News Feeds

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with pesticide manufacturer Bayer in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, ruling that federal law preempts lawsuits brought by cancer patients who allege its Roundup product was to blame for their disease. The Trump administration sided with Bayer in the litigation. The ruling extends this legal shield to all pesticide corporations, leaving patients harmed by these toxic agricultural chemicals without the recourse of litigation that has cost Bayer billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, Senator Cory Booker’s introduced Pesticide Injury Accountability Act would restore the right to sue over pesticide harms.

In response, Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen issued the following statement:

“Once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment. Today’s ruling is a disaster for public health — and it has Trump’s name written all over it. If one needed any further proof that the president’s feigned mission to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ was a farce, today’s decision is all the evidence needed. Trump has been all too willing to endorse Bayer’s crusade to pollute with impunity, while the administration doubles down on a failed pesticide regulatory scheme.

“Industrial agriculture is poisoning America. The fight against toxic pesticides does not end here. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by these toxic chemicals, and a Farm Bill that finally puts public health first. Until then, the Supreme Court has shut the courthouse doors to tens of thousands of sick and suffering Americans.”

Today’s ruling comes despite a litany of evidence suggesting that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Bayer’s ubiquitous Roundup pesticide, is carcinogenic, and that the Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide registration process is fatally flawed. The World Health Organization has defined glyphosate as a probable carcinogen since 2015. Roundup is the most widely used pesticide in the United States.

The decision completes Bayer’s yearslong, well-financed quest to stifle cancer lawsuits cutting into its bottom line. Since purchasing Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has spent over $11 billion settling over 100,000 cancer lawsuits related to Roundup. Bayer has been pushing widely-opposed Cancer Gag Act bills nationwide, seeking to shield pesticide corporations from health-related lawsuits in multiple states and Congress. So far this year, the immunity legislation has failed in 11 states and was stripped from the House Farm Bill and left out of the Senate version.

Despite years of opposition, a 900-mile crude oil pipeline through East Africa is about to be completed, and its environmental and social risks are coming into focus. Campaigners in Uganda and abroad are making a final push to halt the project before the oil starts to flow.

Read more on E360 →

Contact: olivia@climatejusticealliance.org

Says Ruling Puts Corporate Interests Over Public Health

In reaction to today’s Supreme Court ruling, shielding Monsanto from liability over harms caused by its popular weed killer Roundup, and effectively ending thousands of lawsuits from people who claim that RoundUp ingredients gave them cancer, Climate Justice Alliance legislative director Mar Zepeda issued the following statement:  

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is another victory for corporate polluters and another setback for the communities forced to live with the consequences.

“By shielding pesticide manufacturers from failure-to-warn claims, the Court has weakened one of the few avenues communities have to seek justice and demand transparency. It will now be nearly impossible for communities, farmworkers, and consumers to fight back against businesses that knowingly sell products that can make us sick. The burden of these decisions will continue to fall hardest on farmworkers, Indigenous peoples, Black communities, rural communities, and low-income communities that have long been treated as sacrifice zones.

“Allowing corporations to withhold information about dangerous chemicals and toxic ingredients, including those associated with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses, is a profound betrayal of our trust. This decision does not erase the harm caused by toxic exposure, nor does it end our fight. People have a right to know what they’re being exposed to, a right to seek justice when they’re harmed, and a right to build a food system that values life over corporate profit.

“This ruling sends a dangerous message: that corporate interests matter more than people’s right to know and right to be protected. 

“No court can stop communities from organizing for a future free from toxic pollution. We will continue fighting until people, not polluters and chemical giants, shape the future of our land, food, and health.”

                                                                           # # #  

The post Climate Justice Alliance Condemns Supreme Court Decision Shielding Monsanto from Accountability appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

This could be a big year for the circular economy. 

In autumn, the European Commission is due to adopt the Circular Economy Act (CEA), aimed at supporting the EU in its stated aim to become a world leader in circularity by 2030.

There is a clear environmental imperative behind the legislation, but also a geopolitical one. Europe imports the vast majority of all its critical raw materials; for example, 100% of its heavy rare earth metals come from China and 71% of its platinum from South Africa.

The bloc is seeking to reduce its dependency on imports of key commodities, energy and materials, and as a result achieve greater self-sufficiency. Circular products are one route to achieving that.

Circular ambitions

Whether the EU’s aim is achievable, or not, brings into sharp relief the current state of the circular economy. According to the European Environment Agency, in 2024, secondary recovered materials made up 12% of total material use across Europe. This was only 1.5% higher than in 2010.

But, by some estimates, the global circular economy is already worth around $700 billion and could reach several trillion within the next decade. This rate of growth would take considerable support from national governments, starting with something akin to the CEA, which aims to double the EU’s circularity rate to 24% and create a single market for secondary raw materials. The hope is that this will stoke demand from businesses to adopt more circular practices. 

Carsten Wachholz, business-policy engagement lead at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, described the forthcoming act as “a critical opportunity to turn circular solutions from a niche proposition into a mainstream market choice,” adding that by harmonising rules across the single market the EU can allow the circular economy to “scale across borders”.

From there the argument runs that rules created in Europe will be copied in other markets, shaping global supply chains and standards elsewhere. “The EU can work towards shared international ambition, reducing protectionism risks, and unlocking large-scale investment globally,” he added.

Making two ends meet

Raising awareness of what is meant by circularity, and being able to identify and treat circular products correctly, is one of the challenges the sector faces.

The global economy has been built on a simple linear structure where we source a material, create something out of it, sell it on and then throw it away. This process, sometimes called ‘take, make, use, dispose’ is the opposite of the principles of circularity. 

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines the circular economy as a system where “materials never become waste”. In such a system, products and materials are “kept in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling and composting”.

Circularity is about the whole life cycle of a product, seeing how it can be used for longer, upgrading when possible, and then potentially using that product to create something else afterwards. The intention with circularity is to increase the use of non-virgin materials, reducing the need to extract more from the ground.

Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now”

Thomas Marinelli, head of sustainable innovation and design at Signify, a global lighting company, said: “I once explained it to a child with Lego. You put Lego blocks together and you can pull them apart again and make something new.” 

Circular practices also lead to more products – phones, washing machines, lighting – being leased instead of created from scratch. These services cut the need for large upfront investments and reduce environmental impacts.

How business is responding

The next step is to convince businesses it is the right thing to do, from a financial, environmental and product perspective.

“Using products for longer and using less material and energy is a topic of interest in our markets,” added Marinelli, while at the same time acknowledging that part of the challenge is “awareness creation”.

“We need to prove that products made from non-virgin, or bio-circular materials are at least as good. And that a business’s environmental footprint is much lower when you use non-virgin materials,” he said.

Part of the awareness-raising piece is showing that older products can be repaired, refurbished and remanufactured, depending on their condition. Signify takes lighting systems that are up to 10 years old, and makes them new again, saving on material waste and cutting emissions, often at a lower cost than buying a new product.

An illustration of how the life cycle of a product can be extended through circular practices. Image: Signify An illustration of how the life cycle of a product can be extended through circular practices. Image: Signify

A growing number of companies are already sold on the benefits of going circular. A recent survey from the World Economic Forum found that out of 491 manufacturing executives, 79% said circularity is crucial to their business, and 95% said it will be important within three years.

Carrefour, the French retail giant, has adopted circular practices in some of its stores as a way of driving down energy costs and cutting carbon emissions. In one of its Belgian stores, the company installed 3D-printed light fixtures made from recycled water bottles. Lighting systems were made from recycled materials that can be fully dismantled and used to make new ones after they reach the end of their natural life.

Does the future of green manufacturing lie in 3D printing?

A separate example comes from Denmark where the area of Tuborg Havn in Copenhagen chose to upgrade its historic street lamps with efficient LEDs instead of replacing them. More than 80 light fixtures were cleaned, upgraded and reinstalled as part of the new initiative, and the new lights will be 3.5 times more efficient than the old ones. The initiative has allowed the harbour to retain its historic character while reducing energy consumption and modernising the area.

Overcoming barriers

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation recently coordinated an open letter to the European Commission – signed by 12 global brands including The LEGO Group, H&M and Philips – calling for lawmakers to support new reforms that address common barriers facing circular products. 

These include simplifying EU-wide rules, creating tax incentives and stronger financial support for the burgeoning sector. Current VAT rules, for example, can mean secondhand goods are repeatedly taxed across their lifetime, something the charity is seeking to change.

“Capital is not lacking,” said Wachholz, “but the risk profile of circular economy projects keeps too many ventures stuck at pilot scale rather than reaching industrial deployment.”

