News Feeds

The Yellow Vest, or gilets jaunes, are grassroots worker movement that have defied politics as usual in France and the rest of the world. In our latest, Scott talks with…

May 18, 2026 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SUWA Statement on Senate Vote Confirming Steve Pearce as Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – 5.18.26  Anti-public lands politician will oversee nation’s largest land management agency 

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org

Washington, DC – Today, by a vote of 46 – 43 the U.S. Senate confirmed anti-public lands politician and former US Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) as the next director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the vote was part of an en bloc (multiple) nomination vote. Below is a statement from SUWA DC Director Travis Hammill and additional information.  

“Today’s vote is disappointing. Anyone who cares about the future of public lands, national monuments, or the redrock knows that Steve Pearce has fundamentally disqualifying views – such as opposing the very existence of public lands – and should not hold the position of Director of the Bureau of Land Management,” said Travis Hammill, DC Director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “While the Trump Administration continues its deeply unpopular efforts to undermine public lands protections, SUWA’s work continues to protect Utah’s redrock country for current and future generations.” 

Additional information: 

• SUWA’s 3.4.26 Statement on Senate Committee Vote re: Steve Pearce’s Nomination to Lead the BLM 

• SUWA’s Advocacy Action to members 

• SUWA’s 11.5.25 Statement on Steve Pearce’s Nomination to Lead the BLM 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a federal agency, is part of the Department of the Interior, a Cabinet-level department headed by Secretary Doug Burgum. In Utah, the BLM manages 22.8 million acres of public land, ranging from “spectacular red-rock canyons and roaring rivers to high mountain peaks and expansive salt flats,” including Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (designated in 1996 and the first monument managed by the BLM) and Bears Ears National Monument (designated in 2017 and jointly managed with the US Forest Service).  

The BLM manages several congressionally-designated wilderness areas in Utah, including remarkable places such as Muddy Creek (Emery County), Canaan Mountain (Washington County), and the Cedar Mountains (Tooele County). BLM-Utah also manages more than 80 Wilderness Study Areas and other significant public landscapes including Nine Mile Canyon, Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, and the Desolation Canyon and Labyrinth Canyon stretches of the Green River (designated Wild and Scenic Rivers). SUWA’s signature bill, America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, would designate more than 8 million acres of BLM land in Utah as wilderness.  

### 
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards a world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org. 

 

 

The post SUWA Statement on Senate Vote Confirming Steve Pearce as Director of the BLM – 5.18.26  appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

What’s wrong with Washington’s energy codes? I’m so glad you asked! Deepa Sivarajan Mon, 05/18/2026 - 2:08 pm

Registered nurses with the National Nurses Organizing Committee / National Nurses United are hosting a community town hall with Graham Platner on Wednesday, May 20, in Portland, Maine, to discuss the current state of health care and what it would take to truly transform our system.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Rafael Méndez Tejeda

El Niño is (probably) coming back later this year.

And this time, it’s unfolding against a backdrop of unusually warm oceans and an even warmer climate system than the last time we experienced this natural climate pattern.

Here is what you need to know about it.

What is El Niño?

The term El Niño is part of a broader phenomenon called El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. It’s a recurring climate pattern involving changes in sea surface temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific.

Copernicus, a European climate data service, reported that in March 2026, the average sea surface temperatures in the Pacific reached 20.97°C – the second-highest value ever recorded for March, which suggests a likely transition toward El Niño conditions.

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation is one of the planet’s most important natural mechanisms through which the ocean and atmosphere exchange energy and reorganize the global climate from year to year.

The phenomenon has three phases: the warm phase is El Niño, the cool phase is La Niña, and between the two lies a neutral or transitional phase, when neither dominates clearly. The changes occur in the tropical region of the Pacific Ocean, within 700 miles of the equator.

The consensus among climate models – including those from NOAA – indicates with high probability the onset and subsequent intensification of El Niño starting in fall 2026, with some models suggesting it could be an unusually intense event.

We can anticipate more heat waves with a strengthening El Niño, along with more extreme events ranging from heavy rainfall to drought. El Niño tends to intensify the subtropical jet stream, favoring wetter conditions and greater storm activity across the southern United States and northern Mexico, while the northern United States and Canada experience a relatively warmer and drier pattern, affecting snow cover and water availability. At the same time, the effects of El Niño usually reduce the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean.

The return of El Niño is not synonymous with climate change

El Niño is a natural phenomenon of the ocean-atmosphere system. But when it coincides with a planet already warmed by human activity, its effects can be amplified. The World Meteorological Organization warned that during the last El Niño period (2023–2024), the combination of El Niño and climate change hit Latin America and the Caribbean with greater force, worsening droughts, heat waves, wildfires, extreme rainfall, and other impacts with significant human and economic costs.

El Niño affects more than the Pacific region

Although El Niño originates in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, its effects extend to other regions of the planet through processes known as climate teleconnections – atmospheric links that allow massive cloud formations to develop as a result of the enormous evaporation generated by the warming of ocean waters.

