News Feeds

Polls closed across the UK on Thursday 7 May 2026 for local elections across the UK. In England, around 5,000 local councillors across 136 councils...

The post From bad to worse: Labour’s latest defeat signals an uncertain future for British politics first appeared on Spring.

nama Pragmatic Play menjadi salah satu yang paling sering dibicarakan oleh pemain maupun pengamat industri game digital.

Provider ini berhasil membangun reputasi kuat lewat kombinasi teknologi modern, kualitas visual, serta sistem permainan yang dinilai mampu memenuhi selera pasar global. Tidak heran jika banyak platform game online menjadikan koleksi slot mereka sebagai daya tarik utama.

Konsisten Menghadirkan Game Berkualitas

Salah satu alasan utama dominasi Pragmatic Play terletak pada konsistensi produksi game. Provider ini rutin merilis slot baru dengan tema yang beragam, mulai dari mitologi, petualangan, budaya Asia, hingga konsep futuristik.

Setiap permainan dirancang dengan detail visual yang rapi dan audio yang mendukung atmosfer permainan. Pendekatan ini membuat pemain tidak cepat bosan karena selalu ada pengalaman baru di setiap rilisan.

Beberapa judul populer seperti Gates of Olympus, Sweet Bonanza, dan Starlight Princess bahkan berhasil menciptakan komunitas pemain sendiri di berbagai negara. Popularitas game tersebut juga diperkuat oleh banyaknya konten streamer dan kreator digital yang membahas pola permainan maupun fitur bonusnya.

Teknologi yang Mendukung Pengalaman Bermain

Pragmatic Play tidak hanya fokus pada tampilan game. Mereka juga memperhatikan stabilitas sistem dan kenyamanan pengguna di berbagai perangkat.

Mayoritas slot dari provider ini sudah mendukung teknologi sehingga dapat dimainkan dengan lancar di desktop maupun smartphone. Faktor ini menjadi penting karena tren pemain mobile terus meningkat setiap tahun.

Selain itu, proses loading yang cepat dan antarmuka yang sederhana membuat pemain baru lebih mudah memahami mekanisme permainan. Pengalaman pengguna yang praktis menjadi nilai tambah besar di tengah persaingan industri game online yang sangat kompetitif.

Fitur Bonus yang Menarik Perhatian Pemain

Faktor lain yang membuat Pragmatic Play mendominasi pasar adalah keberanian mereka menghadirkan fitur bonus yang agresif namun tetap seimbang. Banyak slot mereka dikenal memiliki:

• Free spins dengan multiplier tinggi
• Fitur tumble atau cascading reels
• Buy feature untuk langsung masuk bonus round
• Jackpot dan pengganda kemenangan besar

Sistem tersebut menciptakan sensasi permainan yang lebih dinamis. Pemain merasa memiliki peluang besar untuk mendapatkan kombinasi menarik dalam waktu singkat.

Meski demikian, pemain tetap perlu memahami bahwa slot online bekerja menggunakan sistem RNG (Random Number Generator). Artinya, hasil permainan tetap bergantung pada keberuntungan dan tidak ada pola pasti yang menjamin kemenangan.

Strategi Branding yang Kuat

Dalam dunia digital, kualitas produk saja tidak cukup. Pragmatic Play memahami pentingnya membangun identitas merek yang kuat.

Mereka aktif bekerja sama dengan berbagai platform hiburan online internasional dan rutin tampil dalam pameran industri game global. Strategi pemasaran ini membuat nama Pragmatic Play semakin dikenal luas, bahkan oleh pemain yang baru mengenal slot online.

Selain itu, desain logo, tampilan promosi, hingga karakter dalam game dibuat konsisten sehingga mudah dikenali. Pendekatan branding semacam ini membantu memperkuat loyalitas pemain.

Didukung Lisensi dan Standar Keamanan

Kepercayaan menjadi faktor penting dalam industri game online. Pragmatic Play berhasil menjaga reputasi karena beroperasi di bawah pengawasan sejumlah regulator internasional.

Sistem keamanan serta audit permainan menjadi bagian penting untuk memastikan transparansi. Banyak pemain memilih provider yang memiliki rekam jejak jelas dibanding sekadar menawarkan hadiah besar.

Dengan dukungan lisensi resmi dan pengawasan sistem RNG, pemain merasa lebih nyaman saat mencoba berbagai permainan yang tersedia.

Dominasi yang Belum Terlihat Melambat

Melihat perkembangan industri saat ini, dominasi Pragmatic Play tampaknya masih akan terus berlanjut. Provider ini mampu membaca tren pasar dengan cepat dan memahami apa yang dicari pemain modern: permainan cepat, visual menarik, fitur inovatif, serta kompatibilitas mobile yang stabil.

Di tengah munculnya provider-provider baru, Pragmatic Play tetap berada di posisi kuat karena berhasil menjaga keseimbangan antara inovasi, kualitas, dan pengalaman pengguna.

Bagi banyak pemain slot online, nama Pragmatic Play kini bukan sekadar provider biasa, melainkan simbol hiburan digital yang identik dengan permainan modern dan penuh variasi.

Alberta taxpayers, municipalities, and rural landowners are facing increasing costs and harms from inactive and orphaned oil and gas wells, Calgarians heard at a town hall Tuesday evening.Co-hosted by the Pembina Institute, Alberta Environmental...

When the NASDAQ opens on Wednesday morning, the exchange will include a new ticker symbol: FRVO. The company, Fervo Energy, is in the geothermal electricity business and aims to raise $1.8 billion. An initial public offering of that magnitude would be one of the biggest Wall Street debuts for renewable energy in U.S. history and a promising sign for clean tech’s future.

“This is a very, very big deal,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School. “Money speaks.”

At the simplest level, geothermal generation is the process of harnessing the heat within the earth to produce steam, which then spins turbines to generate much-needed electricity. But locating suitable geology and getting deep enough to make power on a utility-scale isn’t easy. Fervo uses horizontal drilling and fiber-optic sensing to tap previously out-of-reach sources. 

“Innovation is allowing these technologies to cover a wider variety of sites,” said Zainab Gilani, a geothermal analyst with research firm Cleantech Group. Fervo, she noted, is using some of the same techniques that the oil and gas industry uses, with the hope of cutting the price of geothermal from $7,000 to $3,000 per kilowatt as it grows. This initial public offering, or IPO, could prove a bellwether for not only that technology, but cleantech more broadly. 

“If Fervo demonstrates that there is money to be made for investors,” said Wagner, that “is going to draw a lot of attention well beyond just the narrow advanced geothermal community.” 

Fervo has successfully deployed its technology in Nevada, producing enough clean energy to power about 2,600 homes. It is building a much bigger facility, Cape Station, in Utah that would produce more than 100 times that amount of electricity and is slated to go online later this year. The prospect has attracted a slew of high-profile investors, including Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, and Alphabet, the parent company of Google, which has also signed contracts with the company to supply power to its data centers. 

Now it’s the public’s turn to weigh in. 

When Fervo announced it was going public earlier this year, it said it would sell 55.6 million shares at around $21 to $24 each. Its debut comes as electricity demand is rapidly rising in the U.S. The race to build the data centers needed to sustain the artificial intelligence boom has strained grids nationwide, and has made the appetite for reliable energy seem insatiable. The Iran war has only exacerbated high energy prices, and this week Fervo boosted its target to 70 million shares, at around $25 or $26, which would value the company at $7.4 billion. The line has reportedly been out the door. 

Still, the road ahead won’t be easy, and bringing the price of geothermal down will take time. “They’re just not here yet on any large scale,” said Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies, a power sector consultant. “They are great 2040 and 2050 options.”

