News Feeds

In April 2026, Indigenous women’s groups announced looming funding cuts for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG+) support. These cuts occurred without transparent communication or forewarning. At the press conference, Hilda Anderson-Pryz stated, “in March, crucial funding to some Indigenous organizations ended with no official notification of renewal… This lack of sustained support is a significant barrier to making real progress and combating this crisis. Today, our right to life is threatened by the lack of political will and it will remain so until the government enacts the 231 calls for justice. But seven years later… only two have been fully implemented.” Anderson-Pryz addresses the heart of the matter – the true cost of funding cuts – Indigenous women’s lives. 

This economic austerity measure is known as the “sunsetting” of funding. In this case, the federal government will allow critical funding to expire without renewal.

Contrary to the National Inquiry’s (2019) Calls for Justice, which outline the need for long-term, guaranteed, and sustainable funding, multiple programs and projects involving “Indigenous rights, title, and gender-based violence prevention and response” are on the chopping block (Macdonald & McIntosh, 2025). These cutbacks demonstrate that the lives of Indigenous women do not matter to Canada. 

In response to the press conference, over 400 family members of MMIWG+ have questioned the efficacy of National Indigenous women’s organizations. In a letter to Federal government officials, they note that “these organizations do not represent the families” (Ward, 2026, para. 3). This distrust is indicative of tensions between families and Indigenous women’s groups. Both this letter from family members and the National Inquiry (2019) emphasize the need to invest in and resource self-determined, family and survivor-led solutions. 

In this period of economic austerity, and given Canada’s long history of gendered colonization, it is not a surprise that gender-based reconciliatory initiatives are considered expendable.

What do Trump and Carney Have in Common? 

These austerity measures follow news south of the border, where the Trump administration is making funding cuts to the Office on Violence Against Women, which will disproportionately affect Indigenous women. In November 2025, as a part of its attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion, Trump’s administration removed a report from the Department of Justice on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples. Another generation of Indigenous women, on both sides of colonially imposed borders, is now subject to, and targeted by, government policy and societal indifference.

Canada likes to position itself as superior to our Southern neighbours, perpetuating a master narrative of a peaceful, multicultural, accepting, and polite country (Thobani, 2007). This posturing obscures the ongoing colonial genocidal violence that Indigenous Peoples experience through state regimes, policies, and systems. Our relationship to the nation state has always been defined by violence, and hate against Indigenous women runs deep. Despite a master narrative that portrays Canada as a human rights beacon, Indigenous women’s human rights are continuously violated (Luoma, 2021; National Inquiry, 2019a). 

Racism, heteropatriarchy, and misogyny have contributed to Indigenous women being targeted for violence (Bourgeois, 2018; National Inquiry, 2019). The “root cause of violence” against Indigenous women and girls is a “race-based genocide,” and gendered colonization that impacts our safety and contributes to increased violence (Duhamel, 2015; National Inquiry, 2019). Through framing MMIWG as an “Indigenous problem,” Canada has obscured its culpability for ongoing genocide (Bourgeois, 2015; Dowling, 2019; National Inquiry, 2019). The rise in residential school denialism, white nationalism, and general disdain for Indigenous Peoples continues apace, colliding with growing economic uncertainty and fear. 

The Economics of Gender (In)Justice  

Under “Canada Strong,” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Federal government made massive budget cuts to “Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC),” and to employees who work on the Indigenous rights and relations portfolio at the Department of Justice. These fiscal constraints will widen socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples and contribute to the continued underfunding of essential human services. These cutbacks are not “neutral but in fact follow… racial [and, in this case, gendered] lines” (Levesque, 2025, para. 8). 

Despite Human Rights Tribunal findings that the Canadian government has continuously discriminated against Indigenous children through underfunding child welfare services, these recent measures represent a continued colonial strategy of slashing funding and violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Notably, “the Canadian Human Rights Commission” is also slated to face funding cuts, which will surely exacerbate the impact of these austerity measures (Levesque, 2025; Smith, 2025, para. 11). 

Amidst this uncertainty, Canada’s economic priorities reveal a shallow commitment to “reconciliation” (Assembly of First Nations, 2025) and gender justice, with disproportionate impacts for Indigenous women. Additionally, federal service cuts include Correctional Service Canada (CSC). Over 50% of federally incarcerated women are Indigenous (and have an MMIW family member). Given the importance of literacy levels for rehabilitation and reintegration, CSC’s proposed cuts to “library technicians and employment co-ordinator positions” will contribute to the ongoing confinement of Indigenous women (Ibrahim, 2026, para. 1), contrary to the Department of Justice’s Indigenous Justice Strategy (IJS) released in March 2025. 

Implementing the IJS strategy will require “substantial effort and funding commitments” (Horn, 2025, para. 11). The 2025 Canada Strong Budget does not mention the IJS. Just like the clip art adorning the IJS – this is yet another example of window dressing – the shifts, niceties, and apologies that momentarily give us hope, “only to ultimately crush it” (Horn, 2025, para. 13). 

Together, these economic measures confirm that the era of rights and reconciliation for Indigenous Peoples, and Indigenous women in particular, is long gone. Instead, as the budget reveals, our inherent rights, laws, and lives are overridden in pursuit of military, extractive, and industrial projects, so-called economic reconciliation or, the “National Interest.”

Economic reconciliation maintains dependence on a predatory economy and perpetuates violence against the land, waters, and Indigenous women. It is not freedom. It is not self-determination. It is colonization. 

Clearly, the lives, human rights, and safety of Indigenous women are not a priority for the Federal government. These austerity measures coincide with record-breaking military spending. As NDP Member of Parliament Leah Gazan noted, Prime Minister Carney is cutting approximately “$7 billion of funding between ISC and Crown-Indigenous relations… and has recently committed $13 billion in military funding.” Funding constraints continue amidst increasing rates of violence against Indigenous women, and minimal effort to implement the National Inquiry’s calls for justice. 

Violence on Violence

Indigenous women have long identified the solutions, programs, and support needed to respond to and protect them from violence. Those solutions have been consistently ignored by successive colonial governments (Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, 1991; Amnesty International 2004; National Inquiry, 2019; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996). Families have continuously questioned decisions that are made without them, behind closed doors. 

This lack of transparency and accountability continues with the Canada Strong Budget (2025). Existing programming was already subject to patchwork – meaning it is often unsustainable, short-term, and project-based (or all three) – funding issues, and ongoing struggles to meet the needs of clientele (National Inquiry, 2019a). 