El Niño disrupts what is known as the Walker Cell or Walker Circulation, a tropical atmospheric circulation system that transports heat, moisture, and energy on a large scale. These disturbances propagate through the atmosphere in the form of planetary waves, modifying global pressure and wind patterns. As a result, El Niño’s influence reaches the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean, where significant changes in regional climate occur.

Among these effects are a tendency toward drier conditions in certain periods due to descending air and a redistribution of heat that contributes to higher temperatures and more intense heat waves. In short, even though El Niño occurs far from where most Yale Climate Connections readers live, its impact is clearly felt because Earth’s climate system is interconnected, and atmospheric disturbances can travel vast distances.

During El Niño, increased variability in wind direction and speed – which inhibits hurricane formation – can act as a buffer against hurricane activity. However, hurricane formation in the Atlantic depends on multiple factors, including conditions in the Atlantic itself – such as sea surface temperatures, atmospheric moisture, and the Azores High, a large semipermanent center of high atmospheric pressure that sits over the North Atlantic near the Azores islands. And when it comes to hurricanes, we should never let our guard down completely.

How El Niño affects hurricane formation in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. (Image credit: NOAA / Climate.gov)

In general terms, precipitation tends to be greater during La Niña or neutral years than during El Niño years. This does not mean the disappearance of all rainfall. But it does suggest a greater probability of rainfall deficits, water stress, and, in some cases, the development of drought conditions – which could worsen the drought already affecting Southern and Western U.S. states.

El Niño is not here yet

According to the most recent diagnostic discussion from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, current conditions are ENSO-neutral. That same assessment indicates that neutral conditions are likely through May, April, June, and July 2026, potentially extending through September, at which point a transition to the warm phase of ENSO could begin. All forecasting centers emphasize that significant uncertainty remains regarding its ultimate intensity.

El Niño does not arrive on a fixed schedule

Both NOAA and other scientific bodies agree that it appears irregularly, generally every two to seven years, though the average tends to fall closer to every three to four years. Episodes typically last between nine and 18 months, and in some cases, somewhat longer due to the effects of global warming.

As migratory birds travel thousands of miles across continents each year, scientists and conservationists are finding new ways to understand where birds go, where they stop, and what habitats they...

05-22 * 13:00 - RD-TG meeting (Bea)

05-20 * 13:00 - Toolkit for Weaving (Bea)

This spring our Pine Island Sanctuary on the Outer Banks welcomed back nesting Osprey, Purple Martins, Tree Swallows, and more thanks to volunteers who cleared out nest boxes and made the sanctuary...

EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens finds market progress, a promising new ingredient but a stubborn UVA protection gap Monica Amarelo May 18, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group today released its 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens, and after evaluating nearly 2,800 SPF products, the most comprehensive review in the guide’s history, the news is mixed.

The sunscreen market is measurably better. Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine remains important in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The product you will actually use is the right one.

“The market has improved. The number of harmful ingredients like oxybenzone has nosedived, the percentage of products that are mineral sunscreens has nearly tripled and consumers are more informed than ever,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., chief science officer at EWG.

“But the fundamental problem remains unsolved: Most American sunscreens fail to deliver adequate UVA protection, critical for reducing skin cancer risk, including melanoma. 

“That is not a marketing problem but a failure of sunscreen companies to develop the data showing their ingredients are safe,” said Andrews.

Twenty years ago, most Americans had no independent, science-based resource to consult when buying sunscreen. The market was flooded with harmful chemicals, misleading SPF claims and products that offered little meaningful protection against the radiation most responsible for skin cancer.

So EWG built a guide.

This year, 550 of the 2,784 SPF products EWG evaluated meet its criteria for both ingredient safety and balanced UV protection. 

Sixty-two sunscreens bear the EWG Verified® mark. To qualify, they must:

• Meet EWG’s highest standards for safety and ingredient transparency
• Satisfy EWG’s standard for ultraviolet A, or UVA, and ultraviolet B, or UVB protection 
• Surpass both U.S. and European requirements for UVA protection. 

In total 130 SPF products, including moisturizers and lip balms, are EWG Verified.

20 years of measurable progress

“Wearing any sunscreen at all is key to reducing health concerns about excess UV exposure,” said Andrews.

“But not all sunscreens are created equal. EWG’s guide is a trusted, science-based resource that consumers can turn to every year to find the sunscreens that offer the strongest broad-spectrum protection without concerning ingredients.”

When EWG launched the first Guide to Sunscreens, in 2007, oxybenzone – a chemical linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm – appeared in 70% of non-mineral sunscreens on the market. Today it’s an ingredient in just 5%.

Vitamin A, which can degrade in sunlight and potentially accelerate rather than prevent skin damage, has plummeted from 41% of sunscreens to just 2%.

Mineral sunscreens using zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, the only active sunscreen ingredients the Food and Drug Administration has proposed as generally recognized as safe and effective, have grown from 17% to 47% of products EWG reviews.