Regardless of whether Fervo’s stock sinks or sails in the coming months or years, some see its initial offering as a promising sign for a clean energy industry that has faced political whiplash in recent years. The Inflation Reduction Act that President Joseph Biden signed in 2022 was the nation’s most ambitious climate legislation ever and included billions for solar, wind, geothermal, and other green technologies. But, since returning to office, President Donald Trump and Congress have largely dismantled that legislation, rolled back much of the nation’s wind development, and pushed fossil fuel as the answer to the country’s energy woes. 

While many major projects were canceled in the wake of those changes, Fervo has secured hundreds of millions of dollars in additional financing for Cape Station, and could be about to have a blockbuster IPO. “You’re in this situation where it is very obvious that the oil and gas sector is doing the best it can,” said Jigar Shah, a former senior official at the Department of Energy under Biden. “But the climate sector is the one that’s surging.” 

Earlier this year, Amazon-backed nuclear reactor developer X-Energy raised $1 billion with its public offering and is valued at more than $9 billion. Shah, who is a managing partner at the investment firm Multiplier, says IPOs like these bode well for clean tech. 

“There is a level of confidence coming to our sector, which I think is great,” said Shah. “For a long time, our space has acted as if we’re alternative energy. But when you’re 90 percent of everything that gets added to the grid every year, you’re no longer alternative.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Wall Street is betting big on clean energy tech on May 13, 2026.

The Irish state has encouraged a heavily capitalised, resource and energy intensive farming model, pushing farmers into a system tied to the weakest and most unstable links in the fossil fuel economy.

The post Talamh Beo: Ireland has a governance crisis, not a fuel crisis appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

All across Georgia, on the banks of the Coosa, Chattahoochee, and Ocmulgee and other rivers, sit large lagoons filled with coal ash, the toxic residue left behind after coal is burned. These massive impoundments hold millions of tons of toxic stew, and most are unlined. As a result, heavy metals in the coal ash — such as arsenic and mercury — quietly leach into the ground and nearby water bodies. 

In 2015, the Obama administration passed rules requiring utilities to clean up the ponds and implement monitoring requirements, transforming the Environmental Protection Agency into the chief regulator overseeing these sites. States were also given the opportunity to assume this regulatory role — as long as they met minimum federal requirements. 

Georgia was among the first to do so. In 2019, the EPA approved the state’s authority to oversee coal ash management. But in their first official act — a “bellwether” for future decisions — regulators at the state’s Environmental Protection Division approved a permit to leave coal ash partly submerged in groundwater at one of Georgia Power’s plants. Despite outcry from communities and a rebuke by the EPA, the agency continues to hold its regulatory authority and has approved another 20 permits for coal ash ponds at roughly a dozen coal plants across the state. 

The Trump administration is now signaling it wants to transfer coal ash oversight to even more states and roll back federal protections. Five states currently have approved coal ash programs, including Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Oklahoma and Georgia were approved during Trump’s first term, Texas received approval during the Biden administration, and North Dakota and Wyoming were approved in the last year. The Trump administration is also in the process of approving Virginia for local coal ash permitting.

“The state agencies that have programs where they can issue permits, we’ve seen, unfortunately, that they’ve not been rigorous in enforcing standards,” said Nick Torrey, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “We know that they are underfunded, underresourced. The utilities are often the most powerful entity in the state and call the shots.”

A spokesperson for the EPA stressed that the agency maintains “backstop authority and will use it” if states fail to meet federal standards. The agency can conduct reviews as necessary, and state programs are only approved if they are at least as protective of public health and the environment as the federal requirements, the spokesperson noted. “If state staffing or funding proves inadequate — or if implementation is otherwise deficient — EPA will address it through these reviews,” they said.

The coal ash decision is part of a broader campaign to shift environmental regulation to the states. During Trump’s first term, the EPA handed over wetlands permitting in Florida to state regulators — the first state to apply for and receive the authority in 25 years. In January, the administration began the process of accepting so-called “Good Neighbor Plans” from eight states. These plans had previously been rejected by the Biden administration for failing to prevent ozone emissions from crossing state lines. And over the past year, the administration has expanded state authority over underground carbon sequestration, giving West Virginia, Arizona, and Texas supervisory authority of carbon injection wells. 

According to the EPA, there are more than 670 coal ash ponds across the country. The lagoons range in size from a few acres to a thousand or more. Over the years, many of these ponds have repeatedly spilled coal ash into waterways. One of the worst accidents took place in 2008 when a dike at a Tennessee Valley Authority pond failed, releasing more than a billion gallons of coal ash. The flood buried homes, and residents are still reporting health issues. Similar incidents have occurred on the Dan River in North Carolina and in eastern Kentucky.

The Obama administration’s 2015 rules — the first oversight of coal ash — required utilities to monitor groundwater near coal ash ponds for contamination and for new ponds to be lined. In cases where there was evidence coal ash was leaching into water, the companies were required to close the ponds, either by draining them or excavating the ash and moving it elsewhere. 

But the rule had major loopholes and didn’t cover all coal ash disposal sites. Lagoons that weren’t actively receiving new material and located at retired coal plants weren’t covered. And crucially, dump sites — where coal ash is collected before being moved into lagoons — were not included in the rule. As a result, when testing indicated heavy metals were leaching into groundwater, utilities could point to the dump sites and claim they were to blame. 

“Utilities would point to these areas and say, ‘We don’t have to clean up our groundwater pollution because we think the pollution is coming from these exempt areas. Therefore, the pollution is exempt,’” said Torrey. 

About six years ago, the Altamaha Riverkeeper, a local nonprofit, tested groundwater near the coal-fired Plant Scherer in Monroe County, Georgia, and began notifying residents that their well water was contaminated with compounds found in coal ash. The county eventually ran water lines, but some low-income residents unable to afford water bills still rely on church waterfilling stations, said Fletcher Sams, executive director of the Altamaha Riverkeeper. “This is an area where the median household income is $30,000,” said Sams. “It’s pretty rural, and some people can’t afford to run pipe from the road and the hookup and the monthly fee for the water.”

Sara Lips, a spokesperson for the  Georgia Environmental Protection Division, said that the agency has a long history of overseeing coal ash in the state prior to the passage of the Obama-era rules. Their oversight has allowed for “timelier permitting process, quicker response to compliance issues, better understanding of community and environmental needs, and the ability for our permits to be more stringent than the federal requirements.” Lips said the agency added five staff members to help oversee coal ash permitting and that the state’s permits comply with federal regulations. “Georgia’s state rules reference and incorporate the federal rules,” she said. Lips also defended the permit at Plant Hammond, which the EPA noted was deficient, saying Georgia Power installed a cover system that “minimizes infiltration, promotes runoff, and collects precipitation to prevent future impoundment of surface water, sediment, or slurry” at the coal ash pond.  

In 2024, the Biden EPA attempted to close these loopholes by expanding coverage with a new rule that applied to all coal ash disposal sites, including so-called “legacy ponds.” But the Trump administration is now attempting to unwind these protections. In April, the EPA proposed exempting older or inactive coal ash disposal sites from the rules and granting state officials more leeway in overseeing coal ash monitoring plans. In press releases announcing these plans and the EPA’s intent to overhaul how coal ash is managed, administrator Lee Zeldin said that the agency “will advance cooperative federalism to allow states to lead the charge on local issues, with federal support. This is just one of many examples where this agency can and will work with our state partners to deliver for the American people.” 

“State environmental agencies know their communities, their geology, their utilities, and their facilities better than any federal regulator in Washington, and empowering them to run their own permit programs, under a federal floor of protection that cannot be lowered and with continuing EPA oversight, delivers stronger, faster, and more accountable results for the people and resources at stake,” the EPA spokesperson said. 