Tightening the fiscal shoestrings and using stealthy “sunsetting” to halt funding that supports ending violence against Indigenous women – while simultaneously increasing funding to support the military industrial complex – demonstrates the Canadian government’s ongoing commitment to sustaining shape-shifting colonial violence.

Endnotes

Assembly of First Nations [AFN]. Federal Budget 2025. AFN, 2025. https://afn.ca/all-news/bulletins/federal-budget-2025/ 

Bourgeois, E. “Generations of genocide – The historical roots of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” In K. Anderson, C. Belcourt, & M. Campbell (Eds.), Keetsahnak, Our Missing and Murdered Indigenous Sisters. University of Alberta Press, 2018.

Bourgeois, R. “Colonial exploitation: The Canadian state and the trafficking of Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada.” UCLA Law Review, 1426 (2015): 1428-1463. 

CPAC. “Indigenous women’s groups warn of the sunsetting of some funding for MMIWG supports.” April 8, 2026 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/live/ak-r2G48WeA 

Department of Justice Canada. Indigenous Justice Strategy. Government of Canada, 2025. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ijr-dja/ijs-sja/tijs-lsja/pdf/IJS_EN.pdf 

Dowling, S. Elimination, in the feminine. Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 21.6 (2019): 787-802. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2019.1607525

Duhamel, K.R. “‘I feel like my spirit knows violence’ understanding genocide – and how to stop it – in the context of the National inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” In J. Black-Morsette (Ed.), REDress. HighWater Press, 2025.

Fryer, S. & Leblanc-Laurendeau, O. Background paper: Understanding federal jurisdiction and First Nations (Publication No. 1019-51-E). Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2019. https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/BackgroundPapers/PDF/2019-51-E.pdf 

Government of Canada. Canada Strong Budget 2025. Government of Canada, 2025. https://budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/pdf/budget-2025.pdf 

Horn, K. “The Indigenous Justice Strategy: ‘Progressive and Transformative Reform’?” Yellowhead Institute, May 21, 2025. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2025/the-indigenous-justice-strategy-progressive-and-transformative-reform/ 

Hwang, P. “Cuts targeting Indigenous rights staff at Justice Department ‘reckless,’ critics warn.” CBC News. February 23, 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cuts-targeting-indigenous-rights-staff-at-justice-department-reckless-critics-warn-9.7097164 

Ibrahim, S. “Federal prisons to lose library technicians, employment co-ordinators in budget cuts.” CBC News. March 11, 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prison-cuts-librarians-employment-coordinators-9.7123434 

Lapointe, J. “Can the new B.C. government bring real change for Indigenous communities?” The Narwhal. November 20, 2024. https://thenarwhal.ca/energy-economic-reconciliation-indigenous-youth-bc/ 

Levesque, A. “Carney government cuts unfairly hit First Nations.” Policy Options. July 22, 2025.https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/07/budget-cuts-first-nations/ 

Luetkemeyer, E. “Trump administration removes report on Missing and Murdered Native Americans, calling it DEI content.” Oklahoma Watch. November 14, 2025. https://oklahomawatch.org/2025/11/14/trump-administration-removes-report-on-missing-and-murdered-native-americans-calling-it-dei-content/ 

Luoma, C. “Closing the cultural rights gap in transitional justice: Developments from Canada’s National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 39.1 (2021): 30-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051921992747 

Macdonald, D. & Mcintosh, E. ‘Budget cuts by stealth: Letting programs ‘sunset’ to cut costs won’t be painless.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. October 28, 2025. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/budget-cuts-by-stealth-letting-programs-sunset-to-cut-costs-wont-be-painless/ 

National Inquiry. (2019a). Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the National Inquiry Intro Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. National Inquiry, 2019. https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a-1.pdf
Pember, M.A. “Trump administration targets office on violence against women with ‘consolidation.’” ICT News. January 29, 2026. https://ictnews.org/news/trump-administration-targets-office-on-violence-against-women-with-consolidation/ 

Smith, D. “‘Concerning’ cuts to justice system in federal budget.” CBA National. November 5, 2025. https://nationalmagazine.ca/fr-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2025/%E2%80%98concerning-cuts-to-justice-system-in-federal-budget 

Thobani, S. Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and nation in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2007.

Citation:

McGuire, Michaela M. “Sunsetting Gender Justice: Economic Austerity and the Defunding of MMIWG+ Supports,” Yellowhead Institute. May 08, 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/sunsetting-gender-justice-economic-austerity-and-the-defunding-of-mmiwg-supports

Artwork: MMIR 2024, Solange Aguilar, @shesanargonaut

The post Sunsetting Gender Justice: <br> Economic Austerity and the Defunding of MMIWG+ Supports appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

Permainan slot online sering dianggap sepenuhnya bergantung pada keberuntungan. Namun, pemain berpengalaman memahami bahwa ada beberapa indikator penting yang dapat dianalisis untuk membaca ritme permainan secara lebih efektif. Istilah seperti RTP, volatilitas, hit frequency, hingga pola bonus sebenarnya bukan mitos semata, melainkan bagian dari sistem matematis yang membentuk perilaku sebuah game slot.

Meski demikian, penting untuk memahami satu hal sejak awal: slot online modern bekerja sehingga tidak ada pola pasti yang dapat menjamin kemenangan. Yang bisa dilakukan pemain adalah membaca karakteristik permainan untuk meningkatkan efisiensi bermain dan mengelola risiko dengan lebih cerdas.

Apa yang Dimaksud dengan “Pola Slot”?

Dalam praktik komunitas pemain, “pola slot” biasanya mengacu pada:

• Frekuensi munculnya scatter
• Jarak antar bonus
• Perubahan ritme kemenangan kecil
• Pola taruhan tertentu
• Perilaku volatilitas game

Secara teknis, pola ini bukan rumus pasti, melainkan observasi statistik terhadap perilaku game dalam periode tertentu.

Pemain profesional umumnya tidak percaya pada “kode rahasia slot”, tetapi lebih fokus membaca:

• jenis volatilitas,
• distribusi pembayaran,
• RTP,
• dan momentum permainan.

Faktor Penting untuk Membaca Pola Slot 1. RTP (Return to Player)

RTP adalah persentase teoritis pengembalian dana kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang.

Contoh sederhana:

RTP=96%=96100RTP = 96\% = \frac{96}{100}RTP=96%=10096​

Artinya, dari total taruhan 100 unit, game secara teori mengembalikan 96 unit kepada pemain dalam jutaan putaran. Namun RTP bukan jaminan hasil sesi pribadi.