The letter calls for the creation of a secondary materials platform to improve price transparency, digital product passports to track material flows, and the creation of new industrial hubs to provide the infrastructure and technology the sector needs in order to scale up.

Is electrification a no-brainer in the race to net-zero?

Those measures, coupled with fossil energy price spikes, will help circular products compete on cost with the extractive economy, experts say. “Using recycled materials or non-virgin alternatives can become competitive in the long run,” said Marinelli, pointing to the volatility in the price of raw materials. “If you look at plastics, when oil is a problem, the price of plastics goes up. But recycled plastic stays at the same level.”

“And it’s not only about materials but production as well. When volumes of recycled materials go up, then the price remains stable or goes down,” he added.

Opportune moment

The current geopolitical environment could serve to support growth in the circular economy. Supply chain constraints caused by the war in Iran have caused commodity prices to skyrocket. This has led many companies – and countries – to seek ways to protect themselves against future shocks.

In that context, new circular policies and products could receive a favourable hearing from businesses looking to build resilience, cut costs and protect nature. A future where circularity is fully embedded across society will need time and support to grow, but may well be on its way.

Adam Wentworth is a freelance journalist based in Brighton, UK

The post Can the circular economy win over big business? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Headline News:

• “WindEurope Calls For Binding 2040 Renewables Goal” • WindEurope has called on EU Energy Ministers to commit to a binding 2040 renewables target ahead of its 26 June energy policy discussions. The organization said the absence of a post-2030 target risks stalling investment momentum and undermining Europe’s energy security. [reNews]

Tinne van der Straeten, former Belgian Energy Minister (WindEurope image)

• “Senate Votes Again, Blocking War Powers Resolution, Giving Trump A Win” • Hours after President Trump blasted Senator Bill Cassidy for his support of a war powers resolution, Cassidy helped deliver Trump a victory by voting with the majority of Republicans to block a separate resolution aimed at reining in the president’s war powers in Iran. [ABC News]
• “Vermont Yankee Site Options Include Data Center, Nuclear Reactor, And Battery Storage” • The state of Vermont and a Texas company exploring redevelopment of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant site are working on a letter of intent to govern how the project would proceed and how the public could engage in the process. [Greenfield Recorder]
• “Red Heatwave Alerts Spread Across Europe” • June 24 was the hottest day ever in France, leading to power cuts and tragically to deaths. Hundreds of schools in the UK are closed due to worries that students cannot be kept safe in sweltering buildings. Italy has issued extreme heat warnings for sixteen cities. But in Spain, the heatwave is abating. [Euronews]
• “Trillion-Dollar AI Bubble On Verge Of Popping? ” • The amount of investment in AI is wild. Investors all want to bet on leaders of this new era. Large AI companies are pouring a lot of that cash into enormous data centers packed with unbelievable amounts of computer hardware, powered by polluting power plants. Has it all gone too far? [CleanTechnica]

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

In an act deemed “going apeshit against enemies of the Reich,” two judges just levied brutal prison sentences of 30 to 100 years, a combined penance of 450 years, on eight anti-ICE members of a scary if imaginary “North Texas Antifa cell” convicted of terrorist-abetting “crimes” like protesting, lighting fireworks and moving a box of zines. The case, widely seen as a test of regime efforts to criminalize dissent or any unwelcome speech, moved one defendant to muse, “What kind of people are not against fascism?”

The grievous injustice against the group, dubbed The Prairieland Defendants for the ICE concentration camp they were protesting, comes amidst almost daily court victories elsewhere against the regime. Last week, three key rulings in federal district courts saw judges strike down administration election meddling, abuses against immigrants and, in a blistering 29-page decision, “blatantly unlawful and unethical use” of a grand-jury subpoena targeting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. To date, there have been at least 272 wins against Trump, several from judges he appointed; after one especially irksome loss, Stephen Goebbels memorably whined, “Judge Sparkle (sic) decrees that America belongs to any random alien on Planet Earth.”

Faced with mounting losses in other endeavors - wars, pools, polls - more regime lackeys are also getting testy. Newly back from having a baby but still hyper-toxic, Press Barbie went on Hannity to shriek about “deranged leftists desecrating our federal monuments” with algae: “Only the Democrats could hate beautifying our Capitol.” Of six people arrested for “vandalism” - more than for raping minors - many are “longtime donors to the Democrat Party,” who “completely destroyed our country,” also to “Barack Hussein Obama” and, gasp, ACTBlue. With fear-mongering truly all they’ve got, Hannity joined in on Dem “radicals...You’ve got Mr. Nazi Tattoo Platner, and six-gender, God-is-non-binary Talarico, and Pocahontas, and Mamdani...”

Amidst a “rolling coup“ in an increasingly fascist America, where threats from the left have always loomed larger than on the right and today’s despots cling frantically to a power they somehow know is illegitimate, it’s little wonder principled citizens protesting vulnerable brown people being locked up in concentration camps have become ”the new Red Scare.“ It’s helpful to remember that everything earlier autocrats did - Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet - was legal; they just changed the rules to do it. ”This is Soviet shit,“ wrote one observer, summoning the terror of Stalin’s staged show trials in the 1930s to eliminate most of Lenin’s staff and other ”saboteurs,“ from Bukharin to, via pickaxe, Trotsky exiled in Mexico; in the end, only ”Stalin the Executioner“ remained.

The “legal,” in Trump’s case, was last year’s menacing national security directive “NSPM-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” which explicitly declared a fictional Antifa - in fact any American who opposes fascism, supports the rule of law and uses their First Amendment rights to defend it - a “MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION” and “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER,” whether “it exists or not.” Prairieland, the first case successfully brought under NSPM-7, tests the state’s ability to quell dissent by perceived “enemies,” and could shape a future playbook for using the Antifa label - and “creative and highly theoretical claims by the state” - as “a catchall designation to criminalize activists writ large.”

The surreal sentences inflicted this week on eight mostly non-violent Prairieland activists came three months after their convictions on terrorism and other charges stemming from last year's July 4 protest at the for-profit Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. The action began as a noise demonstration, a typically safe, festive event where fireworks are set off "to remind people inside they are not forgotten." That day, it devolved into vandalism - of cars, a guard shack, a security camera - by several protesters. Some brought guns - a red flag to many activists, but common in open-carry Texas where queer or trans people can face armed counter-protesters. When one cop drew his weapon, a protester in the nearby woods shot him in the shoulder.

At trial, eight defendants - Autumn Hill, Zachary Evetts, Benjamin Hanil Song, Savanna Batten, Meagan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Elizabeth Soto, and Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada - were convicted of rioting and explosive charges, and "providing material support to terrorists." They are much like protesters anywhere: teachers, engineers, tattoo artists, animal-lovers, anti-ICE advocates, parents, straight, queer, trans, vegan. Some had organized the action together, some produced anarchist zines and belonged to a book club named for anarchist Emma Goldman, who 99 years ago this month was arrested on conspiracy charges for organizing against the First World War draft; some were members of a Socialist gun club; some weren't even at the protest.

From the outset, the regime played hardball. The DOJ called them “members of a North Texas Antifa cell“; the indictment said Antifa "is a militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribed to a revolutionary anarchist or autonomous Marxist ideology.” They were held on multimillion-dollar bonds in squalid jail cells, denied medical care, frequently strip-searched; two trans women were held - unsafely, illegally - in men's facilities. State agents ransacked homes, detained children, used flash-bang grenades to intimidate, went after anyone in their political orbit, often unearthing new charges. It was, one defendant said, "a nightmare made real...seeing the prosecution jump from lie to lie," abuse to abuse.

The case became a sinister "laboratory" where constitutionally protected free speech and civil disobedience became "rioting" and solidarity became "conspiracy." Fireworks were “explosives," a home where friends gathered a "staging area," black clothing and the use of encrypted Signal a way "to aid and abet those engaged in illegal acts." A home printer became "a printing press" producing "insurrectionary materials" - anti-fascist zines, handouts of "8 Things You Can Do To Stop ICE," packets of vegetable seeds, poems, patches, bumper stickers of swastikas X-ed out and “Zines Are Not A Crime." A teacher had home-made first aid kits he used to bring to school in case of a shooting; feds used their presence as evidence protesters had planned violence.

The shocking sentencing hearings were held by two judges, one each appointed by Bush and Trump, in two Fort Worth courtrooms. They were inexplicably scheduled even before either judge heard long-filed motions to overturn convictions in a trial, lawyers argued, "saturated with evidence designed to evoke fear, political bias, and guilt by association" and widely deemed "untethered from credible evidence or witness testimony." Prosecutors folded into the case people who didn't help plan the protest, weren't there, or left when police asked them to. An attorney for Hill cited no evidence they believed in violence; Hill was so conscientious they stayed after the fireworks went off to pick up trash left behind; she still got a 50-year sentence.