This move comes at a time when state legislatures have slashed budgets for environmental agencies. According to an analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit founded by former EPA enforcement officials under both parties, more than half of states have cut funding for environmental agencies in the last 15 years. Mississippi’s budget has dropped by more than 70 percent during this time period, while South Dakota had its budget slashed by 61 percent. Three of the five states overseeing coal ash disposal — Texas, Georgia, and Wyoming — have had budget cuts of at least 20 percent over this time. Georgia has reduced its staffing by about 16 percent. 

Not all states that have applied for coal ash authority have received it. In 2024, the EPA rejected Alabama’s application to manage its coal ash ponds because it did not meet standards set in federal law. “Alabama’s permit program does not require that groundwater contamination be adequately addressed during the closure of these coal ash units,” the agency noted in its decision.

Torrey said the Trump administration appears poised to rubber stamp state requests, putting public health and the environment at risk.

“There’s a real retreat from the EPA doing the job it was created to do,” Torrey said. “When you combine that with the weakening and choking of funds for state agencies, it means that people are getting dramatically less protection from pollution.”

This story has been updated with comments from the EPA and Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EPA wants to shift monitoring of toxic coal ash to states on May 13, 2026.

BRUSSELS — A leaked letter signed by more than 100 food and beverage company CEOs, including Coca-Cola, Heineken, McDonald’s, Kraft Heinz and Mondelez, is calling on European Union institutions to delay and reopen key provisions of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), just months before implementation is set to begin in August 2026.

On 29 April, CEOs requested EU institutions to delay key implementation timelines and revise provisions. If acted upon, requests could weaken restrictions on harmful PFAS chemicals in food packaging, and expand exemptions to keep large volumes of single-use packaging on the market, undermining the EU’s objective to reduce packaging waste at a time when waste levels remain high. Notably, a number of signatories and active sponsors of this initiative are headquartered outside the EU, raising questions about the extent to which corporate interests beyond Europe are seeking to undermine democratically agreed EU law.

A broad alliance of over 160 Break Free From Plastic members and allies, communities impacted by plastic and PFAS pollution, universities, consumer rights organisations and businesses committed to reuse, have sent a letter in response urging EU leaders to reject this lobbying push and uphold the Regulation as agreed by the European Parliament, Council and Commission.

They have warned that reopening agreed legislation at this stage risks weakening environmental protections, undermines regulatory certainty for companies already investing in compliance, and sets a precedent for corporate influence over environmental law after adoption. 

Companies have shaped the Regulation and have had years to prepare

The PPWR, one of the most heavily lobbied EU files, was adopted through the full legislative procedure, following extensive public and industry consultation. Companies have had both regulatory clarity and guidance to adapt their business models and supply chains.

Environmental and health groups argue that reopening agreed provisions would erode trust in the legislative process and deflect responsibility for democratically agreed environmental commitments back onto EU institutions. 

Public commitments contradicted by private lobbying

There is a contradiction between the voluntary sustainability commitments made by major brands and their behind-the-scenes policy positions. Several signatory companies have presented themselves as climate and circular economy leaders, yet are now seeking to weaken packaging reduction rules, delay chemical safety measures, and limit implementation of reuse systems. However, the PPWR mandatory reuse targets exist precisely because recycling alone cannot deliver the structural shift Europe needs to reduce packaging waste.

The lobbying push is creating collateral damage for businesses,  including major market players, that are genuinely committed to the success of the regulation and are already investing in the transition. Companies that have already started to adapt their supply chains around PPWR compliance are now facing unnecessary regulatory uncertainty, putting planned investments and innovation at risk. 

The power of precedent

The outcome of this lobbying effort will be closely watched across Europe and beyond as governments around the world consider similar packaging and plastics policies. If corporate lobbying succeeds in reopening a regulation weeks before it applies, it risks signalling that even landmark environmental law remains vulnerable to last-minute, covert lobbying pressure, regardless of democratic process. 

Marco Musso, Deputy Policy Manager for Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau, said: 

''It is disappointing to witness yet another attempt to delay and dilute a legislation designed to protect citizens and to stop the uncontrolled growth of packaging waste. Fortunately, the usual suspects behind the CEO letter do not speak for the majority of the packaging value chain. Across Europe a multitude of businesses, including major players, remain genuinely supportive of the regulation and are already investing to prepare for it. We stand with the EU institutions to preserve the integrity of the regulation and ensure effective implementation.”

Emma Priestland, Corporate Campaigns Coordinator for the Break Free From Plastic movement, said: 

“The letter sent by some of the world’s biggest users and polluters of plastic is a shocking example of corporations trying to override the democratic will of 27 countries. Their last minute attempt to derail this vital piece of legislation shows a frankly appalling disregard for the wishes, safety and wellbeing of their own customers. Companies should be focusing on ending their reliance on single-use packaging rather than influencing the law of an entire region.”

Sam Pearse, Campaigns Director from Story of Stuff, said: 

“The PPWR is a direct response to decades of fast-moving consumer goods companies shifting to disposable packaging—shedding microplastics and harmful chemicals while pushing their costs onto society. Now, some of those same companies, including U.S.-based corporations like McDonald’s, claim to support the law’s intent after pouring resources into weakening it and carving out exemptions. Their complaints ring hollow. The PPWR sets a critical global benchmark for moving away from throwaway packaging. EU leaders must hold the line — the world is watching.”

Catia De Cao, from Italian civil society network Rete Zero PFAS Italia, said: 

"I am deeply concerned about PFAS, having grown up in a region of Italy’s Veneto that has been severely affected by ‘forever chemical’ contamination. Years of exposure have left many people in my community with dangerously high levels of PFAS in their blood, increasing the risk of a multitude of serious health issues. But regardless of whether people live in pollution hotspots or not, we are all exposed to PFAS on a daily basis, as it is commonly used in food and beverage packaging. To protect people’s health - and especially the health of the youngest generations - the European Commission must go ahead with the ban of PFAS in food packaging.”

 

Notes to the editor

• Read the Break Free From Plastic and allies’ response letter here
• Read the leaked CEO letter here
• The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation text and implementation timeline: 2025/40 

Press Contacts: 

• Bethany Spendlove Keeley, European Communications Manager Break Free From Plastic | Bethany@breakfreefromplastic.org | +49 (0)176 595 87 941
• Caroline Will, Communications Coordinator Rethink Plastic alliance | caroline@rethinkplasticalliance.org | +32 456 56 07 05

Migration and democratic decline in Central America cannot be understood separately from the intertwined impacts of US intervention, gang violence, economic instability and climate disruption. As droughts, displacement and insecurity deepen, the region faces growing pressure toward both migration and authoritarian rule.

A gathering in Paradise, California, will bring together fire-affected communities, local leaders and resilience practitioners to explore what rebuilding after catastrophe can look like beyond simply restoring the old normal.

War is a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions, yet most conflict-related emissions remain excluded from official climate accounting. Governments and international climate bodies must begin treating military emissions and the climate costs of war as central issues of accountability and justice.

The 7 May elections in the UK have added further proof to the pile of evidence that suggests Westminster’s two-party system is a thing of the past. Where Labour and the Conservatives languished, the Greens and Reform saw their vote shares soar. But the elections also point to another, less discussed shift: the growing support for independence among the Union’s smaller members.

Edinburgh is a city of tenements. Where urban England is generally built from winding rows of terraced houses, each with their own front door, we Scots are more often stacked in blocks of low-rise flats. The streets of our metropolitan centres are lined by four-to-five-storey façades with symmetrical rows of living-room and kitchen windows.

Wandering through those streets in recent weeks – in central Edinburgh or Glasgow – a particular flash of colour would repeatedly catch the eye: a lurid green, standing out against the soft sandstone shades which characterise these buildings. And looking closely, you would have seen words written across them in bold black ink: “Vote Green”.