Cara Menggunakan RTP untuk Membaca Pola

• RTP tinggi (>96%) biasanya lebih stabil
• RTP rendah cenderung lebih agresif terhadap bankroll
• RTP tinggi cocok untuk permainan jangka panjang

Pemain berpengalaman sering memilih game dengan RTP tinggi untuk mengurangi risiko kehilangan modal terlalu cepat.

2. Volatilitas Slot

Volatilitas menentukan bagaimana slot membayar kemenangan.

Volatilitas Rendah

• Menang lebih sering
• Nilai kemenangan kecil
• Cocok untuk modal kecil

Volatilitas Tinggi

• Kemenangan lebih jarang
• Potensi jackpot besar
• Membutuhkan modal lebih kuat

Hubungan RTP dan volatilitas sering disalahpahami. Dua slot bisa memiliki RTP sama tetapi pengalaman bermain sangat berbeda.

Analogi Praktis

Bayangkan dua game memiliki RTP 96%:

• Slot A memberi kemenangan kecil setiap beberapa spin
• Slot B jarang menang tetapi sekali menang nilainya besar

Inilah mengapa pemain perlu membaca “karakter game”, bukan hanya angka RTP.

Cara Membaca Momentum Slot Secara Praktis 1. Perhatikan Hit Frequency

Hit frequency adalah seberapa sering kemenangan muncul.

Ciri slot dengan hit frequency tinggi:

• Banyak kemenangan kecil
• Balance lebih stabil
• Bonus muncul lebih konsisten

Sedangkan hit frequency rendah biasanya:

• Banyak spin kosong
• Bonus sulit muncul
• Potensi payout besar saat menang

Pemain berpengalaman biasanya melakukan 20–50 spin awal untuk membaca ritme game sebelum meningkatkan taruhan.

2. Analisis Pola Scatter dan Bonus

Scatter menjadi indikator penting dalam observasi pola slot.

Beberapa tanda yang sering diperhatikan:

• Scatter muncul berulang di reel tertentu
• Bonus hampir aktif beberapa kali
• Free spin mulai lebih sering muncul

Meskipun tetap acak, banyak pemain menggunakan observasi ini untuk menentukan:

• lanjut bermain,
• pindah game,
• atau menurunkan taruhan.

Membaca Slot Volatilitas Tinggi

Misalkan seorang pemain mencoba game dengan:

• RTP 96,5%
• volatilitas tinggi,
• max win besar.

Dalam 100 spin pertama:

• 70 spin kosong
• 20 kemenangan kecil
• 8 kemenangan sedang
• 2 bonus free spin

Bagi pemain baru, pola ini terlihat buruk. Namun bagi pemain berpengalaman, ini normal untuk slot volatilitas tinggi.

Game jenis ini sering:

• menyimpan payout besar,
• memiliki fase “kering”,
• lalu memberikan lonjakan kemenangan besar.

Karena itu, pemain profesional biasanya:

• menyiapkan bankroll lebih panjang,
• menggunakan taruhan stabil,
• dan tidak langsung mengejar kekalahan.

Mengikuti Pola Tanpa Memahami Volatilitas

Banyak pemain mengikuti “pola gacor” tanpa memahami tipe game.

Padahal:

• pola taruhan cocok di slot rendah volatilitas belum tentu efektif di slot tinggi volatilitas,
• setiap provider memiliki algoritma distribusi berbeda.

Bermain Emosional

Ketika kalah beruntun, banyak pemain:

• menaikkan taruhan,
• mengejar kekalahan,
• kehilangan kontrol bankroll.

Dalam analisis profesional, pengelolaan modal justru lebih penting dibanding mencari pola.

Strategi Membaca Pola Secara Efektif Gunakan Pendekatan Statistik

Fokus pada:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• dan distribusi bonus.

Jangan terpaku pada mitos komunitas semata.

Catat Performa Game

Pemain serius sering membuat catatan:

• jumlah spin,
• frekuensi scatter,
• waktu bonus muncul,
• pola kemenangan besar.

Data sederhana ini membantu memahami karakter masing-masing game.

Tetapkan Batas Bermain

Strategi terbaik tetap berasal dari kontrol diri:

• tentukan target kemenangan,
• tentukan batas kekalahan,
• berhenti saat target tercapai.

Mengapa Pola Slot Tetap Menarik Dipelajari?

Walaupun slot berbasis, pola perilaku matematis tetap bisa dianalisis secara statistik. Inilah alasan mengapa:

• streamer slot,
• analis kasino,
• hingga komunitas pemain profesional
  sering membahas RTP, volatilitas, dan momentum permainan.

Namun para ahli juga sepakat bahwa:

• tidak ada sistem pasti untuk menang,
• tidak ada jam gacor universal,
• dan tidak ada pola yang bisa mengalahkan RNG secara konsisten.

Kesimpulan

Membaca pola slot online secara efektif bukan berarti mencari trik rahasia untuk menang terus-menerus. Pendekatan yang benar adalah memahami cara kerja game melalui:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• serta perilaku bonus.

Pemain yang cerdas tidak hanya mengandalkan insting, tetapi juga menggunakan observasi, manajemen modal, dan pemahaman statistik sederhana untuk mengambil keputusan bermain yang lebih rasional.

Pada akhirnya, slot online tetap merupakan permainan berbasis probabilitas. Semakin baik pemain memahami struktur matematis di balik permainan, semakin kecil kemungkinan terjebak dalam keputusan emosional dan mitos yang menyesatkan.

Harjeet Singh is a climate activist and strategic advisor to the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, as well as founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.

For thirty years, global climate talks perfected policy paralysis around the primary cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. Within the UNFCCC negotiations, the “consensus card” was played with surgical precision by the fossil fuel industry and wealthy producer nations to block meaningful action.

For decades, talks were restricted to the “demand side” – reducing emissions – while the “supply side” – the extraction of oil, gas, and coal – was treated as a forbidden subject. This so-called progress was a treadmill, leading nowhere despite plenty of sweat.

The breaking point: from Belém to Santa Marta

The failure peaked at COP30 in Belém, where, despite widespread support, the final outcome contained no fossil fuel phase-out mandate. Instead, the world watched as the COP30 Presidency announced a “roadmap” initiative at the very end of the talks – a face-saving measure that lacked formal standing in the process.

The halls of Belém were once again crawling with lobbyists, ensuring that “consensus” remained a tool for delay. Recognising the UNFCCC logjam, Global South countries in the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative demanded a series of dedicated conferences.