The case ostensibly centered on the alleged attempted murder of the cop shot in the shoulder. Marine Corps reservist Benjamin "Champagne" Song said they were in the woods and fired "a warning shot" to distract the cop when he drew his gun on another protester; citing Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Song said, “I never want to see good people, standing for what they believe in, gunned down." Song charges the state is imposing "collective punishment, guilt by association" on other activists, and the facts of the shooting remain unclear; feds first said there were multiple shooters and rounds fired, then said they have no medical records from the hospital where the cop was reportedly quickly released. Still, Song was given a 100-year sentence.

Batten, Evetts, Hill, Morris, and Soto each got 50 years for rioting, providing support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use an explosive ie: attending a loud protest. Said Soto, trying to laugh, "I guess they didn't like my book club." Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for also conspiring to "conceal documents" by asking her husband Sanchez-Estrada, not at the protest, to remove a box of zines from their house. "Being guilty of possessing literature is a concept fundamentally incompatible with a free society," said one advocate. "We don’t need a constitutional right to possess only what the government likes." Sanchez-Estrada got a 30-year sentence for moving the box. "I am a father, a husband, a teacher, a poet," he told the judge. "I am many things, Your Honor, but I am not a terrorist."

Many observers noted all the sentences were far harsher than those handed down to Jan. 6 rioters - who were then pardoned - or even the longest sentences for murder or rape - this, though prosecutors offered almost no evidence of the alleged crimes. And despite their obsession with the lethal threat posed by imaginary Antifa forces, even the judges questioned the need to mention "antifa" to jurors, who in turn seemed to reject Judge Reed O’Connor's narrative of "an ambush" and "assault on democracy" by acquitting everyone but Song of attempted murder. One legal expert said that fortuitous rejection underscored how easily prosecutors can fashion or twist the law to create a "conspiracy"; said one attorney, “People should be scared."

In total, 22 people have been charged in connection with the Prairieland protest. Five others took plea deals, another five have state charges pending, three more were indicted last month. Regime lackeys have gleefully touted their rare victory, with a hyperbolic DOJ press release blaring, "Leader of Antifa Cell Members Sentenced to 100 Years in Prison for Terrorist Attack on ICE Facility." After the trial, Pam Bondi gloated they'd taken down "Antifa" - repeated 16 times - to "finally halt their violence on America's streets." After sentencing, Todd Blanche celebrated the regime's "swift and uncompromising justice." Of villainous Antifa, he crowed, "Their violent extremism has no place in our country," presumably because only the fascist kind does.

As young activists mull lives stolen - and tenuously bank on appeals or pardons - their family, friends, supporters voice horror at “the absolute travesty” of the lies that led to their convictions and sentences. “We’ve fallen so far so fast it’s nose-bleed inducing,” said one. Another insisted, "The outcome of this trial is not the end. It is the beginning." Autumn Hill’s wife Lydia Koza said she is "livid in the face of this grotesque distortion of anything that could ever have called itself due process...There is no ‘appropriate’ sentence for a wholly fictitious crime." On their loved ones "being thrown away for the rest of their lives," one noted the regime's own actions "have proved the righteousness of their actions...This sentencing is a punishment for solidarity itself."

Finally, from Flying Penguin, a grim reminder the Prairieland fates mirror that of too many in a nation and world whose history is rife with 'other righteous "crimes": BLM protesters, Black Panthers, AIM activists, civil rights marchers, union workers, “your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” To wit: "Today’s news is Andrew Jackson, ordering Congress to criminalize antislavery speech. Today’s news is Stalin’s Article 58, where ‘anti-Soviet agitation’ was a crime that meant whatever it needed to. Today's news is the McCarthy-era ruling that upheld the conviction of Americans for organizing and teaching political theory.Today's news is South Africa’s 1967 Terrorism Act, making terrorism anything that endangers 'law and order.' Today’s news is Trump and a white police state." Warns Sanchez-Estrada, "People need to be aware - it’s not just the defendants on trial.”

Defendants clockwise from top left: Estrada-Sanchez; Song and Gibson; Hill and Koza; Batten; Sanchez; Elizabeth and Ines Soto; Morris and Hill Composite Image from Dallas-Fort Worth Support Committee

Alberta’s building retrofit sector is ready to scale and could generate $5.8 billion in GDP and support 24,000 jobs with $2.5 billion in annual investment — but only if governments, utilities, and industry align on a clear, coordinated strategy...

CALGARY — A new report finds a resilient but under-supported supply chain is contributing to slowing Alberta’s progress toward energy security and housing affordability. As the federal government moves to double Canada's electricity generation over...

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Sarah Wesseler

ompared to most American cities, London is a paradise for climate-friendly, car-free transportation. Around a quarter of all trips in the UK capital are made on foot, and cyclists are a frequent sight on many streets. Thousands of buses – many of them electric – and hundreds of train stations serve journeys across the city and destinations farther afield, including continental Europe.

“We see London as a beacon, really, when it comes to progressive and sustainable transport policy,” said Oliver Lord, the UK lead for transportation advocacy group Clean Cities. “London has a lot of influence on the rest of Europe as well, because a lot of people look to it as the only megacity in the continent.”

The local government wants to make it even easier to get around without a car. In 2018, Mayor Sadiq Khan, now serving a third term, set a goal for 80% of all trips to happen on foot, bicycle, or public transportation by 2041 – a significant increase from the then-current figure of 63%. His administration sees reducing driving as critical to meeting its climate goals, improving public health, and generally improving residents’ lives and livelihoods.

The government has taken major steps toward reaching the 80% goal, leading to, among other things, a 43% growth in cycling since 2019.

Despite this, the city is not on track to meet its overall target. As of 2024, the overall percentage of car trips was still roughly equivalent to 2018 figures.

Other indicators show that cars remain a problem. London’s traffic is the worst in Europe and the seventh-worst globally, according to transportation data company INRIX. And climate pollution from road transportation has declined relatively little in the past two decades.

“London has made a lot of progress compared to 10 or 20 years ago,” said Izzy Romilly, who leads sustainable transport campaigns at climate organization Possible. “But compared to what needs to be done, we’re still just not moving fast enough.”

Bike lanes in London. (Image credit: Sarah Wesseler)

Most concerningly, London’s government is not alone in failing to meet the moment, according to Robin Hickman, a professor of transportation and city planning at University College London. As he wrote in his 2025 book, which compares sustainable urban transportation initiatives around the world, “even in the so-called ‘progressive’ transport cities, transport CO2 emissions are decreasing only marginally.”

Making driving less attractive

Restricting car use is a critical step in reducing car dependency. But in London, as elsewhere in the world, it often provokes intense backlash.

“We know from research going back years that just providing cycle lanes or better pedestrian areas doesn’t necessarily lead to car reduction,” said Jamie Furlong, a transportation researcher at the University of Westminster. “We can achieve more significant reductions in car use by making traveling by car more difficult, and that’s really, really politically difficult.”

Compared to American cities, London has taken bold steps to deprioritize cars. From a global perspective, however, its efforts look relatively limited, Hickman said.

These efforts started in earnest around the turn of the century. In 2003, the city implemented a congestion pricing program that charged drivers £5 ($6.73 in today’s dollars) to enter the designated area on weekdays, using cameras to record license plates. The proceeds were funneled to public transportation.

Although the program affected only a small part of the city, its impact reverberated throughout the transportation network, Lord said.

“It was that policy that initially helped the mayor at the time to introduce bus lanes, because it started to free up some of the capacity on the road network, and it also created a budget to make that investment.” (It also later helped inspire New York City’s congestion pricing program.)

But Hickman said the city’s congestion pricing program had limited direct impact, in part because limited parking in the affected area had always kept some drivers away.

“Overall, it reduced traffic a little bit, but it’s only a very small intervention,” he said.

In 2019, the government introduced a second fee-based program, the Ultra Low Emission Zone, in the city center. It charged drivers of older, more polluting vehicles £12.50 ($16.80 in today’s dollars) to enter the affected area, with the proceeds going to public transportation. In 2023, the program was expanded citywide, despite significant controversy.

Another program that has reshaped parts of the city, low-traffic neighborhoods, has also been contentious. Designed to limit through traffic on residential streets using cameras or physical barriers like planters and curbs, low-traffic neighborhoods reduce climate and air pollution while making it safer to walk and cycle. More than 100 have been rolled out in London, although 27 were later removed due to resident complaints.