At the previous Scottish Parliament election, in 2021, the Scottish Green Party (which is independent from but friendly with the one Zack Polanski leads in England and Wales) got 8.1 per cent of the vote and eight seats – a record result. On 7 May this year, the Greens got 14 per cent, and 15 of the 129 members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). They won only two fewer MSPs than Labour and the far-right Reform, which came second equal, and finished ahead of both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

As well as winning a record number of seats, mostly through the proportional “list” system, the Scottish Greens won their first ever constituencies. They got the most votes in Edinburgh Central, where they unseated a prominent minister of the Scottish National Party (SNP), and in Glasgow Southside, which was previously represented by former first minister Nicola Sturgeon (she decided not to run this time).

A block of flats in Glasgow’s Waverley Street, with Vote Green posters in multiple windows. May 2026. Credit: ©John Smith

Scotland wants out

This exceptional result for the Greens was matched by another extraordinary success. The SNP – a centre-left party which supports independence and a return to the EU, and, before Brexit, sat alongside the Green group in the European Parliament as part of the European Free Alliance – won 58 seats, and so a fifth consecutive term in government.

The SNP’s critics point out that turnout was down, enthusiasm has waned, and the party looks tired and out of ideas as it limps towards its third decade in power. These things are all true: the SNP’s constituency vote fell from nearly 1.3 million in 2021 to less than 900,000 this time. But it’s also true that it has achieved an astonishing run of victories since 2007, despite broad opposition from the press and the British establishment. These results are all the more impressive since, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, this isn’t exactly an era when incumbency has been an electoral advantage. The SNP is, surely, the most successful centre-left party in Europe this century.

The relationship between the Greens and the SNP is generally as convivial as two groups of competing politicians can be. For much of the SNP’s time in power, it has been a minority government, often relying on Green votes to pass budgets. The Green complaint about the SNP isn’t usually that it is taking the country in the wrong direction, but that it is ambling in the right direction far too slowly, and is too often nudged off course by powerful vested interests. Scottish voters get two ballot papers – one for their local constituency MSP, and one for a proportional regional list. Greens don’t run in many constituencies, and their voters usually lend support to the SNP on that ballot.

Perhaps most significantly, both parties support Scottish independence and a return to the EU. Together, at this election, they won the biggest pro-independence majority in Scotland’s history, and so a clear mandate for a referendum. Should such a vote take place, most recent polls suggest a narrow victory for Yes, with the overwhelming majority of younger voters supporting independence. As it has been for a decade now, this generational divide is remarkable. One recent poll by the agency Survation (which predicted the recent election most accurately) showed that around two-thirds of Scots under 35 support independence, with only 20 per cent saying they would vote No, and the rest undecided. The majority persisted through the 45-55 age bracket, where Yes support was at 55 per cent, compared to 33 per cent opposing independence. However, only 40 per cent of those aged between 55 and 65 supported independence, and two-thirds of Scots over 65 wanted to stay in the Union.

Most worryingly for supporters of the Union, there is now strong evidence that this split is about generation rather than age. In other words, as younger voters have got older, they have continued to support independence. Millennial support for independence hasn’t dropped off as we’ve become parents and got mortgages – it’s embedded.

Securing such a referendum legally, however, requires the consent of the UK government, which it has so far refused to give since Scotland’s last independence vote in 2014. In Britain’s ancient and uncodified constitution, Westminster ultimately has absolute authority to legislate as it pleases, and no prime minister wants to be the one to have lost Scotland.

The whispers of separation

Still, as John Swinney – the re-elected first minister – argues for a new referendum, he will have some new, powerful allies. Wales held an election to its parliament – the Senedd – on the same day as Scotland. The result there was even more extraordinary: Labour had won every major election in the country for more than a century. But it was thrashed by the SNP’s sister party, Plaid Cymru, which came first with 43 of 96 seats. The far-right Reform, which had hopes of coming first, got second place with 34 seats, while Labour was reduced to nine. The Greens, who had never had a member of the Senedd before, managed to break through and win two – a remarkable achievement given that many progressive voters scrambled to back Plaid Cymru at the last minute, for fear of Reform coming first.

As in Scotland, both Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Greens support Welsh independence. Likewise, in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, which supports Northern Ireland leaving the UK to unite with the rest of Ireland, is now the largest party. First minister Michelle O’Neill has been quick to align with the Scottish and Welsh independence movements. While the Good Friday Agreement peace deal – which ended the civil war known euphemistically as “The Troubles” in 1998 – requires that parties from each side of Northern Ireland’s old constitutional and cultural divide share political power, O’Neill’s election in 2024 marked the first time ever that the resultant government has been led by a first minister who supports leaving the UK and joining Ireland.

Though there isn’t yet majority support for either Welsh independence or Irish unity, polls show rapid growth in favour of separating from the UK over the decade since the Brexit referendum. Majorities of young people in both places are consistently in favour, and a desire to leave the UK is now the standard position on the Left in both Northern Ireland and Wales.

Notably, support for independence is not limited to the three smaller countries in the Union. The Green Party of England and Wales has long supported the constitutional aspirations of its northern sister party, and been in favour of Welsh independence since 2020 (I am told that the Welsh Greens becoming their own party is now a matter of “when, not if”). When I interviewed English Green leader Zack Polanski about independence last year, he was an enthusiastic supporter.

The astonishing rise of the English Greens under Polanski has been well documented, and the 7 May English local elections were another profound milestone for the party. The Greens came second to Reform in the national vote share, winning hundreds of new local councillors and securing their first two elected mayors.

What  has  been less discussed is that this result means England now has a large and powerful party which supports the break-up of the UK. The very fact that this isn’t headline news is, in itself, remarkable. Over the last few months, Labour, Reform, and the UK’s famously right-wing press have attacked Greens on almost every plausible subject. The party’s positions on drugs, sex work, Palestine, and peace have been twisted into moral panics smeared across endless front pages of oligarch-owned newspapers. Yet there’s barely been a word about the fact that the Greens back the Break-up of Britain – presumably because these opponents know that most voters in England are, at most, ambivalent about the subject.

Resisting Reform

Just as significant for the UK’s future is the rise of Reform. While the far-right party finished in second place in Scotland (with Labour) and Wales, it came first in England. Like many of its counterparts across Europe, Reform doesn’t exactly have a coherent programme. But one thing which is clear is that it is a loud proponent of what I would call Anglo-British nationalism: the party has openly flirted with the idea of shutting the Welsh parliament, and has proposed reducing the size and power of the Scottish parliament, imposing more direct rule from Westminster. In England, Reform is aligned with the racist movements which have been tying English flags to lampposts across the country as part of a wider anti-immigration backlash. A fandom for Britain’s colonialist past, the party is obsessed with the old imperial institutions of the British state.

For many in Scotland, the desire for independence is bound up with the fear of being governed by that sort of right-wing, Anglo-British nationalism. Shortly after his re-election as first minister, John Swinney sought to tap into that concern, saying that Scotland must achieve independence before Reform leader Nigel Farage likely becomes British prime minister at the next UK general election.

In Scotland, many people feel that the country is trapped. Supporters of independence feel stuck in a Union they want to leave, and which they can see is careering towards a far-right government Scotland is very unlikely to have voted for (every single local authority area in the country opposed Brexit in 2016, and Reform didn’t win a single constituency in this Scottish parliament election, implying they may fail to win any MSPs at the next UK general election). For these people, there is a lingering, as-yet unanswered question: what is the mechanism for Scotland to leave the UK, should most Scots want to do so? Under the Good Friday Agreement, UK government ministers are required to hold a referendum on Irish unity if they have reason to believe it would pass. Scotland, however, has no such exit route.

On the other hand, for opponents of independence, there is a parallel frustration at being trapped in what they see as an endless, pointless conversation about our constitutional future.