• Apr 30, 2026 News Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green Read more
• Apr 28, 2026 News Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way Read more

Colombia, the biggest producer among them, broke the status quo by pioneering this new path: the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, joined by the Netherlands as co-host.

The pioneering conference in Santa Marta in late April moved us from the “if” to the “how”, signalling a shift from airy pledges to the reality of implementation. But as the dust settles, a more ancient struggle is resurfacing: the struggle for the “pen”.

The invisible hand of control

History shows that when developed nations can no longer block a process, they attempt to colonise it. In Santa Marta, we witnessed the opening gambit of a familiar play – exclusion followed by takeover. Critics signalled this early on in an open letter, calling out the systemic disregard for African lives and environments in global policy and the persistent marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples’ voices and concerns.

Under the guise of “technical support”, wealthy nations fought to steer the outcome of workstreams towards Global North-dominated institutions. Despite the expertise they may bring, why are the recognised bodies for this process exclusively based in an area representing only 20% of the world’s population?

The hastily assembled report containing the “Chairs’ Takeaways” from Santa Marta requires scrutiny and raises the following concerns:

• The Roadmap Trap: Connecting national transition plans to the Science Panel on the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) and the NDC Partnership. These bodies, largely dominated by Western experts, risk imposing frameworks that treat sovereign developing nations as markets for the private sector. Will “science” be used to legitimise a Global North-centric status quo while ignoring debt, trade and finance rules, and other forces that shape national policy?

• The Financial Architecture: Pushing the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to lead the work on macroeconomic dependencies on fossil fuels. Expertise matters, but whose stability is going to be prioritised? Is it the communities losing their livelihoods, or the global financial systems that grew fat on fossil fuel rents?

• The Trade Filter: Bringing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – a club of wealthy nations – into “producer–consumer alignment”. This is a coup to ensure the international trade system keeps serving the West and its elites under the guise of “coordination”.

A view of the room during the opening plenary of the Santa Marta conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels on April 28, 2026 (Photo by IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis) A view of the room during the opening plenary of the Santa Marta conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels on April 28, 2026 (Photo by IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis) The “dos and don’ts” for developed nations

For decades, the responsibility of rich nations to provide public finance for climate action in vulnerable countries has been replaced by private sector “leverage”. Developed nations must stop using “climate finance” as a tool to open new markets for their multinational corporations and put actual, grant-based finance on the table to support the transition in the Global South.

They should also refrain from forcing every initiative back into the UNFCCC gridlock, where meaningful progress on a fossil fuel phase-out has been systematically blocked.

Finally, it is critical that the Santa Marta process is recognised as a sovereign space for historically silenced nations to hold polluters accountable, rather than being treated as a showroom for Western exports.

This requires addressing the hypocrisy of so-called “front runners”. Canada, France, Ireland, Australia and Norway attend these conferences as “leaders” while greenlighting oil and gas expansion. You cannot lead a transition while pouring fuel on the fire. Leadership requires immediately ending expansion; anything else is an expensive photo-op.

Unity as the ultimate tool

For developing nations, the path forward is radical unity. Global North diplomacy often seeks to divide and conquer through bilateral deals that bypass collective power. Developing nations must refuse to be cowed.

This is a chance to move beyond tools that prioritise debt and trade over development. Collectively, the Global South can build technical and financial frameworks that advance energy sovereignty and justice. South-South cooperation must be the primary engine of a fair transition that holds historical polluters accountable.

The road to Tuvalu 2027 – reclaiming the agenda

The announcement that Tuvalu will co-host the second conference in 2027 is a political necessity. Tuvalu, a least developed country, is a living symbol of the climate crisis and a vanguard of justice.

Tuvalu must have the power to set the agenda from day one. This cannot be another “safe space” for dialogue without commitment, as seen at the first conference. The road to Tuvalu must advance a mechanism that gained wider support in Santa Marta but was ignored in the Chairs’ Takeaways: a Fossil Fuel Treaty.

We need a framework to manage the decline of fossil fuel extraction based on fair shares and equity, turning international cooperation into support for resilient, renewable economies.

The process has only just begun. Santa Marta was the spark, but Tuvalu must be the engine room of implementation. The Global South must take the pen to script the transition rooted in equity and justice.

The post Developing countries must hold the pen to script the fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

Johnny Appleseed was ahead of his time. Not because he fed so many people by planting apple trees (really, he got them drunk instead, as his real goal was encouraging the production of cider), but because he created so much shade to enjoy on hot days. More than two centuries later, American cities are wishing they had better followed Appleseed’s lead, as rising temperatures and a lack of tree cover combine to make urban life increasingly stifling.

A pair of new studies show how simply planting more trees can provide huge temperature benefits, not to mention how the additional plant life would boost biodiversity and improve mental health for urbanites. The first finds that tree cover can cancel half of the heat island effect, in which the urban jungle gets much hotter than the surrounding countryside. The second compares neighborhoods in 65 American cities, finding that canopy-deprived areas suffer up to 40 percent more excess heat than heavily greened spots. 

Places like New York and Atlanta and Los Angeles, then, don’t just have to foster and maintain their “gray” infrastructure — roads and sidewalks and such — but their living infrastructure as well. “Heat is already a major public health threat. It kills 350,000 people a year by some estimates, and it’s worse in cities,” said Robert McDonald, the Nature Conservancy’s lead scientist for nature-based solutions and lead scientist for Europe, who spearheaded the first paper. “The urban heat island effect would be about double what it is now if world cities didn’t have trees.”

By increasing their canopies, metropolises dress themselves like their more comfortable rural counterparts. A vegetated area cools itself both because plants “sweat” by releasing moisture from their leaves, and because trees provide shade. By contrast, concrete absorbs the sun’s energy, driving temperatures up, and releases it throughout the night. That beats back the cooling typically experienced in the evening, meaning urbanites without air conditioning don’t get respite. This is especially dangerous for vulnerable groups like the elderly, and it’s one reason heat kills more Americans every year than all other extreme weather events combined.

Such conditions are especially dangerous for those living in lower-income neighborhoods, which tend to have significantly less tree canopy than richer areas. In industrialized areas, for example, vast stretches of concrete absorb and radiate heat. In urban centers, policymakers may have prioritized building dense housing without incorporating ample tree cover. Compare that to the suburbs, which have plenty of parks, curbside trees, and yards to cool things down.

The differences in greenery between neighborhoods translates into striking differences in temperatures. The second study calculated this “cooling dividend,” or the difference in the average urban heat island in areas with low and high canopy cover. It found gaps reaching almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit. If you’re lucky enough to live where there’s lots of trees, you might experience 20 to 40 percent less excess heat. The report found that this is playing out regularly across the U.S. “I think what maybe was surprising is that there was a dramatic amount of consistency,” said Steve Whitesell, executive editor at the Healthy Green Spaces Coalition, which authored the report. “In other words, they were all showing an impact.”