Low-traffic neighborhood in outer London (Image credit: Sarah Wesseler)

In general, however, low-traffic neighborhoods – known as LTNs – tend to be popular, or simply recede into the background once they’re in place, Furlong said.

“The evidence shows, in the UK, lots of people don’t even know that they live in an LTN after it’s been implemented,” he said.

Other efforts to restrict driving include 20-mile-per-hour speed limits covering half the city’s roads and a school streets program that prevents cars from entering streets near affected schools during specific hours. The government is also pedestrianizing much of Oxford Street, the city’s main shopping corridor.

Oxford Street. (Image credit: Sarah Wesseler)

Recent comments from Mayor Khan have led to speculation that the city may also start charging large cars like SUVs to drive in London. Hickman said this step, along with charging drivers based on the number of miles traveled (which Khan has pledged not to do) and eliminating diesel vehicles, would allow the city to make greater progress on reducing driving.

London on two wheels

Today, some parts of the city are notable for their bike-friendly infrastructure and the number of cyclists on the streets. There are 268 miles of protected bike lanes, with more planned. As bike infrastructure has improved, the number of cycling trips has risen dramatically, growing 43% between 2019 and 2026.

Despite this investment, cycling remains a small player in the overall transportation system, Hickman said. Roughly 5% of trips in the city are made by bike, he noted, compared to an average of 27% in the Netherlands.

(Image credit: coldsnowstorm / Getty Images)

Moreover, cycling infrastructure is highly uneven across the city.

“There are still huge gaps in the cycling network, particularly in outer London,” Furlong said.

This problem occurs partly because each of the city’s 33 local authorities manages its own roads. Local officials’ hesitation to upset the status quo is another important factor, Hickman said: “[London] is very slow in implementing good cycle projects because they tend to be controversial with the car-owning population.”

Public transportation

What has been undeniably successful in the UK capital is mass transit, which carried around 8.8 million rides per day in 2024.

“London is one of the classic public transport cities,” Hickman said. “It has very high public transport use for trips.”

Moreover, the city continues to deliver major new mass transit projects like the Elizabeth Line, a regional express train that opened in 2022 at a cost of £18.8 billion ($25.3 billion).

(Image credit: coldsnowstorm / Getty Images)

Projects like this one tend to be easier to push through in London than efforts to restrict car use or improve bike infrastructure, Hickman said. Unlike in most American cities, Londoners from all walks of life view public transportation positively and believe it’s vital for the economy. Moreover, major mass transit projects tend to align with the logic of UK transportation planning, which weighs projects’ economic impact above factors like public health and climate change.

Although these dynamics have helped mass transit grow, the downside is that major projects often disproportionately serve wealthy communities and business interests, Hickman said. They “tend to link the financial district of London, Canary Wharf; Heathrow Airport … that type of thing. But they don’t really give better public transport for people in the suburbs.”

Suburban car dependency

Outer London, the suburban ring that’s home to more than 5 of the city’s roughly 9 million inhabitants, is much more car-dependent than the central city. Although the region is large and diverse, featuring everything from densely populated high-rise neighborhoods to semirural districts, much of it was built around cars, making walking and cycling more challenging. In a 2022 survey, only 32% of outer London respondents said they could live car-free, compared to half inner Londoners.

In recent years, the government has taken steps to improve public transportation in the suburbs, introducing a new orbital express bus network, adding bus lines, and opening stops on the Elizabeth Line. Generally, however, outer Londoners still have far less access to transit than people in the city center.

This gap creates feedback loops that complicate efforts to reduce driving. Lacking other transportation options, many suburban residents “might spend a huge amount of money on car ownership and use,” Hickman said. “And then if you say that you would like to take away that provision and give them full public transport or expect them to cycle … that doesn’t go down too well.”

Politics also come into play. Many parts of outer London are governed by conservative politicians skeptical of efforts to change the transportation system.

“There’s some unease with the right-wing councils about anything that infringes an individual’s personal freedom to drive where they like,” said Sharon Erdman, a volunteer coordinator at Mums for Lungs, a nonprofit focused on air pollution. “Whereas we feel that it’s not about them driving where they like, it’s about the cost to public health.”

Jane Dutton, a digital communications manager with Mums for Lungs who lives in outer London, said her borough leaders fit the stereotype of suburban politicians actively fighting sustainable transportation initiatives.

“The leaders are very open about absolutely, vehemently opposing things like the ultralow emission zone. They don’t think it’s necessary … They really favor cars over walking and cycling.”

Moreover, outer London officials sympathetic to efforts to reduce car dominance are often afraid to take bold action, Erdman said. In one borough she has worked with, “the council leader is really honest that they are guided by public appetite,” she said.

Since local officials have control over the roads in their communities, these dynamics have huge real-world implications.

“Ultimately, if a borough doesn’t want to do certain things, they don’t have to,” Dutton said.

Political will and public imagination

Making progress on car dependency will require the government to lead more decisively, campaigner Izzy Romilly said.

“In the UK, there’s a real political nervousness around standing up against car dependency,” she said. “But when you actually have a conversation with people, time and again, they want less traffic, they want less congestion. Support for better public transport is absolutely through the roof. So I think it really is just a case of political leadership.”

But London residents also need to do more, Hickman said. Today, “there’s no great public debate” about what kind of transportation system people actually want, he said. “That is needed to dramatically remove road space from the car and give that back to cycling and walking and transport.”

Data now shows PFAS nearly 3 times the levels reported by local media

By Pat Elder
June 24, 2026

The Maryland Department of the Environment, (MDE) just released data for 18 separate PFAS compounds from Muddy Branch in Rockville, Maryland.

The newly released results from sampling location “Muddy Branch 8” near the stormwater pond show a total PFAS concentration of 4,465ppt. PFOS accounted for just over one-third of the PFAS detected at MB8, while the remaining 2,865 ppt consists of other PFAS compounds were not initially reported.

The findings suggest that a complex mixture of PFAS continues to migrate from the former training facility into surrounding surface waters.

The MDE did not detect 22 compounds and that is to be expected. They used an EPA method that returns results for 40 separate compounds. Prior results published by Montgomery County showed data for only three PFAS compounds.

The new data from MDE came in two separate PDFs. See Muddy Branch Sampling Results and Second Phase Muddy Branch Sampling Results.

4,445 parts per trillion (ppt) total PFAS was reported at MB8, near the source of the contamination, with 61.1 total ppt draining into the Potomac River at MB 1. 

PFAS contamination is highly complex because individual compounds behave differently in the environment. Some readily bind to vegetation, sediments, or organic matter, while others remain in water and migrate extremely long distances. Certain PFAS accumulate in aquatic invertebrates, while others are more readily transferred into fish and other wildlife. Some compounds concentrate near the bottom of streams and ponds, while others remain distributed throughout the water column. PFHxS, for example, is highly mobile and can travel considerable distances in groundwater and surface water, whereas other compounds exhibit a stronger tendency to sorb to soils and sediments. Understanding these differences is essential for predicting how contamination moves through ecosystems and ultimately reaches fish, wildlife, and people.

Scroll up to the map to make sense of this.

MB1 is located on Muddy Branch by the Potomac River. The concentrations are worrisome because the compounds bioaccumulate in fish. The EPA estimates that PFOS alone can bioaccumulate up to 4,000 in the filet of fish compared to the levels in the water. Smallmouth Bass have been detected with 574,000 ppt  of PFOS where Antietam Creek empties into the river. The MDE has reported PFOS concentrations of 94,200 ppt in Largemouth Bass. At the same time, Maryland regulates PFOS in drinking water at 4 ppt.

Sites MB2, MB3, MB5, MB6, MB 7 are located on Muddy Branch.  The contamination at these sites ranged from 62 ppt to 81 ppt.

Site MB4 is located on a small stream. Notice its heightened concentration of 251 ppt of PFAS compared to the other sites directly on the creek. This may be evidence of the “carcinogenic sponge” that perpetually squeezes out PFAS into surface water from groundwater plumes. Isn’t it interesting?

Site MB4_2 is also located on a small stream, and its concentration is elevated compared to nearby concentrations in the creek.

Site MB9, with its massive concentrations, is also located on a small stream.

Site MB8 is located by the stormwater pond, a kind of grand central station. During storms, rain infiltrates contaminated soils. PFAS dissolved in pore water are flushed into drainage channels and the pond.       

MB10 is located on a small stream north of Great Seneca Highway and recorded the lowest PFAS concentrations among all samples. The location may lie outside the principal PFAS migration pathway from the former fire-training area. It’s a guessing game without substantially more testing. MB10 may be influenced by cleaner upstream flows and may receive less PFAS-laden pore water, stormwater runoff, and groundwater discharge from the source area.