A broken system

It’s not clear what the escape route from this trap might be. But one thing is obvious: this is only one part of a much larger constitutional crisis in the UK. The rise of both the Greens and Reform renders the first-past-the-post electoral system used at Westminster obsolete. The system, whereby the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins the election regardless of whether this produces nationally proportional results, can’t possibly express voters’ views sensibly. Worse still for the Scots and Welsh, over the last two hundred years,  first-past-the-post has disproportionately delivered Conservative governments for which we haven’t voted.

 At the same time, the monarchy – long the ideological guardrail for the Westminster system – has been bruised both by the death of Elizabeth II and by the revelations about her son Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The default pro-Americanism of British foreign policy has been profoundly damaged by Trump; and millions have turned against it because of British complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza. 

While faith in representative structures has corroded across the Western world, polls consistently put Britain towards the very bottom of international rankings for trust in our politics. This isn’t surprising: Britain doesn’t have a “normal” political set-up. Where almost every other European country had a revolution or independence moment at some point, after which people gathered and wrote a constitution, Britain has a medieval system with multiple democratic features retrofitted. We have one of the most centralised systems of state power in the Western world, with almost all major decisions made at the core (particularly in England). Despite its theoretical sovereignty, our parliament has remarkably little capacity to hold that core to account. And, with the House of Lords’ entrenching cronyism, the inadequacy of the first-past-the-post system, the power of millionaire- and corporate-funded cliques, and tight control of our traditional parties through the whipping system, voters have surprisingly little influence over who sits in our parliament and what our government does, leaving a flood of corporate cash to shape the policies of our state.

In the past, British voters were willing to accept a relatively less democratic state than our European neighbours, because its imperialism delivered us all (to differing degrees) the wealth which came from the plunder of empire. Now, with the empire gone, the British state staggers from crisis to crisis, and voters feel little sense that we even have control over the direction of the staggering. Inequality is rampant, the economy is – for all but the hyper-rich – stagnant. The centres of towns across the UK are rotting.

Ultimately, it is this dysfunctionality of the Westminster system which drives the desire to leave the UK, and that problem isn’t about to be resolved. There may not be any obvious mechanism for Scotland to get its referendum, but the pressure to allow one isn’t going anywhere. And with the real risk of a Faragist government on the horizon, the demands will become increasingly desperate.

Walk through those streets in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and look up at those flats. The majority of people who live in them don’t want to live under Westminster rule, and are eager to return to the EU. How will that desire express itself over the next five years? The answer to that question could have profound implications for British – and European – politics.

Alberta’s surplus wind and solar power is curtailed by transmission limits, raising costs, increasing emissions, and highlighting the need for grid investment....

The Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate federal transit funding would clearly devastate riders, but it would also be a bloodbath for transit workers and the families who rely on them, particularly in the type of communities that make up much of the GOP base, according to a recent analysis.

Researchers at the Urban Institute recently found that the White House’s recommendation that Congress eliminate the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund would force agencies in small metros and rural areas to cut half or more of their staff. That move which would force them to halve transit service, too, impacting countless U.S. workers’ ability to reach their jobs, too.

That’s because unlike bigger cities, which have been mostly restricted to using their federal dollars for capital projects since the 1990s, small agencies can rely on grants sent from Washington to help pay for the basics, like salaries for bus drivers and people to clean train stations.

Even larger cities have come to depend more heavily on federal money for operations since the pandemic, when lawmakers relaxed the operations funding rule to help keep agencies afloat when riders fled buses and trains. The report authors say that makes it “difficult” for them “to estimate how much cuts in federal funding could affect workforce outcomes” even into the future, especially if local sources don’t fill the gap — which they often don’t.

As a result, by 2024 even urban areas over 200,000 residents were getting 17 percent of their operating costs paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Tribal areas, meanwhile, were getting an astounding 92 percent — which means the elimination of federal dollars could essentially wipe out transit for most indigenous communities in the country.

Recommended More Than One Million Households Without a Car in Rural America Need Better Transit Kea Wilson May 18, 2020

The human costs of that move can be even higher, the researchers behind the study say. People in non-urban areas are often even more reliant on transit than their urban counterparts — and even more devastated when it vanishes, too.

An astonishing 4.3 million rural residents in the U.S. don’t have personal cars, even as they face longer commute distances that often put even the most basic needs well out of walking or biking distance, along roads with little protection for people outside vehicles.

“When you talk about the federal government cutting funds for transit, we’re talking about essentially firing half or more of the staff who work for transit agencies in those rural and tribal areas,” said Yonah Freemark, who co-authored the report. “And if folks are not there to actually drive the bus, transit agencies do not have the ability to hire a scab to make up the gap. … There has to be somebody that provides the service when the bus is ready to run, or the bus will literally not run.”

Recommended Four Factors Driving the Bus Operator Shortage (And What to Do About Them) Kea Wilson July 20, 2022

Of course, the need for more federal operations funding alone isn’t the only reason why so many transit agencies are facing a worker shortage — even if it certainly doesn’t make matters easier.

The researchers say that longstanding internal challenges like steep “job entry requirements, health and safety conditions, scheduling rules, and a lack of career advancement pathways” are all making it harder for communities to attract and retain workers, with direct impacts on the level of service they can provide. A companion study conducted by the Institute found that worker shortages in New York City caused as many as 17,843 delayed subway trips in a single month.

Low wages, on the other hand, might not actually be one of the main reasons why America is struggling to hire bus drivers and other staff — though that varies from community to community. Freemark says that while, by and large, “transit jobs are pretty competitive to other transportation industry jobs from a wage perspective,” places like Boston pay significantly less than the median wage for workers overall.

And while some GOP pundits paint transit as a lawless hellscape where workers and riders alike are under constant attack, but fear of violence is less of a concern today than it was during the pandemic — at least compared to stickier problems like inconvenient peak-hour schedules.

“Transit plays its most important role during peak hours, when other people are moving around the city or trying to get home to their families,” Freemark added. “And so from that perspective, I think transit agencies can play an important role by doing things like offering childcare benefits — which many of them do not do right now. But it could be beneficial in getting people to say, ‘It’s okay for me to take this job, even though it’s at this time that’s not ideal.”

Regardless of the reasons behind their hiring challenges, Freemark stresses that freeing up federal money for operations could help agencies solve them — and that, in turn, could help increase transit ridership across the country.

In addition to modeling Trump’s doomsday cuts (which have the support of some members of Congress), the Urban Institute also modeled what would happen if agencies got an infusion of federal operating money, by mapping how much staff agencies would need to double the number of revenue miles they operate by 2033.

That feat would require a lot of funding, but it would also result in a massive increase in jobs and access, which Freemark argues would pay for itself.

“If we were to make that investment of improved transit, it would also be a job generator, and that is not to be dismissed,” added Freemark. “Frankly, job creation is something that a lot of folks care about. We’re hopeful that this paper can help make the case for improved transit investment — not only as something that benefits riders, but also as something that benefits labor.”

Freemark acknowledges that with the GOP at the helm of the negotiations, there might not be much of an appetite in Washington for an influx of transit operating cash right now— even if advocates are still pushing hard for legislation like the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act to do just that.

Still, he says that we should never assume that getting shared modes more is a lost cause, especially if we can market that move as a job creator in addition to increasing access to basic mobility.

“At the beginning of Covid, transit agencies were on their knees, and Congress stepped up,” Freemark added. “I mean, they provided $69 billion — kind of out of nowhere — for transit agencies. That suggests that if the message is right and if the time is right, change can be made.”