These are not small victories. They represent a sea change in how an entire industry formulates its products, driven in significant part by consumers armed with better information.

A promising new ingredient on the horizon

For the first time in more than a quarter-century, EWG has cause for optimism about what is coming to U.S. sunscreen shelves. In late 2025, the FDA proposed classifying bemotrizinol, a UV filter used safely since 1999 in European and Asian sunscreens, as safe and effective for the U.S. market. 

“Bemotrizinol is the most significant development in American sunscreen regulation in 25 years, and EWG is proud to have pushed for its inclusion in U.S. products for more than a decade,” said Alexa Friedman, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG.

Bemotrizinol provides several advantages, including:

• strong broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection
• greater stability in sunlight than avobenzone, currently the only chemical filter in the U.S. that provides meaningful UVA protection 
• minimal skin absorption
• potential for combination with zinc oxide for even greater UVA coverage, unlike avobenzone.

If the FDA finalizes its proposal, American consumers who prefer non-mineral sunscreens will have a better option for the first time in nearly three decades.

“But one new ingredient does not fix a marketplace that has been stuck in neutral for a generation,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president of government affairs.

“The FDA proposed meaningful reforms to sunscreen regulation in 2019 and again in 2021 – stronger UVA standards, SPF value limits, better labeling, updated safety data requirements.

“None of those reforms have been finalized, and sunscreen manufacturers have failed to provide the FDA with the safety data it needs to approve better UV filters,” she said. 

“Congress must force the issue by setting enforceable deadlines for companies to submit the required data and empower the FDA to remove noncompliant ingredients from the market,” Benesh added.

Most sunscreens still fail on UVA

Progress is real. But the gap in American sun protection has not closed.

EWG’s peer-reviewed research, published in Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, tested 51 U.S. sunscreens and found that products delivered on average just 59% of their labeled UVB protection and only 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.

UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB, is a driver of melanoma and photo-aging, and causes damage year-round through car and office windows, on cloudy days and at high altitudes. 

Melanoma cases are projected to rise 10.6% this year, according to the American Cancer Society. The rate of new melanoma cases has tripled since the 1970s.

The problem is compounded by misleading high-SPF marketing.

In perfect laboratory conditions, an SPF 50 product blocks 98% of UVB rays. SPF 100 blocks 99%. The difference is negligible, yet manufacturers continue to push SPF 70, 80 and 100+ products using chemical boosters that may inflate the number without improving UVA protection.

SPF tests triggered a regulatory reckoning in Australia, where independent tests found that one product labeled SPF 50+ tested at just SPF 4. The scandal triggered government investigations and mass product recalls. The U.S. has the same testing inconsistencies, but the FDA has not acted.

Europe adopted more accurate, objective laboratory testing protocols in 2024. 

The U.S. still relies on subjective in vivo tests, which involves technicians visually judging skin redness on human subjects, a method so inconsistent that the same formula can produce results of SPF 51 at one lab and SPF 28 at another.

“The SPF number on your sunscreen bottle doesn’t tell you the whole story,” said Friedman. “Consumers who reach for the highest SPF because they want maximum protection are often getting the least reliable UVA coverage of all. 

“That is a public health problem, and the FDA has the authority and the obligation to fix it,” she added.

Undisclosed “fragrance” in 36% of SPF products

More than one in three sunscreens EWG evaluated in 2026 list undisclosed “fragrance” on the label. That word can conceal hundreds of chemicals, including allergens, hormone disruptors and carcinogens.

For daily sunscreen users, those exposures accumulate. A 2025 peer-reviewed paper found the cumulative health effects of repeated fragrance ingredient exposure remain poorly understood and inadequately regulated. Congress set a 2024 deadline for the FDA to address fragrance allergen labeling in cosmetics, a rule that would have covered moisturizers with SPF. The agency missed it.

There is no equivalent fragrance disclosure requirement for sunscreens, so consumers have no way to know what is hidden behind that word on a product label.

“‘Fragrance’ on a sunscreen label doesn’t describe a single ingredient,” said Jilly Senk, science analyst at EWG Verified. 

“When you apply that product every day – to your face, your children’s skin, year after year – those undisclosed exposures add up. The EWG Verified mark exists precisely because the law does not require the transparency consumers deserve,” she said

How to find a sunscreen that works for you

The 2026 Guide to Sunscreens also offers important lists, including a selection of the top-rated recreational sunscreens, the safest for kids and babies, moisturizers with SPF and lip balms. They’re the products EWG scientists ranked the highest for their overall protection from UVA and UVB rays and other factors.

EWG also recommends “12 Bang for Your Buck Kids Sunscreens,” all priced at less than $20.

Here is EWG’s guidance for choosing a sunscreen that works and that you will use:

Choose mineral protection. Look for zinc oxide, which provides stable, balanced UVA and UVB coverage. EWG also recommends titanium dioxide for daily use.

Choose lotions or sticks over sprays. Sprays raise concerns about inhalation and often result in uneven coverage, especially in wind.