Read Next Pocket gardens: The tiny urban oases with surprisingly big benefits Matt Simon

The trick is not just planting enough trees, but planting the right kind. The biggest species provide the most shade, of course. But more cryptically, some provide more evaporative cooling than others — drought-adapted trees, for instance, try to retain as much water as they can. A neighborhood might also want to prioritize food production, opting for trees that create both shade and fruit. Favoring native varieties will also help support native animal life, like birds and pollinating insects. 

Climate change, though, is complicating these calculations. Even in rural areas, without the added temperatures of the urban heat island effect, some places are getting so hot that native plants are moving north in search of cooler climes. Within cities, they are blasted with still more heat — and temperatures will only climb from here. So urban arborists aren’t just planting species that will thrive today, but will survive the climate of tomorrow. “I think that for us to use trees as a type of living infrastructure, that can counter those increased temperatures, is paramount,” said Edith de Guzman, a cooperative extension researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies urban heat but wasn’t involved in either study. “I think it’s pretty much the most important thing we can do.”

But trees alone can’t save urbanites. McDonald’s study found that even if cities planted as many as possible, it would only offset 20 percent of the potential running up of temperatures due to climate change. Designers will have to deploy other techniques, like reflective rooftops, to manage the heat. That’s especially important in poorer nations, whose cities are rapidly growing but have much less tree cover than richer countries, the study found. “It’s just to say that climate change is a big enough challenge that while planting more tree cover helps with temperatures, it won’t do the job by itself,” McDonald said. 

Urban areas have been here before, McDonald added. As the Industrial Revolution kicked in, people in overpopulated metropolises would have to travel to the countryside to glimpse greenery. An exception was London, with its many publicly available green spaces, which Paris took as inspiration when it essentially rebuilt itself in the 1800s and made room for massive parks. Today, planners are similarly bringing some of the country back into the city, blurring the lines between rural and urban. “We know how to increase tree cover, if we put our minds to it,” McDonald said. “But it takes effort and time.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The solution to urban heat is much, much simpler than you think on May 8, 2026.

Campaigners working to limit the use of controversial sun-dimming technology have praised the Europe’s foreign ministers for warning of the risks such technology poses, but opinions remain split over whether it merits more research, with the European Union keeping its position open for now.

At a joint council meeting in Luxembourg, ministers representing the EU’s 27 member states signed off on a statement agreeing for the first time that they were “concerned that large-scale climate interventions, in particular solar radiation modification (SRM), pose significant risks for the climate, the environment, security and geopolitics”.

Their statement, issued in late April, called for a moratorium on deployment of SRM technologies, as well as “the full application of the precautionary principle to geoengineering” and for the EU to engage in international talks on international governance arrangements, including those related to research.

SRM refers to any deliberate attempt to reduce the amount of heat which reaches the Earth from the sun. This could be carried out by artificially brightening clouds or injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, which could reduce or reverse global warming but risk severe and unpredictable side-effects.

• Jun 12, 2025 News Deep-sea geoengineering set for scrutiny, as ocean treaty approval nears The High Seas Treaty could require environmental impact assessments and consultation for marine carbon dioxide removal projects Read more
• Feb 3, 2025 Energy Arctic geoengineering experiment shuts down over environmental risks US-based nonprofit Arctic Ice Project has cancelled tests in Alaska because of potential disruption to the food chain Read more
• Dec 9, 2024 News EU should push for global deal to curb solar geoengineering, advisors say Europe’s first scientific advice on the technology urges Brussels to prevent its deployment, leaving room for limited outdoor research Read more

The risks of carrying out SRM are widely acknowledged but climate campaigners and scientists remain divided on to what extent and how its effects should be researched, with some arguing that such work normalises it and encourages its deployment.

Experts on both sides of the debate welcomed the EU’s statement but made contrasting calls on what should happen next. A more pro-research group said the EU should encourage responsible research into SRM’s effects while more anti-research campaigners said the EU should prevent research that could lead to SRM’s deployment and agree not to use it.

Responsible research

Giulia Neri, the interim director of climate interventions at the Brussels-based think-tank Centre for Future Generations (CFG), which supports research into SRM, told Climate Home News that the EU’s statement sends “an important and timely signal on the need for rules governing SRM”.

She added that the fact it was issued by foreign – not climate – ministers shows “a growing recognition that SRM is a geopolitically relevant technology and not merely a climate-related issue”.

Her colleague, CFG adviser on climate interventions, Matthias Honneger added that the EU nations’ ministers in charge of research “might also consider how responsible public research under European oversight can help maintain Europe’s influence”.

This is especially important, Honneger said, as “private and global actors increasingly dominate what we know about this technology and its risks and benefits”.

A well-funded US-Israeli company Stardust claims to be developing the ability to carry out SRM and is seeking customers – including the US government – to pay for them to do so.

Impossible to test

Mary Chuch, who campaigns against geoengineering for the Center for International Environmental Law, also welcomed the foreign ministers’ statement.

She said it was right to emphasise “the risks of highly speculative geoengineering technologies, centre the precautionary principle and reinforce the longstanding moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity”.

How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets

But, rather than calling for more research, she and political scientist Frank Biermann called for the EU to join governments in Africa and the Pacific in calling for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering.

“As an immediate first step, the European Union must prevent research that could lead to the development and use of solar geoengineering technologies,” Biermann said.

Church said that solar geoengineering is “inherently unpredictable” and that it was “impossible to fully test for intended and unintended impacts without prolonged large-scale implementation”.

De facto moratorium

The council’s conclusion did not weigh in on the research debate, only resolving to engage in talks on the governance of research.

But European Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zaharieva said in 2024 that research should continue although it should be “rigorous and ethical, and it must take full account of the possible range of direct and indirect effects”.

Also in 2024, the Swiss government attempted to get countries at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to set up an expert group on SRM. But this failed due to opposition from the African Group, Colombia, Mexico and others, and Switzerland did not try again at the last UNEA in December 2025.

SRM is currently legal in most nations. But there has been a de facto global moratorium in place on geoengineering – which includes SRM – since 2010, when it was agreed by governments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, with exceptions for small-scale scientific research studies.

