Category: Business

  • Every year at the Oscars, attendees leave with gift bags so elaborate they have to be reported as income to the IRS. Luxury skincare, personal training sessions, designer apples that never brown, and extravagant trips are standard issue. But in 2025, Academy Award guests also received a grimmer gift: a yearlong subscription to a white-glove disaster recovery service called Bright Harbor, which has grown popular in the wake of the wildfires that devastated Los Angeles last January. 

    If your house is destroyed in a fire or flood, the basic logistics of righting your upturned life understandably consume your full attention, even if you’re a movie star. Under this level of stress, navigating the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s byzantine requirements for recovery assistance quickly becomes “a full-time job,” according to Bright Harbor’s chief growth officer, Emily Bush. “We help you understand what your options are and what’s the cost associated with each option that you take.”

    Do you stay and rebuild? Does it make more sense to just move? Bright Harbor helps clients freeze their mortgage payments, apply for FEMA aid, navigate seemingly endless paperwork, and secure low-interest small business loans. Bush acknowledged that the company’s luxury services, which can significantly ease the financial burden of disasters, do not come at a cost that all victims can afford to front. (Services started at $300 per month for individuals when the company launched in 2024, but Bright Harbor now sells directly to companies — who purchase coverage for their employees.)

    “To be clear,” she said, “I think the government should pay for this.” 

    It technically does. FEMA money is funneled to disaster relief nonprofits that then hire case managers to guide victims through the recovery process. But even before President Donald Trump took office with an eye toward diminishing the agency, recovery funds couldn’t keep up with victims’ needs. Now, as the administration slashes FEMA funding, withholds aid, and puts more of the onus of recovery onto individual states, victim-assistance organizations feel that they’ve been left totally unprepared, with too few case managers to go around. All of these issues are likely to grow more severe in the coming year, as a review board appointed to reform the agency prepares to make its recommendations.

    That a service like Bright Harbor found a strong foothold in the U.S. is not surprising. The private sector’s creeping influence over disaster recovery has been noted since at least 2007, when Naomi Klein published The Shock Doctrine, the book that injected the term “disaster capitalism” into a broader lexicon. But as climate change accelerates and hammers the United States with more billion-dollar catastrophes than ever before, privatization has become more common — and complicated. Private interests can quickly mobilize huge volunteer networks, giving campaigns, and rebuilding efforts in the wake of extreme weather. But, whatever their intentions, such measures are a consequence — and sometimes a cause — of the corrosion of public institutions originally intended to safeguard Americans.

    For Klein, Hurricane Katrina was a turning point for disaster capitalism. The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that would go on to draft Trump’s Project 2025 policies, held a meeting on disaster relief in New Orleans just two weeks after the storm in 2005. The group recommended suspending wage laws for recovery contractors, replacing public schools with privately managed charter schools, and halting environmental regulations to reestablish oil and gas production that had been stalled by the storm.

    The vision they set forth would shape disaster recovery for decades. In New Orleans, public housing was demolished, the public hospital was shuttered, and the federal government rapidly took over the public school system and set about turning it over to a charter network funded largely through private philanthropy. Over 7,000 teachers and staff members were fired, forcing veteran educators to reapply for their jobs, competing against a flood of Teach for America recruits who were largely whiter, less experienced, and from outside the city.

    A worker prepares to continue demolition in the B.W. Cooper public housing development February 10, 2008, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
    A worker prepares to continue demolition in the B.W. Cooper public housing development in 2008, in New Orleans.
    Mario Tama / Getty Images

    Many residents saw this as a mercenary response to the storm, made possible by decades of disinvestment in city services, but they weren’t unilaterally opposed to the charter system. “I think it’s important to avoid romanticizing the system pre-Katrina,” said Jesse Chanin, a professor of sociology at Tulane University and the author of Building Power, Breaking Power: The United Teachers of New Orleans, 1965-2008. Before Katrina, the school district was so underfunded that teachers didn’t have enough books and desks for their students. “A teacher told me the other day, ‘Once, I was walking and my foot just went right through the floor,’” said Chanin. The high school graduation rate hovered around 50 percent, truancy was rampant, and corruption was so widespread that the FBI had set up an office within the New Orleans Parish school board.