The chemical fingerprint in Muddy Branch is strongly consistent with historical AFFF contamination. PFOS (1,600 ppt) and PFHxS (1,240 ppt) together account for approximately 64 percent of the total PFAS detected at Site MB8.  The prominence of PFHxS is especially important because the compound is highly persistent, highly mobile in water, and often travels farther from contamination sources than PFOS. We can see this clearly in the Muddy Branch data. Although PFOS topped PFHxS at the source, PFHxS is the dominant compound at MB1 where the contaminants enter the Potomac.

The dominance of PFOS and PFHxS is also characteristic of legacy 3M firefighting foams manufactured using electrochemical fluorination technology, formulations that were widely used for firefighting training and emergency response throughout Maryland for decades. In addition to PFOS and PFHxS, the sample contained elevated concentrations of PFOA, PFNA, PFHxA, PFPeA, and other terminal PFAS that are unlikely to break down further in the environment. Taken together, the results indicate that Muddy Branch is receiving not a single contaminant, but a substantial and highly persistent mixture of PFAS compounds consistent with long-term use of 3M-style AFFF at the former training academy.

Equally noteworthy is what was not found. The laboratory did not detect GenX, ADONA, or other compounds typically associated with fluoropolymer manufacturing and modern industrial chemical production.  Instead, the chemical profile is overwhelmingly consistent with contamination originating from historical aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).

The newly released laboratory data provide one of the clearest indications yet of the extent and composition of PFAS contamination in Muddy Branch. Most importantly, the results demonstrate why comprehensive PFAS testing matters. Had public discussion remained focused solely on “PFAS at 1,600 ppt,” the majority of the contamination burden would have remained obscured. The difference between 1,600 ppt and 4,465 ppt is not a minor technical detail. It fundamentally changes the public's understanding of the magnitude, complexity, and persistence of PFAS contamination in the Muddy Branch watershed.

Today, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he is cancelling plans to sign major bipartisan legislation on housing affordability, threatening to veto the bill unless the anti-voter Save America Act is passed first.

Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, issued the following statement in response:

“Donald Trump’s full-on commitment to authoritarianism could not be more clear: He’s happy to block enactment of a bipartisan bill to address, modestly, Americans number one stated concern — high housing prices — in order to drive forward his election sabotage agenda.

“It’s plain what Congress should do: Listen to the American people, not Donald Trump. Pass the housing bill over his veto, if he follows through with today’s threats. And reject his demand for anti-voter, anti-democracy legislation.”

Dozens of governments led by the EU and the UK have pledged to throw their political weight behind a rapid electrification of the world’s economy, billed as a “powerful weapon” for cutting reliance on planet-heating fossil fuels.

At a high-level summit in London’s Mansion House on Tuesday, energy ministers and business leaders were joined by UN secretary-general António Guterres in calling for faster action to curb demand for oil, coal and gas by powering homes, industry and transport with clean electricity.

Electrification – which spans measures such as switching from petrol cars to electric vehicles – has emerged as a key priority in climate and energy policy circles this year. 

COP31 co-hosts Türkiye and Australia have made a global target for electricity to meet 35% of final energy demand by 2035, up from around 20% today, the main plank of this year’s action agenda for the UN summit. Reaching that level is necessary to keep the 1.5C warming limit within reach, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

Turkish COP31 President-Designate Murat Kurum said earlier this month that the host nation would work to forge “a strong global coalition that is ready and determined to act” and promised to facilitate access to technical assistance.

• Jun 24, 2026 Comment Did Colombia’s energy transition just come to a halt? With promises to lift a ban on oil and gas exploration and scale back renewables support, Colombia’s new Tiger President could threaten the country’s clean energy shift Read more
• Jun 24, 2026 News COP31 presidency ‘open’ to reflecting Santa Marta in UN climate process, ministers say The two co-hosts want the gathering of over 60 governments in Colombia to be reflected in the official UNFCCC climate process Read more
• Jun 23, 2026 News UN asks AI companies to reveal full environmental impacts UN chief António Guterres says big AI firms should disclose the emissions, water and energy use of their data centres amid community opposition Read more

Rallying support for electrification

Five months before countries are due to sign on to the pledge, efforts to rally support gathered momentum at London Climate Action Week, as a record-breaking heatwave baking the capital underscored the urgency of weaning the world off fossil fuels.

Guterres said the world faces an “historic opportunity” to turn the page on its dependence on fossil fuels and fully embrace clean electrification powered by renewables.

“The age of clean electrification is here,” he added. “The question is whether we can build the grids and storage, mobilize the investment, and deliver the infrastructure at the speed and scale required”.

Without investment and government policies supporting upgrades in infrastructure, ageing power grids are often unable to handle the growing influx of renewable energy, creating bottlenecks and slowing the energy transition, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Meanwhile, the high upfront costs of buying electric vehicles, heat pumps and industrial equipment remains a challenge to switch households and businesses away from using fossil fuels across the world, according IEA analysts, despite these technologies being cheaper over their whole lifecycle.

Global coordination platform

In a bid to overcome these hurdles, the European Commission and the UK government on Tuesday launched a new platform to coordinate global progress on electrification.

EU energy commissioner Dan Jorgensen said the goal was to build coalitions, draw up policy recommendations, share best practice and secure new funding to speed up the electrification of homes, industry and transport.

Brazil’s COP30 presidency, the joint Australia-Türkiye COP31 presidency, Ethiopia’s incoming COP32 presidency, Canada, the Philippines and South Korea joined the initiative at launch.

Jorgensen urged governments worldwide to “choose transformation over turbulence” and switch to clean electricity to make economies and societies more resilient and shield them from future shocks driven by volatile fossil fuels.

COP31 leaders unveil global targets, with spotlight on electrification

For many countries, especially those heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels, the oil and gas crisis triggered by the US and Israeli attacks on Iran and the ensuing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has driven home the urgency of the clean energy transition.

The UK’s energy secretary Ed Miliband said on Tuesday that, unlike previous fossil fuel shocks, clean electrification now offers the world a clear alternative.

“An alternative that cannot be disrupted by foreign wars, that isn’t subject to global shocks because it is locked in stable prices at home, and that can create good jobs and drive growth,” he added, “an alternative that can deliver national security, energy security and indeed climate security.”

At the recent conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta, a group of 60 governments led by the Netherlands and Colombia said electrification is one of the areas where they can align work with the UN climate talks.

Financial reforms needed

Achieving the electrification target – dubbed the “35 by 35” goal – will require significant financial resources. Investments in power grids alone need to double from their current rate to around $1 trillion each year in the next decade, according to IRENA. 

But Guterres said that developing countries are still “starved from investment” in their clean energy sector. He urged deeper reforms of the global financial architecture by reducing lending risk, lowering the cost of capital and attracting more private investment. 

Surangel Whipps Jr., president of the low-lying Pacific island state of Palau, said faster progress in electrification is a “powerful weapon in our arsenal”. But he warned that the energy transition would stall without “fit for purpose investment that is fast, predictable and accessible”.

The post EU, UK lead push for electrification as “powerful weapon” against fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Trump administration has paid federal employees at least $11 billion – and likely much more – not to work, according to a new Public Citizen report. The total reflects only the lower end of estimated costs for the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) and it does not look at other federal efforts to reduce the number of federal workers.

The report dives into the gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds, the major personnel losses across government agencies and what, instead, the federal government could have spent $11 billion on effectively.

Here are some key findings:

• The Trump administration paid nearly 140,000 federal employees who took part in the Deferred Resignation Program at least $11 billion to stop working for the American public and to stay home or take vacation until they separated from federal service.

• More than 106,000 federal employees separated from federal service in September 2025 under the Deferred Resignation Program, and an additional 24,000 employees in the DRP left federal service by the end of December 2025.

• As a result of the DRP, the Department of Defense lost more than 48,000 civilian employees last year, the Department of Treasury lost 23,000 federal employees, and the Department of Agriculture more than 14,500 employees.

• Several federal court cases ruled that some of the Trump administration’s layoffs were illegal and demanded that terminated employees at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Labor, and other agencies return to work. However, there are a multitude of ongoing court cases and some of those initial court decisions have been overruled in federal appeals courts.

• At least 10 federal agencies were forced to rehire employees that had chosen to take part in the Deferred Resignation Program because they realized these employees were essential to the agency’s Congressionally mandated work on behalf of all Americans.