• The highway lobby fossil fuel companies, asphalt manufacturers, automakers, engineers, road builders and truckers spends $100 million a year lobbying Congress, funding political campaigns, producing slanted policy research and trying to influence public opinion, according to a Union of Concerned Scientists report. That helps explain why 80 percent of transportation funding goes to highways, 90 percent of Americans lack access to frequent transit, and the average household spends $12,000 a year on vehicle ownership. (The Equation)
• The Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act will hurt not only Black voters, but anyone who lives in a blue city in a red state could be stripped of their representation. (The American Prospect)
• Some have been calling for TSA-style checkpoints on Amtrak after a would-be Trump assassin snuck guns onto a train, but stations just aren’t set up for it, according to the Rail Passengers Association.
• FIFA gets all the money from the World Cup, while the host cities have to foot the bill for things like transportation (The Atlantic; paywall). It’s been especially challenging for places like Kansas City that don’t have a robust transit system to begin with and are tying to impress visitors (New York Times).
• Light rail advocates say a proposal to build a separate paved trail for bikes and scooters on the Atlanta Beltline would kill longstanding plans for transit. (Rough Draft)
• Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott pledged to build 17 miles of bike lanes over the next three years. (WBAL)
• Nashville residents are pushing for more Vision Zero funding as pedestrian deaths surge. (Scene)
• A Charlotte city council member was involved in a serious car crash, and says it’s deepened his commitment to Vision Zero. (WCNC)
• None of the three options approved by Sound Transit to close a budget deficit includes extending Seattle light rail to Ballard, outraging electing officials and citizens who voted for it 10 years ago. (KOMO)
• It could take more than 100 years for Ann Arbor to fill its 138 miles of sidewalk gaps unless voters approve two tax referendums. (MLive)
• China is building a new type of transit-oriented development: housing on top of train maintenance depots. (Planetizen)
• Southeast Asian nations are using transit to improve on Le Corbusier’s flawed concept of the satellite city. (Arch Daily)
• Sydney is a sprawling city like most in the U.S., but still makes public transportation work in the suburbs. (The Guardian)
• Vienna is having problems procuring parts for its hydrogen buses, which is a good reason for transit agencies to buy much more common battery-electric models instead. (CleanTechnica)

The US Department of Transportation launched a “Freedom to Drive” initiative last month that aims to “tackle the nation’s growing congestion problem.” The belief that congestion is a problem is not new. People have been complaining about traffic congestion for more than a century, from when cars first clogged city streets. They are complaining about it still, as in a recent New York Times article describing traffic in Los Angeles as “soul-crushing.”

It is not surprising, given all the complaining, that congestion remains the primary focus of transportation policy in the United States. But why all this obsession with congestion?

Recommended For Earth Day, the Trump Administration Wants To Expand Highways Across America Kea Wilson April 22, 2026

Congestion is unquestionably bad for us. It causes stress and negatively affects mental well-being. By adding to travel time, congestion increases exposure to potential injuries and fatalities as well as air pollutants for drivers and passengers. The simple act of sitting in a car is not good for one’s health. Compounding these problems, time stuck in traffic is time that one could otherwise spend in activities healthy for mind and body. 

Psychology might also explain our hatred of traffic. Because a driver stuck in traffic cannot go as fast as they think they should be able to, a twenty-minute trip with traffic feels worse than a twenty-minute trip without traffic. The inability to move means that drivers have lost not just time but autonomy, their ability to act independently of external forces. Being trapped in a traffic jam might trigger feelings akin to claustrophobia. All these effects are possibly greater when one does not anticipate the congestion.

From a policy standpoint, we villainize congestion for its impacts on the economy. The annual Urban Mobility Report, published by the Texas Transportation Institute, estimates that “Americans lost an average of 63 hours sitting in traffic in 2024” and converts this into monetary impacts of $269 billion annually.

In promoting its new initiative, US DOT even calls congestion a “drain on American families and our economy.” Time is money, after all.

According to this line of thought, efficiency depends on speed, and economic growth depends on minimizing delays. This belief explains a century of highway expansions sold to the public as solutions to the congestion problem and essential for the economy.

But these projects have succeeded in reducing congestion only in the short-term despite consuming vast sums of public funding. The new federal initiative, which encourages states to expand their highways, are likely to be as ineffective as the old ones. 

It’s time for some new thinking.

Recommended How Congestion Pricing Proved the Haters Wrong and Is Changing New York for the Better David Meyer January 5, 2026

We can start by embracing the one proven strategy for reducing congestion: congestion pricing.

Congestion pricing is a way of prioritizing driving trips: if driving is important enough for a given trip, the driver will pay; if not, the driver will switch to another mode or reschedule or forgo the trip. This sorting results in more efficient use of the roadway system by ensuring that it serves the driving trips with the highest value to drivers at peak hours.

We can address the equity concerns this pay-to-drive strategy raises by using the toll revenues to improve transit and other driving alternatives and to subsidize tolls for low-income workers who need to drive. A year of congestion pricing in New York shows it can work.

We can think about congestion not as a phenomenon in need of reduction but rather as an experience that should be optional. Congestion becomes optional if we provide good alternatives to driving.

This would require a shift in funding away from highway expansion projects that have at best a short-term effect on congestion to alternatives such as transit, biking, and walking that give people a long-term way to avoid it. It would also require changes in land use patterns to improve the viability of these alternatives and that would, as a bonus, enable shorter driving trips. We would also need to make housing more affordable in these places, and one way to do that is to waste less land on roads and parking. 

Recommended Traffic Congestion Is a Housing and Transit Problem, Not a Highway Problem Damien Newton October 23, 2025

We could also reconsider our definition of congestion.

Congestion is measured relative to “free-flow” speed, the speed at which one can drive in light traffic conditions, usually around 70 mph on highways. An average speed less than that produces a “delay” — defined as the difference between the travel time at the free-flow speed and the travel time at the actual speed given roadway conditions.

But this is an entirely subjective standard, and it is also an unrealistic expectation, as experience has proven time and time again. By simply resetting our expectations to lower speeds, by reconciling ourselves to having to spend a bit more time getting places, we lessen the congestion problem by definition. 

After all, time isn’t the only way to think about the efficiency of the system. The congestion problem stems in part from the fact that cars are a spatially inefficient way to move people: each car requires considerable roadway and parking space but carries less than 1.5 people on average in the US. 

From a space efficiency standpoint, it would make sense to devote more road space to modes such as transit, biking, and walking that consume far less space per person moved. Contrary to the backlash against bike lanes in cities like Toronto and Washington, DC, studies show that taking space away from cars does not generally increase congestion. 

Recommended In Praise of Traffic Congestion Lloyd Alter July 10, 2024

Recalibrating our fear of the economic impacts of congestion would also help.

Although decision-makers justify highway expansions on the basis that congestion is an economic drain, research suggests that congestion has little impact on economic growth. This is in part because congestion is to some extent self-correcting: when congestion gets bad enough, people adjust their choices to cope with it.

It is also helpful to recognize that congestion, as history shows, is a fact of life in vibrant urban centers with thriving economies. The entire world experienced this truth in reverse during the COVID pandemic.

All of which is to say that maybe we shouldn’t be quite as obsessed with congestion as we are. Thinking differently about congestion would open the door to more effective strategies for addressing it while creating space for increased attention to other pressing problems —like safety.

The single-mindedness fostered by our congestion obsession has been counterproductive. Approaching the problem with a more expansive, more equanimous frame of mind might just get us to a solution.

Dear Friends

The Department of Water Resources has announced it will be conducting long-overdue outreach on its Community Benefits Package for the impacts caused by the Delta Conveyance Project in the form of five (5) listening sessions. We encourage community members to engage in these listening sessions, however, we also want to ensure you know your value as a resident of the Delta and the value of the Delta as a place. 

Restore the Delta and Little Manila Rising will be hosting a Community Information Session on May 21 from 5-6 pm, ahead of the first virtual listening session scheduled for May 27. Additional materials prepared by Restore the Delta and Little Manila Rising will be shared closer to the event. 

RSVP for our Community Info Session

During this Information Session We Will Share:

• Updates on the design and planning of Delta Conveyance Project
• Anticipated impacts to the Delta and our communities
• And what we know about the community benefits plan. 