Skip high SPF numbers. Stick with SPF 50 or lower. Products with SPF 70, 80, or 100+ may not provide better UVA protection and can create a dangerous false sense of security.

Avoid chemicals of concern and undisclosed fragrance. Ingredients like oxybenzone and octinoxate are linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm. Undisclosed fragrance masks potentially harmful chemicals.

Use EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens, use the EWG Healthy Living app to scan products while you shop, and look for the EWG Verified mark, which requires sunscreens to exceed both U.S. and European UVA protection standards.

Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine is the final step in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The time of year does not matter. The weather does not matter. Every day is a sunscreen day – and the right product you will actually use.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Family Health Children’s Health 80% of almost 2,800 reviewed SPF products rate poorly for skin protection or concerning ingredients Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 19, 2026

EPA is undoing PFAS protections. How can you remove ‘forever chemicals’ from tap water? JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

“Do I have PFAS in my tap water? How can I get rid of PFAS in drinking water?”

If you’re asking these questions, you’re not alone. The Environmental Protection Agency formally proposed to undo enforceable limits for four toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in drinking water: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX and PFBS. 

The agency is stripping protections from millions of Americans whose tap water is already contaminated, an unprecedented and likely unlawful move.

The EPA is leaving in place PFAS limits for the two most notorious and well-studied forever chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, which will help reduce levels of those chemicals in drinking water.

But the agency is also proposing to delay by two years the deadline water systems have to comply – until 2031, for utilities that ask. That risks continuing the PFOA and PFOS contamination in communities that have already waited decades for clean water.

The alarming move to scrap the four other PFAS limits may leave millions of people exposed to tap water chemicals linked to cancer, immune suppression and many other risks.

EWG estimated in 2020 that 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their tap water. The EPA’s latest national tap water data update says the number is at least 176 million.

So far, that’s all bad news. 

Here’s the good news: You can take steps that may help to reduce the amount of PFAS in your home’s tap water.

EWG is here to guide you through your options.

Are PFAS in my tap water? How to find out.

First, find out whether your tap water contains PFAS. Here are two tools:

• EWG’s Tap Water Database lets you enter your ZIP code, showing you the most up-to-date information about PFAS and other contaminants in your community's tap water. It contains data from water systems across the country, showing you exactly which chemicals have been detected and at what concentrations. 
• EWG’s interactive PFAS map shows where forever chemicals have been detected below and above the EPA’s first-time tap water limits. The map was updated with the EPA’s most recent national PFAS test data from March 2026, and includes communities, military bases and other locations. 

If you rely on a private well, your water is not monitored or tested by any public utility. If you live near a military base, industrial facility, airport or area with known PFAS contamination, consider getting your water tested.

How do I remove PFAS from my tap water?

“PFAS are in my tap water. Can I do anything about it?”

The simple answer is yes; there is something you can do – find and use a home filter designed to reduce PFAS in your drinking water. There are many brands and varieties available, at a range of prices. Not all filters remove PFAS effectively. Do not assume a filter removes PFAS unless it specifically states that it does.

There are a few different ways to filter water for PFAS. 

EWG’s guide to countertop water filters helps you navigate through some other accessible choices. EWG reviewed 10 of the leading brands and models, telling you which filter is most effective at removing PFAS, how much it costs, how quickly the filter parts must be replaced, and how easy it is to use, among other important considerations.

What’s key is the right PFAS filter option will depend on your budget and preferences:

• Carbon-based. Absorbs contaminants like PFAS as water flows through granular-activated carbon or a carbon block. Used in pitchers, under-sink filters and faucet-mounted filters, it’s often the most accessible and affordable option.
• Reverse osmosis. Pushes tap water through a semi-permeable membrane that separates particles from water molecules, cutting PFAS and other contaminants. It is typically installed under a sink, but some new counter top models are available. Reverse osmosis is a highly effective option for reducing PFAS in drinking water. 
• Ion exchange. Exchanges contaminants in the water for less-harmful ions to trap certain contaminants. Not as common in home filters and sometimes used in whole-house filtration systems, so often ends up being more expensive than point-of-use systems like filters you attach to a faucet.
• Whole-house filtration. These systems are often more expensive than other options. They’re not necessary for most homes – they’re typically just used by those with the worst contamination.

Renters may prefer counter-top, faucet-mounted or pitcher-type filters, technologies that don’t require changes to a property’s plumbing and can be easily removed when they move out. 

The best filter is the one that’s most suitable for your situation and that you will use.

Tell the EPA not to roll back PFAS standards

EWG strongly opposes the EPA’s rollback of four PFAS limits. The move could violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, the law that the agency used to first develop the standards.

If you’re also alarmed, you can make your voice heard. 

Tell the agency to keep PFAS protections in place. Preserving the limits for PFAS in water will protect health, save lives and clean up drinking water.

The EPA is taking public comment on the proposal through July 16. Use docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742 or EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654 to tell the agency who you are, where you live and whether PFAS are in your water. Let the regulators know why these protections matter to you and your family. 