The post EU warns on solar geoengineering but research debate grinds on appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ninety percent of global trade is conducted by giant ships that crisscross the globe, delivering containers of jet fuel, electronics, clothing, and many other goods every day of the week. Seafaring trade on this scale has brought the cost of many products down dramatically, but those ships have historically run on a very dirty fuel — essentially the sludge left over from refining crude oil — causing the shipping sector to contribute about 3 percent of total carbon emissions worldwide. 

Last year, the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, the United Nations agency overseeing global shipping, was poised to adopt a plan to bring that down to zero. But that was before the Trump administration stepped in, threatening countries with visa restrictions, tariffs, and port fees if they supported the effort. As a result, the ambitious plan to decarbonize global shipping has been on the rocks for months. Alternate proposals that dispense with the core function of the original Net-Zero Framework, or NZF — a per-ton fee on greenhouse gas emissions above a certain threshold — seemed to be gaining traction, threatening climate progress in the sector.

But at a meeting of U.N. member countries last week, none of those watered-down proposals received much attention. Instead, a slim majority of countries expressed vocal support for the NZF, indicating that a narrow path to adopting the framework as originally intended still exists. 

“A genuine spirit of collaboration and optimism pervaded the negotiations,” said Em Fenton, a senior director at the U.K.-based climate group Opportunity Green, who attended the meeting in London. “There were people who did not want to see progress, but a vast majority of delegates in the room were working together.”

The Trump administration opposes the NZF on the grounds that it would burden American consumers and businesses. In public documents submitted to the IMO, the administration has drawn a hard line at penalizing carbon-intensive fuel types and the inclusion of an “economic element,” such as a tax or levy, in the framework. 

“The United States submits that the most appropriate path forward is to end consideration of the IMO Net-Zero Framework entirely,” it noted. 

But supporters of the weaker alternative proposals — which were submitted by Japan, Liberia, Argentina, Panama, and others — did not entirely derail the majority’s push to advance the original NZF. The path to adopting the net-zero plan is a long one — and there’s still time for talks to fall apart. Opponents of the framework can tank it by gathering support from one-third of member countries, or from a smaller group of countries if that group controls half of the world’s shipping tonnage, per IMO rules.

Just four countries — Liberia, Panama, Bahamas, and the Marshall Islands — account for roughly half of the world’s registered ships. Ships can be owned by a company in one country, operated by another, and registered — or “flagged” — in a third, much like offshore banking for tax purposes. As a result, these so-called flag countries have extraordinary leverage during IMO negotiations. Since some of these flag states have already voiced their opposition to the NZF, Eveylne Williams, a research associate with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said that “you’re kind of already in that neighborhood of the 50 percent blocking threshold.”

However, “cautious optimism is reasonable” at this stage, she added. “[The NZF] hasn’t been abandoned, but it’s kind of sobering to look at the blocking arithmetic still available.”

While key countries oppose the Net-Zero Framework, the shipping industry itself — the companies that actually own and operate the ships and make their profits from the delivery of goods — has largely backed the effort in the hopes that a single uniform global tax will put every company on the same footing, no matter where they operate. Shippers are already navigating European carbon regulations and want to avoid a patchwork of rules by different countries.

“Our industry needs the IMO as our global regulator,” said David Loosley, CEO and secretary general of BIMCO, a trade organization representing shippers, on LinkedIn after the meeting last week ended. “To arrive at implementable regulations at a global level, we need the backing of all member states. Without consensus, global regulations will be ineffective and will fail to provide a level playing field for a truly global industry.”

At the meeting last week, U.S. delegates distributed leaflets laying out their projections of the country-by-country economic effects of the Net-Zero Framework. One handout, summarizing the effects on Peru, led to nearly $800 million in compliance costs. But experts who examined the figures said the analysis was misleading and utilized outdated assumptions. 

“The data is a clear effort being made by a country acting in strong self-interest and using misinformation and exaggeration to the detriment of other countries’ interests,” said Fenton. 

A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

Fenton expects countries to continue engaging in bilateral negotiations and technical discussions in the coming months. Several finer points — such as the distribution of funds collected as a result of the framework’s fee — are yet to be decided. After the U.S. intervention last year, a vote to adopt the framework was delayed by a year. As a result, the earliest countries can vote to adopt the framework is November. Talks are scheduled for that month to get the framework — or an alternate proposal — over the finish line.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump is trying to kill a carbon tax on global shipping. He may not succeed. on May 8, 2026.

Perla Álvarez, from CLOC–La Via Campesina, and Raya Radwan, from the World March of Women Palestine, speak about the struggle for land and food sovereignty

The post Feminist Agrarian Reform: Transforming Society and Relations for All Humanity appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Luke Lewin Davies and Jenny Futuro speak to São Paulo-based playwright Filipe Pereira on the challenges of left theatre-making in Brazil’s evolving political landscape

The post Theatre and political transformations in Brazil appeared first on Red Pepper.

The journeys of migratory birds don’t just move through untouched wilderness—they span a patchwork of cities, towns, farms, and working lands that provide an important stopover on their...

Aden: a city in the crater Channel News brendan 8th May 2026 Teaser Media

A big battery project being proposed for construction by a group of farming landholders and a local renewables developer has been waved through EPBC approvals.

The post Landholder-led 4-hour big battery gets federal environmental all-clear in just over four weeks appeared first on Renew Economy.

With no grown-ups in sight, a feckless war lurches and whipsaws on, run by a regime full of clowns, drunks, losers, grifters, all steadfastly defying the will of the people. Trump rants, Hegseth lies, Rubio punts, and shameless, "bad paranoid mess" Ka$h Patel, who actually likes to spell his name that way, is gifting bottles of personally branded bourbon - "KASH PATEL, FBI Director," boasting "strong notes of insecurity" - on all sides. Nothing to see here.

The dizzying pivots on Iran go on, with Dear Leader "paralyzed" by what he started and can't for the life of him figure out how to end. The military blockade of Iran's ports is "the greatest military maneuver in history"; also, if Iran doesn't give in to his demands, they will be "blown off the face of the earth." The "already legendary Epic Fury" is almost over, and the Hormuz Strait will be "OPEN TO ALL" if Iran just agrees to the 14-point US plan they dismiss as "a wish-list." One day, Project Freedom is "a gift to the world" that will get all 2,000 stranded ships through the Strait; the next day, with two ships through and Navy commanders resisting, he pulls the plug in the name of an almost-here "complete and final agreement" that doesn't exist. It turns out he veered away because the Saudis, angry and mistrustful, wouldn't let him use their bases or air space; NATO countries are also increasingly.barring the US from their bases. Iran's chief negotiator: "Operation Trust Me Bro failed.”

