funding transit, rail, and walking and biking infrastructure is a priority. They talk about creating good-paying jobs and building a system that does not hurt the environment, public health, or the neighborhoods around it. But they tend to support the exact same projects and programs as those who do not champion these things.

Republicans talk about transportation investments that support a strong economy. They want the states to have control over federal funds and to support rural areas, improve freight movement, and to ensure that the user pays and that the user who pays reaps the benefits of the investments they fund. For the most part, they don’t actually end up funding projects that accomplish those outcomes.

Both parties do so much to undercut what they claim to care about.

Recommended Study: How The Last Three Presidents Helped Shape Our Local Transportation Landscapes Kea Wilson October 9, 2024

Democrats often focus on supporting spending that creates good construction jobs, but they are less concerned with whether the projects those jobs build accomplish anything or even cause harm. Republicans say they want to prioritize rural needs but then pour money into “fixing” urban congestion with highway expansions that create more congestion or they push highways through rural villages that hollow them out.

While both parties are foolish, they are not the same. Republicans would rather have nothing than something they don’t like. Democrats need something and make it clear they will take anything over nothing. So Republicans have a stronger negotiating position.

Republicans are also willing to use their administrative power to push their priorities, while Democrats prefer to write plans about what someone should do someday.

Some examples: I worked at the U.S. Department of Transportation during the Obama Administration. During those eight years, Congress passed and the President signed two transportation authorization bills. Both of them maintained the basic structure of the program that has existed since 1991:

• 80 percent of funding for highways (all guaranteed) and 20 percent for transit (not all guaranteed);
• no reward for improvements in priorities like safety or repairing crumbling infrastructure, and no accountability for doing worse;
• small programs (e.g., Transportation Alternatives, the Highway Safety Improvement, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement programs) to fix the ongoing damage caused by all of the rest of the much bigger programs; and
• continued support for tools that made it hard to do what we claimed we wanted, like a benefit-cost analysis that quantified mostly congestion benefits, travel demand modeling that was consistently wrong, and design standards that produced unsafe results, etc.

Democrats don’t take their progressive stances into transportation.

For example, when Democrats talk about addressing climate change, they mean that they want the auto companies to produce more efficient cars, not that they want to produce a more efficient transportation system.

There is a bipartisan version of this too. Such as when members of both parties say they want safer roads, they mean they want people to behave better on the roads, and maybe that auto manufacturers should build safer cars, when pushed. They do not mean that they would require roads to be designed in ways that produce safer results.

Recommended New House Infrastructure Bill: Cuts To Transit, Mixed Bag for Active Transportation Kea Wilson May 20, 2026

The first Trump Administration did not move a transportation bill. The Biden Administration did, with some fanfare.

Biden’s bill included a lot more money, but for the most part, the same structural problems bulleted above continued — though credit to them for funding rail investment and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Unfortunately, they made both programs cumbersome, and most of the money was still sitting unused when the second Trump Administration took over, allowing them to rescind those grants and repeal or change those programs.

Last summer, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed a bill, almost unanimously, that cuts transit and rail, ends the climate and EV charging programs, and includes almost none of the smaller programs that fix the damage caused by the big programs, except for a couple safety programs that the Trump Administration has already said they will not to be used as the law intends.

Committee Democrats — especially the progressives — praised the bill publicly, but privately said that this was “the best they could do” in the current political environment. However, most have also made clear that, if the political environment changes in the next Congress, they will feel pressure to support the same bill, because they voted for it already.

One has to wonder who is actually supporting the progressives’ supposed priorities.

Recommended What You Missed in the Transportation Reauthorization This Summer Kea Wilson September 16, 2026

Progressive leadership does not tend to result in progressive transportation policy. If groups that want the outcomes that progressives claim to care about, then they need to dial up the pressure for real actions.

Speeches don’t create change. And decades of saying that they wish they could do more started sounding hollow years ago.

Tomorrow I will focus on the so-called progressives and champions of multimodal transportation at the state level. Spoiler alert: it is the same as at the federal level.

• What really cuts down on traffic is access to driving alternatives. Yet the proposed Bipartisantransportation bill, the BUILD America 250 Act, would cut transit by 20 percent while raising road construction funding by 8 percent. (Transportation for America)
• Surprise, surprise: A network of protected bike lanes is more likely to get people pedaling than a patchwork of sharrows and off-road paths, according to a University of New Mexico study. (Cycling West)
• Darrell Owens dunked on two California newspapers’ editorials urging voters to reject a Bay Area transit funding referendum. (The Discourse Lounge)
• I-35 traffic from San Antonio to Dallas is so bad that it’s making San Antonio drivers reconsider Amtrak. (MySA)
• Speed cameras have been successful in slowing down Minneapolis drivers on the five roads where they’ve been tried. (Star Tribune)
• North Carolina suspended its 41-cents-per-gallon gas tax, but drivers are not likely to see the full savings. (Raleigh News & Observer)
• Portland is expanding its sidewalk cleaning program to historically underserved areas. (Oregonian)
• Helena, Montana is considering establishing fixed-route bus service. (Free Press)
• Vancouver police are out in force ticketing e-scooter riders for not wearing helmets. (Daily Hive)
• Pedestrian deaths in Toronto are up 24 percent this year (CBC). While perhaps not directly related, it doesn’t seem like now is a great time to start tearing up bike lanes (Sun).
• Edinburgh may extend the times when certain lanes are restricted to buses beyond traditional rush hours. (Reporter)