Personal stories from affected community members carry significant weight. The agency needs to hear from concerned Americans to understand just how misguided its plan is.

You can also contact your members of Congress and urge them to investigate whether the EPA’s rollback of PFAS regulations violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Anthony Lacey May 18, 2026

Trees as lived memories serve us citizens and residents, a culinary or recreational experience of engaging with them at regular intervals in our lives. A mango or jackfruit tree may bring back past relationships with our forefathers, and their ritualistic pickling processes or preservation through frying of chips. A banyan or peepal tree of the […]

May 14, 2026—Politico’s Eric He reports on Gov. Newsom’s May Revise budget proposal, which calls for deferring $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 school funding despite revenues coming in $16.5 billion above projections. The move has drawn swift condemnation from teachers unions, school boards, and Democratic lawmakers who argue the constitutionally-guaranteed funding is urgently needed — including by Los Angeles Unified, which is counting on state dollars to honor $1.2 billion in new union contracts. On the positive side for education advocates, the governor preserved $1 billion for community schools expansion. Public Advocates Managing Attorney John Affeldt weighed in on the deferral, saying that while restraints are warranted, it’s “not a crazy maneuver given the volatility of our revenue picture.”

Read the Story

The post Politico Pro: Newsom sticks with controversial funding deferral in mixed-bag schools budget appeared first on Public Advocates.

Informing people about the health risks linked to climate change is twice as likely to spur public support for government-led climate action than messages focused on economic or environmental impacts, an international study has found.

Based on a survey of around 30,000 respondents in Brazil, India, Japan and South Africa carried out in late 2025, the report published this month by the Climate Opinion Research Exchange (CORE) and the Wellcome Trust reveals strong public support for climate action.

Over 80% of participants said they are concerned about the impacts from climate change, the survey shows. A majority also back government measures to prevent public health impacts associated with the climate crisis.

“Humanitarian emergencies” are already increasing around the world due to human-caused rising temperatures, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). More than a third of the global population is exposed to climate threats like wildfires, extreme heatwaves, and tropical storms and floods, it says. These threats are amplified by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

Dustin Gilbreath, a researcher at CORE and one of the study’s lead authors, said that communicating these risks to the general public can be an effective way to inspire climate action, given that health is a basic concern for everyone across the political spectrum.

“If you suddenly find out that climate change is hurting your health and your children’s health, more people are rightfully more open to that argument,” he said. “At the end of the day, we all care about our health, regardless of our political inclinations.”

At COP28 in Dubai, more than 150 countries issued a declaration “expressing grave concern” over climate-fuelled health impacts, and pledged to strengthen policies that can cut carbon emissions and benefit people’s health in the process – for example by reducing air pollution from cars or factories.

More than 80 nations also endorsed a plan to improve the health sector’s resilience to climate impacts at the COP30 summit in Belém last year. The initiative received $300 million in philanthropic backing to help governments identify health risks, improve monitoring of climate threats, and strengthen emergency responses to extreme weather events, among other measures.

Despite these pledges, health has not been at the top of the agenda at key meetings like the recent conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. The Global Climate and Health Alliance, which represents 250 health organisations, said leaders in Santa Marta “did not address the importance of protecting people’s health”.

• May 15, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Ukraine can help Europe meet its battery material needs, experts say The country could contribute to the European Union’s efforts to reduce its dependence on China for graphite but the war poses major challenges Read more
• May 14, 2026 Finance UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security After promising £1.6 billion to the UN’s flagship climate fund in 2023, the UK government has now said it will only hand over half as much Read more
• May 13, 2026 Nature COP30 roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to draft domestic plans After promising at COP30 to produce a voluntary global roadmap to stop forest loss by 2030, Brazil provided an update on the consultations this week Read more

Health priorities vary by country

To gain insights into people’s attitudes towards climate change, researchers tested 16 different messages with respondents in a survey-based randomised trial, comparing their reactions to messages on health-related issues like extreme heat or infectious diseases, and non-health issues related to jobs, the cost of living or nature. They also compared the participants’ reactions to a control group in each country who were not shown any messages.

While a majority were concerned about the health impacts from climate change, the types of effects that caused the strongest reaction varied depending on the country.

In South Africa, for example, public opinion resonated very strongly with messages related to children’s health. Messages linked to food and water insecurity also chimed well with South Africans, who recognised widely that climate change is a threat to people’s health.

The study’s authors say that context is key to understanding the effectiveness of messaging. South Africa, for example, has a young population with a median age of 28 years – compared to Europe’s 45 years – and has faced severe water shortages in cities like Cape Town, which was close to a “Day Zero” event after a major drought between 2016 and 2018. This term refers to the threat of municipal services running out of water.

Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?

Brazilians, on the other hand, reacted strongly to messages related to mental health impacts, which performed better than other messages by a wide margin. These types of impacts include, for example, severe anxiety or stress caused by losses after a flood or a storm. In total, 93% of Brazilians said they are somewhat, or very concerned about, climate change.