There’s more bad if unsurprising news: Pete and Donnie "lied through their teeth" about how the war's gone: Iranian airstrikes did far more damage to US military sites - hitting or destroying at least 228 hangars, barracks, fuel depots, aircraft, key radar, defense, communication systems - than they've acknowledged, and Iran's military might is far from "obliterated." The lies flew through, in part, because they “requested” that several large satellite imagery providers withhold images of the war to tightly control a bogus “winning” narrative. The result, critics say: “Not since Vietnam has there been a more systematic effort by an administration to lie about the costs, consequences, and results of a war.” Meanwhile, NATO is increasingly moving on without the US - who can blame them - and even Australia is pissed at the economic chaos: “Interest Rates Rise Because Some (Emotionally-Stunted) Fuckwit in America Wasn’t Hugged Enough As A Child."

Amidst the carnage, a “once-in-a-lifetime stupid“ Trump posts bonkers AI memes - Biden as ”COWARD," Obama as ”TRAITOR" - and proof the Iran war is shorter than Afghanistan: "Wow! Study this chart!“ His clowns flail. Todd Blanche wants SCOTUS to let the DOJ trash E. Jean Carroll's $83.3 million win. Howard Lutnick told the House his relationship with Epstein was "inexplicable.” Hegseth still inexplicably pursues Mark Kelly for obeying the law though multiple judges tell him to stop; Pete also posted a cringe video of "performative dipshittery wrapped in fictional jingoism," insisting a proposed $1.5 trillion military budget is “putting the American taxpayer first.” Also: "Arsenal for freedom" WTF? GOP tax cuts for the rich and slashing of Obamacare tax credits will see millions lose health care and food stamps, which they call cutting fraud: "Let them eat ballrooms." ICE promises, "Mass deportations are coming." America wants none of this shit.

They also likely don't want much of what Trump's FBI - which boasts, "Law and order is back," complete with vows to hunt down "bad guys" at the World Cup - is selling. Especially given its alleged director, fresh off drunken drunken revels celebrating with his hockey "friends" in Milan and reportedly, perennially panicking about being fired after a series of scandals, is now facing yet more bad press thanks toThe Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick, who's been lauded as "a fearless badass" for staying on his sketchy trail. Her first story, on April 17, cited two dozen FBI sources "alarmed" by Patel's erratic behavior, "conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences" after nights of boozing. Patel responded with a sputtering, typo-riddled, $250-million lawsuit charging Fitzpatrick and The Atlantic with an elaborate, organized-crime-like conspiracy. The FBI also reportedly launched a criminal leak investigation, usually reserved for "insider threats" involving classified documents, into who told Fitzpatrick what.

This week, Fitzpatrick followed up with another boozy story: Patel travels with a stash of personalized, bespoke, presumably taxpayer-funded Ka$h Patel bourbon he regularly hands out wherever he goes, including on official FBI business. The bottles bear the label, “KASH PATEL FBI DIRECTOR” with the rendering of an FBI shield; around it, text reads, with his preferred spelling, Director Ka$h Patel. An eagle holds the shield in its talons; sometimes the 750-milliliter bottles bear Patel’s signature. They also bear the imprint of Kentucky distillery Woodford Reserve, who have helped out MAGA before. In 2025, they gifted bottles to attendees of the 2025 inauguration luncheon, part of the swag arranged by Mitch McConnell's team. They also created a commemorative "Trump Presidential Woodford Reserve Whiskey, part of their Spirited Gifts line. It's unclear to what extent they've been impacted by or spared from Trump's infamous tariffs.

Patel is already known to have "a great affection" for swag: "He is known as being very merch forward." The Ka$h-branded crap on his website - “Choose Freedom. Shop Based" - has included t-shirts, beanies, faux-camo Fight with Kash hoodies, Fight With Kash Punisher scarf, “Justice for All” #J6PC tees to support Jan, 6 rioters, “government gangsters” playing cards, tacky juvenile "Steel Wall Art," and his children's book The Plot Against the King, about a heroic wizard, Kash the Distinguished Discoverer, who helps "King Donald" uncover conspiracies and crush his enemies. Profits supposedly go to a non-profit Kash Patel Foundation that “supports whistleblowers, education, defamation cases, etc." Patel was also already a bourbon fan during Trump's first term; he reportedly kept a barrel of bourbon at the National Security Council which was regularly brought out to celebrate successes.

In her account, Fitzpatrick lists places and occasions, including FBI events, where Patel has given out bottles of his bourbon. She reports that, when a bottle went missing during a March FBI "training seminar" with Ultimate Fighting Championship athletes in Quantico, Virginia, the incident caused Patel to "lose his mind"; he was so angry he threatened to make his staff take polygraph tests and face prosecution if they were found to have been involved. The FBI did not deny Patel gives out the whiskey; they defended the gifts as "routine" within the FBI, where Bureau officials "exchange commemorative items in formal gift settings consistent with ethics rules." A spokesperson "declined to clarify which ethical rules he is following, or which past directors also did it. When Fitzpatrick asked a former longtime senior official if he'd ever seen personally branded booze gifted, "He burst out laughing."

Several current and former FBI leaders said the action was "unheard-of," noting, "The FBI has traditionally had a zero-tolerance approach to unauthorized use of alcohol on the job or its misuse off duty.” Said one, "Handing out bottles of liquor at our premier law-enforcement agency - it makes me frightened for the country." Others called it "weird," "uncomfortable," "a "shitshow," "a misunderstanding of the Bureau's culture of quiet professionalism," “demoralizing because it suggests one set of standards for the director and another for the rest of the Bureau." Then again, said one, "If you make allegations against Patel, you're screwed." "The Kash Patel bourbon has strong notes of insecurity, narcissism, incompetence and alcohol-fueled national security risk,” wrote Dem lawmakers online. "Pairs well with taxpayer-funded getaways and the occasional SWAT-assisted wake-up call.”

"I knew one day I'd have to watch powerful men burn the world down. I just didn't expect them to be such losers." - Rebecca Shaw in The Guardian

Ka$h Patel, FBI Director and MoonshinerPhoto from The Atlantic

Fortescue's green grid rides through bushfire-caused transmission failure with just solar and batteries and no spinning machines - defying conventional thinking.

The post “I thought this was impossible:” Fortescue green grid rides through transmission failure with no fossil fuels appeared first on Renew Economy.

Listed fund hopes to press go on its first big wind and storage projects soon, with an extension to the Victoria Big Battery likely first to go.