Our goal is to arm you with the knowledge needed to hold DWR accountable, and advocate for your community in the upcoming listening sessions. 

The Delta and Community Value: A Virtual Community Information Session with Little Manila Rising:
 

• Date: May 21, 2026
• Time: 5:00 PM – 6:00PM
• Zoom Registration: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/f90_xMxWQMm_v4srkSixhQ

California Department of Water Resources Listening Sessions:

• Dates:
  • May 27 (virtual) at 5:30 – 7:30pm 
  • June 12 (in-person) in Stockton (location not listed)
  • June 13 (in-person) in Sacramento (location not listed)
  • July 29 (virtual) at 5:30 – 7:30pm 
  • August 12 (virtual) at 5:30 – 7:30pm 
• Registration Link: https://forms.gle/jMHEQFWZuyZGzKmg6

Restore the Delta will hold an additional Q&A session on June 9, 2026 to answer any questions leading up to the in-person listening sessions on June 12 and 13. Please stay tuned for more information to be provided.

As the Trump administration continues its push to secure critical minerals like lithium, the U.S. government and private corporations have ignored Indigenous peoples’ rights in Nevada. That’s according to a report released today by Amnesty International, which is calling for the suspension of federal permits for all lithium mines in the state. 

The Silver State has emerged as a key source of lithium, the main component in electric vehicle and other batteries. About 85 percent of the country’s known reserves are in Nevada, and several Indigenous nations and organizations, alongside environmentalists, have been fighting for years against its extraction and the environmental risks that creates, including water contamination and biodiversity loss. “This is our land,” said Fermina Stevens, a member of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone and the executive director of the Western Shoshone Defense Project. “We should have a say in what happens. But I know that they don’t want us there because Nevada is so rich in all of these minerals.” 

The three projects Amnesty International highlights in its report are Thacker Pass Lithium Mine, Nevada North Lithium Project, and Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project. Each is located primarily on public land that the Western Shoshone and Paiute people consider unceded territory. Thacker Pass is under construction and Rhyolite Ridge is slated to begin construction this year, while Nevada North is in the exploratory phase. 

Amnesty International’s report says all three are violating Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent. That principle, known as FPIC, is an international standard that affirms Indigenous peoples’ right to approve or deny projects that impact their land and communities. Although the projects were approved by federal agencies, Amnesty International argues the review processes fell short of FPIC and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

“They’ve got to come down on the right side,” Mark Dummett, the organization’s head of business and human rights, said of the mining companies. “They’ve got to come down on the side of human rights, rather than getting the minerals at all costs.” He added that, regardless of domestic laws in the countries in which they operate, these firms must follow international human rights standards. The report also highlights the impact of the Trump administration’s push for deregulation, including fast-tracked permits and limited environmental review, which reduces the ability of Indigenous peoples to offer full consent. 

In a statement, a spokesperson from the U.S. Department of Interior said, “The climate crazed activists behind this report are notorious for making baseless claims, repeatedly rejected by courts, as part of their pathetic rage against energy production that is not only bipartisan, but proven to benefit the American people.” They also said that a review of lithium projects in Nevada by the federal Bureau of Land Management included extensive environmental review and opportunity for tribal engagement.

Nevada is experiencing a lithium boom that has seen more than 20,000 claims filed. The report also comes amid global resistance by Indigenous peoples to “green transition” mining that they say comes at the expense of their land and rights. Given the increasing demand for minerals like lithium, cobalt, and copper, Dummett said that mining companies around the world are taking advantage of gaps in regulation and human rights enforcement. “The way that this mining has always taken place has been incredibly damaging to the environment and people,” Dummett said. “We don’t want to see the mistakes of the past repeated.”

Stevens said that although her people have experienced a long history of land theft and abuse by the U.S. government and corporations, consultation has grown even more perfunctory amid the worldwide drive for lithium, which has surged since the war in Iran. “War and the military complex is all that they can see,” she said. “And so they’re blinded to the things that are sacred, that are more important for human survival. And I just don’t think that they care about those things.”

Lithium Americas, the owner of the Thacker Pass mine, disputed many of the report’s claims in a response submitted to Amnesty International, including inadequate consultation, environmental risks, and violation of Indigenous rights. Its reply also noted that UNDRIP is not binding in the United States, but argued that the project complies with it anyway. “The Thacker Pass Project has the potential to significantly advance America’s electrification efforts, reduce carbon emissions, and strengthen domestic supply chains for critical minerals — strengthening America’s energy future. LAC has made stakeholder engagement, including with Tribes, an important part of the development of the Project,” its response reads.  

A spokesperson for Ioneer, the owner of the Rhyolite Ridge project, said the company “respectfully but firmly disagrees with the findings released by Amnesty International,” and highlighted the company’s engagement with tribes. “We take great pride in our compliance with all U.S. legal requirements and remain committed to a transparent process that respects tribal sovereignty while delivering a reliable and secure domestic supply of critical minerals,” the spokesperson said.

Surge and Evolution, the owners of the Nevada North Lithium Project, did not respond to a request for comment, but in a response to Amnesty International, Evolution said, “We take all reasonable efforts to conduct proactive and ongoing engagement with Indigenous peoples.”

Indigenous leaders said they do not expect the mining companies to change, but will continue the fight to protect their land. “We can survive without technology, but we can’t survive without water,” Stevens said. “We can’t save the Earth through the energy transition while we’re simultaneously destroying biodiversity.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips8','A lightweight, silvery-white alkali metal with properties that allow it to store large amounts of energy. Lithium is a key component of many batteries, including those that store renewable energy and power electric vehicles.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips11','A scarce blue metal that helps battery cathodes store large amounts of energy without overheating or collapsing. It is a key component of lithium-ion batteries. ');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Report: Nevada’s lithium boom comes at the expense of Indigenous rights on May 12, 2026.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections

Al Gore’s climate documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” arrived in theaters 20 years ago, in May 2006. The film had a profound effect on the public’s awareness and understanding of climate change, a number of surveys found.

I count myself among those who were dramatically influenced by “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In 2006, the topic of climate change had not yet significantly breached the public consciousness. Despite having just embarked on a career as an environmental scientist and having recently completed my graduate studies with degrees in astrophysics and physics, I had only a vague notion about the problem of climate change before seeing the documentary.

I remember thinking as I left the theater, “If the science in this film is right, how is it possible that we’re not doing anything to stop climate change?” Answering this question put me on a path to becoming a climate journalist and educator.

The film was a watershed moment for me and countless others. It also retains cultural significance to this day. In an October 2025 episode of his podcast centered on climate change contrarianism, which has over 1 million views on YouTube, Joe Rogan and his guests mentioned Al Gore and his film a dozen times. That included Rogan’s claim that “What Al Gore predicted in this stupid movie, which is so far off. He thought we were all going to be dead today, right?”

Spoiler alert: That’s not right. Gore never said we would all be dead by now; Rogan made that up.

Read: Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

For its 20th anniversary, I revisited the film. I found that its scientific overview was imperfect but predominantly accurate, and that despite worsening impacts, the world has made significant progress in addressing climate change over the ensuing two decades.

‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was right on the basic science

Many climate science experts have reviewed “An Inconvenient Truth,” including University of Washington climate scientist Eric Steig, who in a 2008 paper wrote that although the film included some oversimplifications, “The portrayal of the science of climate change in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is largely correct.”

Gore outlined the basic science underpinning climate change the same way I explain it to college students today: By burning vast amounts of fossil fuels, humans have increased the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That pollution traps more heat in Earth’s thin lower atmosphere, warming the planet’s surface.

When the film was released, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had surpassed 380 parts per million, a level 36% higher than at any time in the prior 650,000 years.