Neha Dewan, senior advisor at the Wellcome Trust, a health-focused charitable foundation, said this finding was “counter-intuitive”, given that mental health is often seen as less of a priority. “This really helps us see what’s unexpected and find newer ways of reaching different audiences,” she added.

In Japan, extreme heat was the top-performing message, while in India it was air pollution and access to healthcare. Dewan said the India results confirm what people already discuss informally. “Every time I’m back home seeing family in India, everybody talks about air pollution. It’s the living, breathing reality.”

Commission urges government action

Dewan said she hoped the findings “go beyond journals” and instead can “actually end up in society”, with the goal of helping “empower policy conversations”. Respondents across countries firmly supported government action to prevent or protect them from the health impacts of a warming climate.

In Brazil and South Africa, emissions-cutting measures such as building solar capacity to produce clean energy had more than 90% support, while in India and Japan respondents strongly backed adaptation measures like investments in allowing air-conditioned public buildings to be used during heatwaves.

Ahead of the May 18-23 World Health Assembly, the WHO’s highest decision-making body, experts highlighted the urgency of implementing such steps. The Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health, composed of former global leaders and chaired by former Icelandic Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir, called on governments “to take forward climate action that delivers benefits for human health”.

The commission issued a 17-point plan to address health impacts from the climate crisis, which includes declaring climate change a “global health emergency” and bringing it to the agenda of national security councils, as well as scaling up “climate-health investment”.

“The climate crisis is a threat to our safety and security, social cohesion, human rights and health,” Jakobsdóttir said in a statement. “Climate action is not merely a necessity. It is a high-return investment for a more just and resilient society.”

The Wellcome Trust’s Dewan said the CORE survey provides data-backed insights showing policymakers that the public supports stronger action on climate change. “It’s beyond anecdotal now. Here’s the evidence telling us that constituents really care about these issues,” she said.

Saiful Islam cries after meeting his daughter Sadia Akter after four days as a severe flood hits the Lalpol area in Feni, Bangladesh, August 25, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Mohammad Ponir Hossain) Saiful Islam cries after meeting his daughter Sadia Akter after four days as a severe flood hits the Lalpol area in Feni, Bangladesh, August 25, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Mohammad Ponir Hossain) Fresh approach to climate dialogue

The findings of the study suggest that a focus on health could become an effective way for policymakers and activists to draw in new audiences and inspire action on climate change, the authors of the report said.

“The cost-of-living message or the jobs and economy messages have been used over and over again. People have been saying this for a good decade. Probably the people that are convinced by this already would’ve said they’re concerned about climate change,” said Gilbreath of CORE.

He added that the health angle is probably a newer approach for some audiences, but the hypothesis based on the survey findings would need to be tested with further research. He also noted that economic messages still serve a purpose in some contexts and should not be abandoned.

Dewan said health messaging could become a “missing piece” in climate communications. “Health is personal, proximal, relevant and – politically speaking – it’s depolarising,” she said.

“It gives us an inroad to talk about climate differently in a way that feels very relevant,” she explained. “It’s about figuring out what’s the next insight to unpack and make these communications and engagements even stronger and relevant.”

The post Health risks from climate change spur stronger public support for action, research finds appeared first on Climate Home News.

Massive Florida-based power company NextEra Energy announced today its plan to acquire Virginia’s Dominion Energy, citing the growth of A.I. data centers as the impetus for the move. In response, Public Citizen Energy Program director Tyson Slocum issued the following statement:

“This absurd proposal to merge two massive, well-capitalized utilities should be dead on arrival for state and federal regulators. Household customers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by allowing two behemoths, NextEra and Dominion, to merge.

“The claim that the tie-up is needed to address data center demand is a false narrative; the merger will do nothing to increase generating capacity, let alone desperately-needed renewable generating capacity. These mega-utilities are merely using rising concern about data centers as an excuse to concentrate political and economic power of two giant utilities to maximize financial returns to shareholders. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulators should reject this outlandish, unnecessary merger as completely contrary to the public interest.“

EnviroReporter.com’s 20th anniversary 2006-2026 Michael Collins & Denise Duffield’s reporting valued at $9.6 BILLION!

Protein is everywhere – it probably isn't making us healthier JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

Protein used to be the domain of bodybuilders and fitness fanatics. Now it’s everywhere: high-protein claims on Doritos chips, Dunkin’ Donuts lattes, breakfast toaster pastries and even pints of ice cream. 

There is even, somehow, “high performance man cereal” packed with protein. 

The protein powder market has become a more than $20 billion dollar industry, and demand for whey protein is so high that food and beverage companies may soon face a shortage.

But more isn’t always better. And not all protein sources are the same.

Despite mountains of marketing claims suggesting otherwise, we are not all walking around with protein deficits. In fact, some protein products being sold as a silver bullet for better health may pose their own risks.

American diets have a problem – but it’s not protein

Many of us don’t need to worry about getting more in our diets. The average U.S. adult’s consumption exceeds daily protein recommendations.