“The Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the federal government have been stupid, costly and deadly,” said Douglas Pasternak, Public Citizen researcher who authored the report. “The administration has spent more than $11 billion on the Deferred Resignation Program alone, paying 140,000 federal workers to stay home or take vacation while they were still being paid by the American taxpayer. Multiple agencies had to rehire those who took part in this program because Trump officials realized how vital they were to managing critical national programs. Even worse is the work left undone by the coerced departure of these workers, costing billions of dollars and putting untold numbers of lives at risk as the federal government fails to perform crucial functions.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed Amendment #2 to the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), submitted by Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

The bipartisan amendment would strike Section 219, formerly Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” which would expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, research partnerships, intelligence coordination, and military-industrial integration.

CLICK HERE: READ CAIR’S LETTER

CAIR also called on the House Rules Committee to reject Amendment 151, which would expand federal anti-boycott restrictions to boycotts promoted by international governmental organizations (IGOs), including bodies such as the United Nations, and Amendment 362, which would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that Department of Defense contractors do not participate in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel. Both amendments raise serious concerns about free speech and First Amendment protections.

Earlier today, CAIR submitted a letter to the House Rules Committee urging members to support Amendment 2 and oppose Amendments 151 and 362. Next week, the committee will consider all amendments to the House’s version of the NDAA. CAIR is urging every American to take action by sending a message to members of Congress to strike Section 219 to stop American military merger with the Israeli government.

TAKE ACTION NOW! – TELL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BLOCK ALL U.S.-ISRAEL MILITARY MERGER BILLS

In a statement, CAIR Government Affairs Department Director Robert McCaw said:

“Americans should never be asked to surrender their First Amendment rights to protect the political interests of a foreign government. Amendment 151 would further expand anti-boycott laws that chill peaceful political expression, while Amendment 362 would impose an ideological litmus test on federal contractors based on their participation in a constitutionally protected form of political advocacy.

“Congress was right to reject this anti-boycott proposal in committee last week, and it should reject this latest attempt to revive the same policy through the NDAA amendment process.

“At the same time, Section 219 would take the extraordinary step of further binding the United States and Israel through deeper military, intelligence, technological, and defense-industrial integration at a moment when the Israeli government stands accused of genocide, apartheid, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As disturbing reports continue to emerge of torture, abuse, and sexual violence against Palestinian detainees, Congress should not be creating new mechanisms for military and technological integration that risk further implicating the United States in these abuses rather than helping bring them to an end.

“We urge every member of the House Rules Committee to reject Amendments 151 and 362, make Amendment 2 in order, and send a clear message that the constitutional rights of the American people, the principles of accountability, and the interests of our nation come before the demands of any foreign government.”

The proposed expansion of U.S.-Israel defense cooperation comes at a time when the Israeli government faces allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, and genocide, as well as documented reports of abuse and sexual violence against Palestinian detainees, including children. Deepening military, intelligence, and technology integration under these circumstances risks further entangling the United States in actions that much of the international community has condemned and undermines efforts to secure accountability for violations of international law.

CAIR noted that last week, Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY), who is sponsoring the IGO Anti-Boycott Act provision, was forced to withdraw the amendment before consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee following outreach from CAIRand other civil liberties advocates.

That earlier proposal sought to revive the controversial IGO Anti-Boycott Act by extending federal anti-boycott restrictions to boycotts associated with international governmental organizations such as the United Nations. For the past two years, CAIR has warned members of Congress that the measure threatened constitutionally protected political speech and advocacy and welcomed its withdrawal before last week’s markup.

On the four-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Reproductive Freedom for All announces the launch of My Body. My Ballot., a $23.5 million campaign to mobilize voters, hold anti-abortion politicians accountable, and elect reproductive freedom champions in key races across the country.

At the center of this campaign is a simple truth: support for abortion access is popular across party lines – more popular than any individual politician or political party. As many voters turn away from Trump and the MAGA movement because of their continued attacks on abortion access, Reproductive Freedom for All is seizing the opportunity to elect pro-abortion candidates up and down the ballot.

The campaign marks Reproductive Freedom for All’s largest-ever midterm electoral program and will focus on persuading and mobilizing voters – including independents, soft Republicans, and split-ticket voters – whose support for abortion access puts them at odds with Trump and his endorsed candidates. It will deploy a layered strategy that includes on-the-ground organizing, research, digital engagement, and political accountability. The program will include deep investments in direct voter contact, including coordinated canvassing programs designed in direct partnership with specific campaigns. It will also include relational organizing training with our members, with priority investments across Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, California, and Georgia. Top-tier targets will include AZ-06, MI-07, and NV-03 congressional districts, alongside critical statewide races and ballot initiatives. The campaign will also include a national communications and digital program designed to reach voters across legacy media, podcasts, creator platforms, and social media ecosystems where public opinion and cultural conversation are increasingly shaped.

Four years after Dobbs, reproductive freedom remains one of the most salient issues in American politics. Anti-abortion politicians and extremists have made clear they will not stop at overturning Roe. They are attacking medication abortion, undermining emergency abortion care, defunding Planned Parenthood, gutting Medicaid, and pushing policies that raise costs for families already struggling to make ends meet. My Body. My Ballot. seizes on a critical political moment as divisions deepen within the Republican Party. As anti-abortion groups pressure the Trump administration to go even further, Republicans are caught between a radical anti-abortion movement demanding a nationwide ban and the 8 in 10 voters who support legal abortion and overwhelmingly oppose political interference in personal medical decisions.

Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju released the following statement:

“Abortion is popular – more popular than any individual politician. What’s not popular is Trump and the MAGA movement, who continue to lose voter support with every new attack on abortion access. Instead of lowering costs or helping families plan their futures, MAGA Republicans have advanced policies that make it harder for people to decide whether, when, and how to grow their families.

My Body. My Ballot. is about making sure every voter understands how the issues they care most about are connected: our bodies, our families, our health care, our economic security, and our freedom. We have the members, the political power, and the organizing infrastructure to turn outrage into action.

Four years after Dobbs, abortion bans have created a dangerous and chaotic patchwork where access to care depends on where someone lives, how much money they have, and whether they can travel. Anti-abortion politicians created this crisis, and this November, Americans will make sure they are held accountable.”

New Reproductive Freedom for All polling underscores the opportunity for this campaign. The research, conducted by Impact Research, surveyed likely voters in battleground U.S. House districts, including an oversample of voters who did not support Kamala Harris in 2024 but voted “yes” on abortion rights ballot measures statewide in Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada. The results show that voters overwhelmingly want lawmakers to protect reproductive health care—and that communicating clearly about politicians’ efforts to gut health care access, undermine medical privacy, and prioritize abortion restrictions over families’ needs can meaningfully move voters.

Eight in 10 voters surveyed said it is important for lawmakers to protect access to reproductive care, including 58% who said it is very important. Battleground voters also rejected additional abortion restrictions: Half said lawmakers should pass laws protecting abortion access nationwide.

Support for a nationwide abortion ban carries significant political consequences. More than 4 in 10 voters said a politician’s support for a nationwide abortion ban would be a total dealbreaker—placing it among the most disqualifying positions tested, alongside raising taxes on middle-class families and cutting Medicaid. After hearing messaging about attacks on health care access and privacy and politicians’ misplaced priorities, voters backed a generic Democratic congressional candidate by 12 points, 48% to 36%—a net five-point gain from the start of the poll (45% to 38%).

The campaign launch also kicks off Reproductive Freedom for All’s National Week of Action, running June 22–28, with events across the country designed to educate voters, train volunteers, elevate storytellers, and drive direct action in target states and districts. The week will feature 11 in-person events across our chapter states, alongside 12 national activations — including multiple phone banking actions and shifts, as well as a national text bank.