To emphasize how high carbon dioxide levels could rise if fossil fuel consumption continued unabated, Gore climbed aboard a scissor lift.

“Within less than 50 years, it will be here,” he said, pointing to the top of a graph where projected concentrations reached around 500 parts per million.

Now 20 years later, carbon dioxide levels are approaching 430 parts per million, and as Gore suggested, remain on pace to reach 500 parts per million by 2056, barring successful efforts to slow their rise.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past 800,000 years. (Data: NOAA Antarctic ice core compilation and Mauna Loa measurements. Graphic: Dana Nuccitelli)

Because carbon dioxide is the principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature, as a team of NASA climate scientists documented in a 2010 study, the carbon dioxide levels and temperature have hewed closely throughout the planet’s history. As Gore accurately explained, abrupt and dramatic spikes in carbon dioxide invariably cause global warming by trapping more heat.

Shrinking glaciers

In perhaps the most oversimplified section of the documentary, Gore reviewed the declines of various glaciers around the world.

One of the most common critiques of the film lies in Gore’s discussion of the glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro. It only lasted for 30 seconds, but Gore implied that global warming was to blame for their decline, asserting that “within the decade, there will be no more snows of Mount Kilimanjaro.”

In fact, several studies, including this 2004 paper, have found that a decline in local precipitation tied to changes in the Indian Ocean is the major cause of the mountain’s shrinking glaciers – of which some remnants remain today – although global warming is also a contributing factor.

Next, Gore claimed that within 15 years, Glacier National Park would become “the park formerly known as Glacier.”

One 2003 study did suggest that many of the glaciers in Glacier National Park could disappear by 2030 due to global warming, but fortunately, that has not quite borne out. Although the glaciers in the park continue to decline due to rising temperatures, a 2019 study estimated that it might take until 2100 for Glacier National Park to become glacierless.

But Gore was correct that global warming is causing the accelerating decline of many glaciers around the world, and that this shrinkage poses water security threats to the 2 billion people who rely on mountain glaciers for their water supply.

The amount of water stored in glaciers around the world, measured in meter water equivalent (m w.e.) has declined at an accelerating rate. (Source: World Glacier Monitoring Service)

Worsening extreme weather

Gore also explored the links between climate change and extreme weather, describing a deadly 2003 European heat wave. A 2016 study estimated that global warming was responsible for about half the deaths in London and Paris caused by that heat wave. He also reviewed the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina, whose damages an analysis last year estimated climate change worsened by 25% or more.

A little later in the film, Gore outlined the threat that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation could collapse. This ocean conveyor belt transports warm and cool water through the Atlantic, Indian, and Southern Oceans. By moving warm water from near the equator to the North Atlantic, this ocean circulation helps keep northern Europe significantly warmer than it would otherwise be.

Gore explained that the last time this circulation collapsed, about 12,000 years ago – as a result of a flood of melting ice water at the end of the last ice age – temperatures in Europe plummeted. A study published last month found that the climate models that best match observational data are those that are the most pessimistic, suggesting that the circulation may seriously weaken this century to the point of potential collapse.

The film also included an overview of threats that sea level rise poses to coastal cities around the world. Ice melt from land-based glaciers and the polar ice sheets has increased over the ensuing two decades, causing the rate of sea level rise to accelerate since the documentary was filmed.

Gore also covered numerous other dangerous climate impacts, including the expanding range of infectious disease vectors like mosquitoes, the impact on species of shifting ecosystem ranges and the altered timing of seasons, and the bleaching of coral reefs and the threat it poses to marine ecosystems. All of these problems continue to worsen to this day.

More than 97% of studies agree: modern climate change is human-caused

The film described a memo from strategist Frank Luntz that had advised Republican politicians, “You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

In fact, by 2006, there was a strong scientific consensus that modern climate change was human-caused. In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes had published the first survey of the published climate science literature. Gore pointed out that in her sample of 928 peer-reviewed study abstracts, none disagreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In a 2013 paper, my colleagues and I updated and expanded upon Oreskes’ 2004 study. We examined nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed climate studies and invited the authors to categorize their own papers. In both cases, we found that among peer-reviewed studies that took a position on the question, over 97% agreed that humans are responsible.

Then, in 2016, we published another paper in collaboration with Oreskes and other authors of climate consensus studies, concluding that “the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”

More recent studies have found that the expert consensus likely exceeds 99% today, despite a few prominent figures still proclaiming it a hoax.

The results of nine climate consensus studies published between 2004 and 2021. (Source: Skeptical Science) Progress in climate policies and solutions

At times, Gore seemed discouraged by the lack of progress in addressing climate change.

“I look around and look for really meaningful signs that we’re about to really change; I don’t see it right now,” he said. But he also expressed hope, saying, “I have faith that pretty soon, enough minds are changed that we cross a threshold.”

About a decade later, 175 countries signed the Paris climate agreement. Today, every nation in the world has ratified the agreement except Yemen, Iran, and Libya – and President Donald Trump recently withdrew the United States for the second time.

The International Energy Agency estimates that since 2015, climate and clean energy policies around the world have erased a full degree from Earth’s global warming trajectory. Before the Paris agreement, countries were on a path to release enough climate pollution to cause a catastrophic 3.5-4°C global warming by 2100; today, we’re on a path toward 2.5-3°C.

Read: New report has terrific news for the climate

It’s not yet enough to meet the Paris agreement’s target of limiting global warming to “well below 2°C,” but we still have the opportunity to further reduce emissions and future warming.

In the film, Gore visited China and described the country’s coal power plant growth as “enormous.” Today, that descriptor best fits the country’s clean energy deployment. As a result, China’s climate pollution has now been flat or falling for about two years, and its clean technology exports to countries around the world are surging. In its new Global Energy Review, the International Energy Agency said that “the world has entered the Age of Electricity,” with virtually all of electricity demand growth being met by clean sources.

In short, despite a few oversimplifications, the scientific descriptions in “An Inconvenient Truth” have largely withstood the test of time, and the climate impacts outlined in the film have continued to worsen in tandem with rising global temperatures. But international agreements, domestic climate policies, and accelerating deployments of ever-cheaper clean technologies have started to bend the emissions curve downward.

I think that if Al Gore’s 2006 self were to visit 2026, although more action is still needed to meet the Paris targets, he would be encouraged by the progress humanity has made in addressing the climate crisis.

This article A call for bold action from the Gaza flotilla was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The largest flotilla to Gaza departed on April 12, including vessels in the Global Sumud Flotilla and Freedom Flotilla Coalition, or FFC. This particular flotilla sails amid a regional war in the Middle East, instigated by the United States and compounded by the ongoing Israeli bombardment of Gaza and Lebanon. 

Since their departure, 22 of more than 50 boats in the Global Sumud Flotilla were “disabled and destroyed” and nearly all 180 individuals were abducted during an Israeli Navy raid on April 30, according to a GSF press release. The IDF attack occurred in international waters — hundreds of miles away from Gaza and within 80 nautical miles of Crete — which violates international law, specifically the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

“My stomach dropped,” said Zuleyma Guevara, whose daughter Fredi Guevara-Prip, was aboard one of the intercepted ships. 

Rosa Martinez and Noa Avishag Schnall, both aboard the Adalah in the FFC, are still hundreds of nautical miles from Gaza, but continuing east. For them the flotilla, and particularly the FFC, is a human rights mission. 

“Though we do have some medicine on the boat, it’s not like we’re going to be solving any mass medication crisis in Gaza,” Avishag Schnall said. “We are sailing because governments are not upholding their duties.”

Both volunteers on the flotilla and their loved ones assert that the flotilla is just one part of the larger pro-Palestinian movement. As Mika Lungulov-Klotz, Martinez’s emergency contact, put it, “everyone is able to pull a different lever.”

This article A call for bold action from the Gaza flotilla was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.