But some groups may benefit from a protein boost, including older or postmenopausal adults, pregnant or lactating individuals, athletes engaging in resistance or endurance training and, potentially, people taking GLP-1 medications.

Foods like beans, lentils, nuts, seeds and whole grains can provide protein, along with another nutrient few people get enough of: fiber. More than 90% of women and 97% of men fall short of recommended daily fiber intake, around 25 to 38 grams per day. Diets low in fiber are linked to higher risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer.

A bonus of foods high in both protein and fiber: They are often more affordable than traditional protein sources. For example, a cup of cooked lentils contains about 18 grams of protein and 16 grams of fiber – often for less than a dollar per serving.

Concerns about supplements’ safety

Much of the protein boom is driven by the marketing of protein powders. 

These are classified as dietary supplements, so the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate them the same way as food and drinks. Companies themselves are responsible for verifying the health and safety of their products.

Potential contamination of protein powders is also a significant concern. A 2025 Consumer Reports investigation found detectable lead in nearly every sample of protein powder and shake tested. Some single servings contained enough lead to cause a woman of childbearing age to exceed the FDA’s recommended daily limit for lead from food.

Another study revealed that nearly half of protein supplements tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic.

Many brands also contain artificial food dyes, sweeteners and other highly processed ingredients that offer no nutritional value and may be linked to other health harms.

Ultra-processed protein products

New products boasting added protein should also give you pause.

Many snacks, drinks and desserts now boasting protein claims – from chips to cereals to flavored coffee drinks – are ultra-processed.

Ultra-processed foods, or UPF, are industrially manufactured products that contain colors, additives or ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens. In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet. 

Leading health experts now consider UPF a key driver of chronic disease, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases.

Extra protein in an ultra-processed product doesn’t reduce any of these risks. It’s also unlikely to provide other beneficial nutrients, like fiber, found in minimally processed or whole foods.

What you can do

Consumers shouldn’t have to figure all of this out alone.

Companies should be required to routinely test supplements like protein powders and disclose the results, including any findings of heavy metals in powders, shakes and bars.

States like California have already successfully adopted these requirements for baby food. By reducing contamination levels in many product categories, they showed that transparency drives cleaner sourcing and safer manufacturing.

Last year, California also signed landmark legislation to ban the most harmful UPF from public schools. Now, California lawmakers are considering a state-run non-UPF certification program to make grocery shopping easier for concerned consumers.

In the meantime, people looking to learn more about their protein sources can use EWG’s Food Scores to identify nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 150,000 foods. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 18, 2026

Many right-leaning figures have tried to push the idea that the UK is an outlier on net-zero.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has claimed that other countries are “not following us” in aiming to cut emissions to net-zero, while GB News owner Paul Marshall said in March that the UK is “pursuing a path of unilateral economic disarmament”.

Both are among those on the right of UK politics who have falsely claimed that the UK’s net-zero target is “unilateral” and that this is a reason why the goal should be abandoned.

However, these claims ignore that 140 of the world’s 198 countries (71%) have net-zero targets. 

In fact, Iran and the US are the only two of the world’s top 20 carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters that lack a net-zero target, as shown in the map below.

If the UK were to scrap its net-zero target, as called for by both the opposition Conservatives and hard-right Reform UK, this is the group of major emitters it would be joining.

Countries with net-zero targets, as of May 2026. Data source: Net Zero Tracker

The latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s foremost authority on climate science, said the only way to stop global warming was to reach net-zero CO2 emissions.

The UK was the first major economy to set a net-zero target in 2019.

Since then, almost all of the world’s major emitters have followed suit, with China announcing a net-zero target in 2020 and India, Saudi Arabia and Russia launching goals in 2021.

Around 74% of global emissions are now covered by some kind of national net-zero target, according to data from the Net Zero Tracker, a consortium tracking net-zero policies.

According to the Net Zero Tracker, 34 nations – including the UK – have set a net-zero target into law, signifying the highest possible level of commitment.

In addition, 63 nations have stated their goal in a policy document, 16 nations have made a net-zero “pledge” and 23 nations have a net-zero “proposal”. (Four nations have declared that they have already reached net-zero.)

Types of net-zero targets across countries. Data source: Net Zero Tracker

The US, the world’s largest historical emitter when counting its cumulative climate impact since the start of the industrial revolution, had a net-zero target under former president Joe Biden. However, it was abandoned by the current Trump administration.

Despite this, some 18 regions and 43 cities in the US still have some form of net-zero commitment, according to the Net Zero Tracker.

John Lang, lead of the Net Zero Tracker, tells Carbon Brief:

“Ironically, of the world’s 20 largest emitters, only the US and Iran lack net-zero targets – precisely as the Iran crisis exposes the risks of dependence on fossil fuels and volatile oil markets.

“Arguing against net-zero is arguing for greater exposure to geopolitical instability and energy price shocks. The UK has already shown that cutting fossil-fuel dependence can go hand in hand with economic growth, reducing emissions by 54% since 1990 while almost doubling the size of the economy.”

Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario

Factchecks

|

19.05.26

Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets

Factchecks

|

08.05.26

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Energy

|

25.03.26

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Factchecks

|

30.01.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_7ca539661f3dc59b33382489358c8e48 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Fight for the Future, Access Now, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and other leading human rights organizations are demanding Meta immediately course correct and make good on promises to protect Instagram DMs with end-to-end encryption by default.

Led by Fight for the Future, 50 human rights groups are expressing outrage over Meta’s decision to discontinue “opt-in” end-to-end encryption for Instagram messages, as well as its apparent reversal of plans to protect Instagram messages with end-to-end encryption by default. The groups sent a letter to Meta calling on the company to immediately course correct and follow through on promises to ensure users’ direct messages (DMs) are safe from third-party access.

For the communities represented by the organizational endorsers of the letter, including activists, LGBTQ+ people, abortion seekers, journalists and other targeted groups around the world, privacy online is not “optional.” It’s a matter of life and death.

Meta’s removal of “opt-in end-to-end encryption” for direct messages on Instagram—a feature only available to users in certain regions—took effect on May 8, 2026. Meta has claimed the move was driven by “lack of interest from users.”

The decision and rationale represent a complete reversal of Meta’s well-established commitments to end-to-end encrypted communications, as well as its promises to make end-to-end encryption the default setting for Instagram messages.

”Meta has repeatedly articulated the importance of end-to-end encryption, sometimes mirroring the exact language our organizations have used for years to explain why online messages must be protected and private. Does Meta expect us to simply forget this history? Does the company expect us to accept the absurd justification that ‘users aren’t interested in E2EE’ when Meta knows very well we shouldn’t be forced to opt-in to life-saving privacy features?” said Leila Nashashibi, Campaigner at Fight for the Future. “Meta has defended E2EE in the past, even when it wasn’t politically convenient. Clearly the company’s political calculus has shifted. Is Meta axing its E2EE plans in order to curry favor with Trump, who wants unfettered access to our messages so his administration can spy on us and target us? Or does the company believe that the profit potential of violating our privacy and harvesting our most sensitive information—our private messages—is simply too great to pass up? We deserve to know the truth behind this total betrayal of users’ safety and privacy. We’re calling on organizations and users all over the world to reject this shameful move. If Meta wants to keep its Instagram users, it must make DMs safe NOW.”

”Secure E2EE messaging is a BASIC digital need and right. Several years ago, we joined in asking Meta to encrypt DMs. As Meta has acknowledged, privacy online is actually critical to people’s safety online AND offline. Now, Meta says they’re rolling this safety measure back after offering E2EE as a difficult to find optional setting? That’s so disingenuous and disappointing,” said Maya Morales of WA People’s Privacy. “If Meta wants people to use its platforms, it has to ensure that using them doesn’t actively endanger us. Without encryption, our personal conversations have been fed straight to government agencies or officials we might critique, to DHS/ICE, to data brokers, into AI models, you name it. This is not a trivial issue. Unsecured DMs can—and have—resulted in people’s entire lives being destroyed. E2EE should be the default setting for all apps that offer messaging, and AI should never be used in ANY messaging service without non-coerced, opt-in consent. If Meta’s not going to keep users safe, is it prepared for a mass-exodus?”

Fight for the Future and a coalition of civil society organizations strongly applauded Meta’s implementation of default end-to-end encryption on Facebook Messenger in December 2023. The move came after public outcry and pressure in response to Meta handing over unencrypted Messenger direct messages between a Nebraska teenager and her mother to law enforcement—messages that led to the teen’s prosecution for choosing to have an abortion.

In the months preceding the December 2023 announcement, Rob Sherman, VP and Deputy Chief Privacy Officer for Policy at Meta, sent a letter to Fight for the Future stating: “We remain committed to rolling out default end-to-end encryption for private conversations on Messenger in 2023, and shortly afterwards for Instagram.”

In the the letter, Mr. Sherman notes:

People expect technology companies to provide the best security to protect their personal information, and we believe end-to-end [encryption] is an important component of building trust with our users because it:

• Promotes a fundamental right to privacy, which allows loved ones to communicate without fear.
• Helps prevent both serious and common crimes like hacking and identity theft.
• Enables journalists, civil society, religious groups, scholars, and artists to exercise their rights to free and private speech without surveillance or retaliation.

Meta’s backtracking on its end-to-end encryption commitments comes on the heals of yet another disappointing decision: On May 5, Meta announced that the company will be “developing” a tool that can determine a user’s age based on visual, physical characteristics. Under the guise of kids safety, this will mean scanning every single picture posted on the platform to determine people’s ages, with no guardrails. Fight for the Future has been warning for years that online ID checks in all of its forms, regardless of the public relations term in use (age assurance, age verification, age estimation) is a censorship and privacy nightmare that will lead to Big Tech companies cobbling together even more information about users of all ages.