Key components of the campaign include:

• A national organizing program powered by members:Reproductive Freedom for All will activate its 4.5 million members nationwide to grow its volunteer leadership infrastructure and launch direct voter contact and visibility events in priority districts and regions. The campaign will span canvases across our chapter states — including cities like Phoenix, Tucson, Bakersfield, and Savannah — alongside Pride marches, rallies, community roundtables, and press conferences with elected leaders and stakeholders. It will also feature multi-day phone banks at both the in-person and virtual levels.
• Direct voter contact in priority states and districts:The program will include deep investments in direct voter contact, including coordinated canvassing programs designed in direct partnership with specific campaigns. It will persuade and mobilize voters – including independents, soft Republicans, and split-ticket voters – whose support for abortion access puts them at odds with Trump and his endorsed candidates. The program will also include relational organizing training with our members, with priority investments across Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, California, and Georgia. Top-tier targets will include AZ-06, MI-07, and NV-03 congressional districts, alongside critical statewide races and ballot initiatives.
• Research-backed messaging on freedom, care, and economic security:The campaign will use Reproductive Freedom for All’s latest research to connect abortion access to the economic pressures families are already facing, including the reality that deciding whether to have a child is one of the biggest economic decisions a person can make. Campaign messaging will also educate voters on threats to medication abortion, emergency care, health privacy, and access to reproductive health care nationwide.
• Candidate endorsements and accountability:Reproductive Freedom for All will endorse reproductive freedom champions and hold anti-abortion politicians accountable for their records, including those aligned with anti-abortion groups pushing the Trump administration to restrict access even further. The campaign will make clear who is working to protect abortion access—and who is working to push care further out of reach.
• State ballot measures. Reproductive Freedom for All will support ballot measure work in Virginia, Missouri, and Nevada, as part of a broader strategy to engage voters around reproductive freedom up and down the ballot. This work will connect ballot measure engagement to the campaign’s broader voter contact, persuasion, and turnout strategy.
• Digital and creator program to mobilize voters:Reproductive Freedom for All will run a comprehensive digital program across social media, podcast platforms, creator partnerships, paid digital, email, SMS, and rapid-response content. The creator strategy will go beyond paid amplification by partnering with trusted messengers, independent creators, storytellers, and issue-adjacent voices who can authentically reach persuadable audiences and encourage voter engagement.

The campaign builds on Reproductive Freedom for All’s latest research, which connects reproductive freedom to economic security and the freedom to decide whether, when, and how to grow a family. That research will inform the campaign’s ads, field scripts, digital content, volunteer trainings, and voter conversations—including outreach to independent and soft Republican voters who are frustrated by rising costs and alarmed by continued attacks on abortion access.

Stand Up America Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, Brett Edkins, issued the following statement in response to Trump’s refusal to sign the bipartisan affordable housing bill in an effort to pressure congressional Republicans into passing the SAVE Act:

“Donald Trump has been clear: The SAVE Act is his #1 legislative priority––not lowering costs for working people, creating good-paying jobs, or helping families afford a roof over their heads. Today, he decided it was more important to help Republicans avoid accountability for the cost-of-living crisis than actually do something about it.

“Trump was born on third base, and it shows. He has no clue what it’s like to struggle to make rent, save for a down payment, pay a mortgage, or worry that your kids will be able to afford a home of their own. Trump could’ve signed bipartisan legislation today to help lower housing costs and give Republicans something––anything––to show voters that they deserve reelection this November. Instead, he told working families to screw themselves. It’s selfish, petty, and self-defeating.”

Today marks the fourth anniversary of President Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court ending the federal right to abortion with the Dobbsv. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Since then, more people have suffered and died because of restrictive anti-abortion laws, which have banned some or all abortion in 20 states.

To mark the anniversary, Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, released the following statement:

“Four years after President Trump’s handpicked Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion, their decision continues to devastate people across the country. With each passing day, more people are hurt, more families are broken, and more people’s lives are upended. Anti-abortion rights lawmakers continue to weaponize the Court’s decision to make it harder for everyone, everywhere to get the care they need. On this anniversary, it’s clearer than ever that it’s on all of us to fight back against an unpopular political agenda that has blocked people’s health, lives, and freedoms.”

President Trump and his backers in Congress have spent their time in office making it harder for everyone, everywhere to get lifesaving reproductive health care, including abortion. Last July, they passed a law that “defunded” Planned Parenthood for one year by attempting to bar patients from using their Medicaid insurance at Planned Parenthood health centers. The harm they’ve caused is clear:

• Since the start of the Trump-Vance administration more than 50 Planned Parenthood health centers have been forced to close. More than 20 of those closures came after President Trump signed the law “defunding” Planned Parenthood.
• A Senate report examining the harm of “defunding” Planned Parenthood showed that in the six months since the “defunding” of Planned Parenthood took effect, fewer people have been able to get reproductive care at Planned Parenthood health centers in 2025 compared to the same period in 2024:
  • The number of breast exam visits fell by 25% in Dec., increasing the risk of delayed breast cancer detection and avoidable, more serious illness.
  • Visits for IUDs and other long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) dropped by 41% in Nov. and 36% in Dec.– the steepest decline across all services measured.
  • STI testing declined by 11% in Nov. and 4% in Dec., limiting early diagnosis and treatment and increasing preventable spread and long-term health consequences.
  • And there were 20% fewer visits for birth control pills in November.
• Now, House Republicans want to permanently “defund” Planned Parenthood because, where legal, Planned Parenthood health centers provide abortion.

Christopher Wright is the principal analyst at CarbonBridge, a decarbonisation consulting firm.

Less than two months ago, Colombia hosted the world’s first international conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. This weekend, however, it appears that Colombia’s first ever leftist presidency has ended. Far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, who was last week strongly endorsed by Donald Trump, will not only take the reins of government but also steer the future of Colombia’s energy transition.

As the world’s sixth-largest coal exporter, and fourth largest oil exporter in Latin America, Colombia plays a critical role in the world’s energy markets. However, this role had shrunk under President Gustavo Petro’s administration, as it sought to proactively shift the country away from its fossil-fuel based economy, ahead of a potential oil and gas production shortage over the next decade. 

That could all change as De la Espriella’s takes power. Calling himself the Tiger (“El Tigre”), he has promised to focus on deregulation, exploit oil extraction “to the maximum” and leverage the energy sector as a key “engine of growth”.

Colombia’s world-leading energy transition

Over the last four years, Colombia has embarked on one of the most rapid and holistic energy transitions anywhere in the world. Shortly after coming to power in 2022, the government of Gustavo Petro halted new oil and gas exploration contracts, suspended all hydraulic fracking pilots, and pledged to end the development of new unabated coal power plants. 

While many of these moves faced domestic and legislative challenges, they were widely praised in climate circles around the world.

Colombia soon became a pivotal member of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance and the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Alliance. It then went on to host the biodiversity COP in 2024, launch a $40-billion climate transition investment portfolio, and famously, host the Santa Marta conference earlier this year.

While fossil fuels still comprise around 7% of Colombia’s GDP and 56% of its total exports, there were already signs that the transition policies had begun to have an effect.

Coal production last year fell to its lowest level in the last 22 years. According to the Colombian national association of coal producers, coal export volumes declined by 23% in 2025. While the oil sector has not seen an equivalent precipitous drop, production levels have remained historically low since COVID. 

What about its domestic electricity sector?

Since the 1970s Colombia’s electricity sector has been dominated by large hydro-electric dams, endowing it with some of the lowest carbon electrons anywhere in the world. Today, close to 70% of its electricity supply comes from these large dams.

However, electricity demand rose by close to 10% under the Petro government. To meet this demand, total installed electricity capacity has expanded by a similar figure, and solar power has made up over 70% of new electricity capacity since.

As a result, by the end of 2025, gas power generation in the electricity sector had hit its lowest point since 2018. Wind power had doubled, and solar power generation had risen by over 630%. Colombia’s renewable energy association predicts that, by the end of 2026, the country may be home to more than 4.2 GW of installed variable renewable energy capacity.

Far-right jumps on energy challenges

Despite the progress, the last three years have been an incredibly challenging period for Colombia’s energy sector. 

During Petro’s first two years in office, inflation remained above 10%, and interest rates stayed above 13% for most of 2023. This put a pause on new energy investments, as foreign direct investment fell by a third since 2022. 

On top of this, Colombia suffered through an El Niño-fuelled drought in 2023-24, crippling its hydro-electric power supply. This forced the country to turn to expensive gas and coal power, just as both sectors had effectively begun to pull back. This sent electricity prices through the roof, increasing nearly 40% in a single year, and led the Petro government to intervene with price controls, aiming to protect everyday Colombians.

• Jun 23, 2026 Energy UN chief says fossil fuel industry must cut methane for warming “relief” The UN Secretary-General urges drastic reductions in methane emissions, starting with the energy sector, to limit an expected overshoot of global warming beyond 1.5C Read more
• Jun 24, 2026 News COP31 presidency ‘open’ to reflecting Santa Marta in UN climate process, ministers say The two co-hosts want the gathering of over 60 governments in Colombia to be reflected in the official UNFCCC climate process Read more

Unsurprisingly, this made energy investors even more cautious. By the end of 2023, GDP growth had plummeted and renewable energy investments fell by 70%. Since then, all the major credit agencies have downgraded the country’s credit rating, making it even shakier to invest.

As a result, even with the new solar coming online, and 1.2 GW of additional hydro-power from the Ituango dam expected by 2028, the country could still face a major energy deficit by 2027, with permitting delays halting project developments, and 5.1 GW of approved projects unable to reach financial close.