The post Fund nears financial close for wind and storage projects, with Victoria Big Battery extension first to go appeared first on Renew Economy.

This June, residents of Marin and Sonoma Counties face a choice: keep the SMART train running, or watch one of the region’s most important climate investments unravel. 

The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) train carries over 4,000 riders each weekday, offering a proven alternative to car travel that eases Highway 101 congestion and cuts greenhouse gas emissions. But without renewed funding, SMART cannot sustain current operations, let alone grow.

That’s why Measure B — a continuation of the existing quarter-cent sales tax for SMART train service and the adjacent multi-use pathway — will appear on the June ballot in Marin and Sonoma counties. Measure B doesn’t create a new tax. It keeps your existing investments alive — securing the next 30 years of service.

Greenbelt Alliance proudly endorses Measure B and encourages voters across Marin and Sonoma counties to vote YES on the June ballot.

Why It Matters

SMART is more than a train. Every trip taken on SMART means fewer cars on the road, less pollution in the air, and a cleaner commute for thousands of North Bay residents. For an environmentally motivated community, Marin and Sonoma’s housing and transportation systems still depend heavily on single-occupancy vehicles. This measure represents a needed investment in public transportation. 

Without Measure B, SMART will not be able to maintain today’s service levels. That means fewer trains, fewer riders, and more cars on 101. It means an incomplete pathway system. And it means abandoning an investment that voters in Marin and Sonoma counties have already made in their shared future.

Protecting and Growing a Regional Investment

Over the past decade, SMART has extended its reach across the North Bay, and the 24 mile pathway running alongside the tracks has become a beloved active transportation corridor for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Measure B protects that progress and opens the door to more: expanded service hours, greater geographic reach, and a pathway system that’s finally complete.

A YES vote on Measure B directly funds:

• Continued daily SMART train service connecting Sonoma and Marin counties
• A reliable, low-emissions alternative to Highway 101
• Expansion of service hours and geographic reach across the North Bay
• Completion and maintenance of the SMART pathway for cyclists and pedestrians
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from the region’s transportation sector. People who ride SMART reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 33% compared to completing the same trip in a car.

A Smart Investment in Our Shared Future

At Greenbelt Alliance, we believe that resilient communities require both healthy lands and healthy transportation systems — the kind that give people real alternatives to driving, reduce emissions, and keep our region connected even as climate pressures intensify.

The quarter-cent sales tax that funds SMART is already in place. Measure B simply continues it. The cost of not renewing this funding — degraded service, stranded riders, and backsliding on our climate commitments — is far greater than the cost of saying yes.

Thirty years from now, the North Bay can be a place where hopping on a train is as natural as getting in a car – where our transportation choices match our values. That future starts this June. Vote YES on Measure B.

The post Vote Yes on Measure B: Keep SMART Moving for the Next 30 Years appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

Opposition plan to review state transmission roadmap and pause major network upgrades has been called out as "wedge" politics and could lead to blackouts, state energy minister warns.

The post “Definitely not good policy:” Experts skewer LNP plan to pause major transmission upgrades appeared first on Renew Economy.

A new species of wasp has been named after Sir David Attenborough as the naturalist celebrates his 100th birthday.

The post “Completely overwhelmed” Attenborough feted on 100th birthday, new wasp species named after him appeared first on Renew Economy.

Clean Energy Finance Corporation will underwrite a transmission project crucial to the connection of Marinus Link, in a move it says will slash costs to consumers.

The post Federal green bank backs contentious state transmission project, to “significantly lower costs to consumers” appeared first on Renew Economy.

What does a protected bike lane have in common with a hot glue gun, a lawn mower and a refrigerator?

That’s not the set-up to a bad joke — it’s a powerful lesson in safe systems.

For this week’s Friday Video, we check in on one of our favorite TikTokers Jon Jon Wesolowski — aka “The Happy Urbanist” — who just posted an explainer on “forcing functions,” or design features that force better behavior and prevent bad things from happening.

And whether that’s an automatic kill switch on a household appliance or a barrier that separates a driver from cyclist, these features should be a no-brainer — if we can stop playing the blame game and start getting to the root causes of why people get hurt.

Check it out:

View this post on Instagram

Injury rates for e-bike and scooter users are plummeting in Europe even as the use of those devices has exploded since 2021, according to a new study that debunks the myth that roadways are getting less safe as a result of the micromobility boom.

Between 2024 and 2025, total bike and scooter mileage of the four mobility companies in the report grew by 14 percent, while the risk of injury declined by a little more than 1 percent. Bike safety seems even greater: e-bike trips increased by 72 percent in the same period yet injuries per million trips fell by around 18 percent compared to 2024.

The data was analyzed by Micro-Mobility for Europe, an industry group comprising the European operations of Bolt, Dott, Lime and Voi. The 2025 data is based on more than 353 million shared e-scooter trips and 136 million shared e-bike rides in the 27 European Union member states, plus Norway, Switzerland, the UK and Israel.

The companies collaborated to form Micro-Mobility for Europe to push back on the notion that e-bikes and scooters are a threat to safety. Its mission calls for joint effort to “develop a framework that ensures micro-mobility solutions flourish in cities in full respect of all road users and to revolutionize urban transportation toward a shared, electric, and carbon-free future.”

One expert said the preliminary findings show that micromobility only gets safer as the devices reach broader use.

“This indicates that with technological advancements, responsible operation, and better urban infrastructure, safety can be boosted even as micromobility network expands,” said George Yannis, a professor at National Technical University of Athens, which is working with the coalition to further study safety outcomes. “Continued monitoring and increased availability of micromobility data as well as evidence-based policies by both the [companies] and [local officials] will be essential to sustain this positive trend and further support Europe’s Vision Zero ambition of reducing road fatalities.”

And in the long term, risks continue to trend downward even as use continues to grow. Between 2021 and 2025, the injury risk per million km for shared e-scooters decreased by around 20 percent. And for bikes, overall injuries per million kilometers fell by almost 6 percent between 2024 and 2025, even as the number of trips increased by around 72 percent in 2025, evidence that the sector is getting safer as it scales.

The short report attributes the decrease in injury risk to an increase in safety features, like speed caps, on devices, geofencing in busy pedestrian areas, and regular maintenance of bikes and scooters.

“A 24-percent reduction in the risk of shared e-scooter injuries per million trips since 2021 shows that safer vehicle technology, rider education, sensibilisation [sic] measures by operators and continued investments in infrastructure are delivering measurable results,” said Micro-Mobility for Europe Co-Chair Marc Naether, who is also head of public policy at Bolt.