Challenging domestic debate

This has led to a challenging domestic debate on energy policy. While 96% of Colombians want to see solar expand further, they have been understandably frustrated by high electricity bills and limited economic growth.

As a result, De la Espriella’s campaign, which has largely focused on taking a hardline stance to combat growing concerns around security and crime, was relatively open to solar power, but sought to blame Colombia’s current energy crisis on the speed of its current energy transition.

Branding himself as neither a climate denialist nor “dogmatic environmentalist” the incoming president who will take office in August, will likely seek to revoke the ban on new hydrocarbon exploration contracts, legalise fracking and restructure the national oil company, Ecopetrol.

While he is unlikely to cancel market-driven projects and may reduce regulatory hold-ups, it is also likely that he will shift away from the government’s recent overwhelming support for long-renewable energy and battery storage projects, which have driven much of the recent uptake in solar power. 

Future of energy transition in doubt

In a country of close to 54 million people, the final election count was only decided by about 250,000 votes. However, this weekend’s margin belies the magnitude of the shift that will likely now take place.

With the country facing a potential domestic energy shortage 2027, President-elect De la Espriella has promised to revitalise the hydrocarbon economy, shifting Colombia’s recent energy transition on an entirely new course.

While this may unlock some regulatory challenges hindering renewables roll-out, broader support mechanisms for solar projects will likely be dismantled, and the broader economic transition abandoned, along with its recent flurry of international climate alliances.

He will also take his place among a wave of right-leaning Presidents that have swept to power across the continent in the last 18 months. This has seen right-wing electoral victories across Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Argentina and now Colombia, with Peru’s Keiko Fujimori potentially joining the club soon – pending a final vote count.

With the Brazilian elections scheduled for October, and run-off scenarios between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro still far too close to call, 2026 will undoubtedly be a pivotal year for Latin America’s energy future.

The post Did Colombia’s energy transition just come to a halt? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Join us for an afternoon of high-level discussions at London Climate Action Week on what resource-rich developing countries need to make new critical mineral partnerships genuinely beneficial.

We are bringing together high-level speakers from mineral producing countries, the finance sector, the UN and civil society to reflect on the latest developments in resource diplomacy and ask what’s next for mineral governance.

Agenda

02:00 PM
Welcome
MC, Gabriela Flores, NRGI

02:00 PM – 02:30 PM
In conversation: Minerals governance – what’s next?
Celine Kauffman, IDDRI, Patrick Schröder, Chatham House, Sascha Raabe, UNIDO (online), Moderated by Chloé Farand, Climate Home News

We will explore G7 outcomes and the practical steps the G7 and G20 can take to advance mineral governance and responsible mining, with a spotlight on how the UK can seize its 2027 G20 presidency to drive this critical agenda forward.

02:30 PM – 03:00 PM
Tracking allegations of abuse in mining for transition minerals
Phil Bloomer, BHRC, Ketakandriana Rafitoson, Resource Justice Network

The Business and Human Rights Centre presents its 2026 Transition Minerals Tracker update and unveils new data on allegations of human rights abuse linked to the extraction of bauxite, cobalt, copper, iron ore, lithium, manganese, nickel, rare earth elements and zinc – and the companies behind them.

03:00 PM – 03:30 PM
Break

03:30 PM – 04:30 PM
Can finance clean up mining? The role of investors and lenders
Stephen Barrie, Church of England Pensions Board/ Global, Pavel Laberko, Emerging Markets Investors Alliance, Margaux Day, Accountability Counsel

Finance can be a powerful force for raising environmental and social standards in mining — but only if financial actors remain in the sector rather than walking away. This session examines how investors and lenders can drive accountability and responsible practices in transition minerals, and whether the answer lies in divestment, engagement, or stronger oversight from civil society. Moderated by Caroline Avan, BHRC.

04:30 PM – 05:50 PM
What should equitable mineral partnerships look like?
Eric Ngang, African Resources Watch (Afrewatch), Thomas Scurfield, NRGI , Tobias Musonda, Director of Policy and Planning, Zambia , Wen-Yu Weng, Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

As demand for critical minerals surges, the race to secure supply chains risks repeating the extractive models of the past. This session cuts to the heart of what truly equitable mineral partnerships look like — and what it will take to to move from principle to practice. Moderated by Chloé Farand, Climate Home News

06:00 PM
Closing
Amir Shafaie, NRGI

The post Live from LCAW – Raw diplomacy: Can new mineral alliances deliver a just energy transition? appeared first on Climate Home News.

In the Red Heat, a  Transformative response to the war and energy crisis

Image by https://www.flickr.com/photos/garryknight/

By Paul Atkin

Trump’s war on Iran has already raised the price of energy, food, and other essentials and overlays the crises caused by climate change. This is likely to become more acute as gas and power prices will remain high for at least the coming year, even if ceasefires hold and the Strait of Hormuz were to remain reopened.  

We believe

1. To stop the crisis we need to stop the war, ensure that it doesn’t restart, tax war profits and transfer military spending
2. The transition to renewable energy and energy conservation is the solution.
3. Crisis measures must be social justice measures. 

To look at these in turn

1. To stop the crisis we need to stop the war, ensure that it doesn’t restart, tax war profits and transfer military spending

• The government should give no support to the war on Iran in any form and press for sustained peace instead. 
• Energy corporations, banks and arms companies are making huge sums from the rises in fossil fuel prices and demand for munitions. All such windfall profits should be taxed at 100% to fund short term targeted measures like an essential energy guarantee to support people through the immediate crisis, and accelerate investment in the climate transition.  
• Any additional investment into war preparation is unaffordable. Using the funds earmarked for arms increases to accelerate the energy transition instead, including restoring climate funding in overseas development, will also be better for national security.

2. The transition to renewable energy and energy conservation is the solution.  

Countries which have moved decisively to renewables have suffered far less from the war’s price volatility, with wholesale electricity prices in Spain less than half what they are here.

Dependence on fossil fuels is disastrous, and all possible measures should be taken to end it.  

We need as a bottom line

• Public transport fares to be sharply cut and private jets banned. 
• Building fairness into how we price energy by launching a social tariff alongside the next Price Cap rate, combined with Energy For All or an Essential Energy Guarantee to ensure that everyone on low or average income can afford their energy bill; ensuring that low-income energy households aren’t forced to choose between heating and eating.
• Increased investment in accelerated deployment of renewable energy in the North Sea and across the country, with a planned retraining and redeployment of offshore workers, whose jobs would not be not safe whether the ban on new investment is lifted or not, including in the decommissioning of redundant offshore installations; a major job which will take years with massive job potential. This could most effectively be done through public ownership; to prioritise long-term energy security over short-term returns, invest across the full range of clean technologies, and plough profits back into lowering bills rather than boosting shareholder dividends. 
• Government should ensure that clean energy jobs are good jobs, with collective bargaining, across the board.  . 
• Investment in upgrading infrastructure to create good jobs, and reduce exposure to fossil fuel price volatility by committing to the TUC’s “Invest in Our Future” programme: which sets out a potential £30 billion a year boost for clean infrastructure investment with costed, shovel-ready investments identified by trade unions across sectors including: retrofitting schools and public buildings; expanding bus and rail; upgrading industry; rolling out electric vehicle infrastructure; building battery gigafactories; and expanding the electricity grid to carry clean power. This would be at half the cost of meeting Trump’s demand for 5% a year on war and have a positive multiplier effect on the economy and people’s lives, in a way that war spending does not.

3. Crisis measures must be social justice measures. 

• Rationing by price is inherently inequitable.  
• The benefits of renewable energy and new technology for travel, cooking, and heating and cooling homes, must be fairly distributed to everyone.  Currently, well-to-do, digitally savvy households with solar panels and electric vehicles see immediate benefits, while poorer families a mile away see none. 
• The government must commit to a guarantee that everyone in the UK will get a fair share of the benefits of renewable energy. 

Emergency options should include 

• reduce fossil fuel demand (and therefore prices) by banning private jets, slashing public transport fares or making them free to encourage a shift. 
• Put pre-emptive limits on purchases of key food items in limited supply, to ensure equitable distribution of what there is.
• An Energy For All approach, which would offer the real security of a baseline which no one can fall below based on higher prices for high use of energy, free or low prices for low users, combined with adjustments for those who need more energy because of disabilities, large families, or housing conditions. Instead would offer the real security of a baseline which no one can fall below.  

A motion for unions, campaigns and parties follows.

 

Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post In the Red Heat, a  Transformative response to the war and energy crisis first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.