    But while the charter network was an improvement in many ways — private philanthropy poured money into the new schools and test scores and graduation rates markedly improved — it was also marked by instability. The system ran on a portfolio model: Schools that performed well received increased funding, while schools that struggled were shuttered, their students transferred elsewhere. Because there was such a strong incentive to keep test scores up, struggling students were often pushed out of the best schools into charters that would quickly fold. Such measures, and specifically a lawsuit alleging that the schools were not providing adequate special education services, led the federal government to monitor the city’s charter schools for the past 15 years.

    The fact that the charter schools are so siloed — some belong to larger networks, while others operate as one-off schools — has also undermined the strength of the teachers’ union. Critics say that all of this has allowed charter schools to pay employees poorly, eliminate transparency, and provide uneven and inequitable education in exchange for moderately improved test scores. “I think it’s really hard to attribute test score success to the model of charter schools and not to the incredible influx of money and resources into the district,” Chanin said. But Chanin added that undoing the charter system and starting from scratch might not be the answer, either. The city opened its first district-run public school since the storm, and it’s already facing serious challenges.

    Schools weren’t the only service that succumbed to the shock doctrine in post-Katrina New Orleans. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, shut public housing residents out of their buildings shortly after the storm. Protests erupted, but pleas for help fell on deaf ears. “Many of the powerful players were basically announcing that this [was] the silver lining,” said John Arena, a professor of sociology at the College of Staten Island who was a housing activist in New Orleans at the time. “This is a horrible opportunity to do things that we couldn’t do under normal conditions.” Seventy percent of public housing was ultimately destroyed and replaced with mixed-income developments built by private developers. Reports estimate that roughly half of public housing residents were permanently displaced in the wake of Katrina. 

    “’Recovery’ has become kind of a misnomer,” said Luis Miron, the former director of Loyola University’s Institute for Quality and Equity in Public Education. “People still haven’t recovered.” 

    More than 20 years later and 2000 miles away, disaster capitalism is picking up steam in Puerto Rico. In September, Governor Jenniffer González Colón held a press conference announcing a new law that would allow more residents of the archipelago to obtain property titles to their homes. Land in Puerto Rico is often passed down through individual families without any formal documentation. This caused a crisis after Hurricane Maria struck in 2017, as many residents couldn’t prove they owned the land they’d lived on for years, and therefore could not collect disaster relief funds.

    But in the middle of the press conference, the lights abruptly went out. 

    Puerto Rico’s electrical grid was in bad shape before Maria, but blackouts have become routine in the years since the storm. Maria hit Puerto Rico as a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 155 miles per hour, destroying the archipelago’s power grid, knocking out power for 80 percent of residents, and setting off the largest blackout in United States history. 

    For many, it took nearly a year for power to be restored. The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, or PREPA, declared bankruptcy and became the subject of a federal investigation after it was revealed that the utility operator had handed a $300 million contract to rebuild the grid over to a tiny, two-person Montana-based company called Whitefish Energy, which had little experience and close ties to Trump’s Interior Secretary at the time, Ryan Zinke. PREPA was later embroiled in a number of bribery scandals, plus instances in which it extorted customers in exchange for reconnecting them to power after Maria and bought low-quality oil while charging ratepayers high-quality oil prices for roughly three decades. Given the internal drama at PREPA, it wasn’t difficult for authorities to make the case that privatization was the only way to modernize the grid. 

    “I call it the predator economy,” said Carmen Yulín Cruz, the former mayor of San Juan. “My grandmother used to say, ‘When people are so desperate, they will drink sand if someone markets it the right way.’” In 2021, then-governor Ricardo Rosselló announced that the transmission and distribution of electricity, along with the reconstruction of the grid, would be handed off to a company called LUMA — a Canadian-American company that has thus far failed to fulfill its promises to deliver reliable electricity. Blackouts and power surges (which often destroy electrical devices) are common.

    The result is that Puerto Rico has become “generator island,” said Gustavo García-López, an assistant researcher at the Center for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra. “The pollution levels of generators are really high — not only air pollution, which is the main concern, but also noise. I remember after Maria, living in the city with the generators around, the smell and the noise that they make is really unbearable, especially at night.” And even though the grid is often nonfunctional, residents’ power bills have nearly doubled since the storm. The change was sold “under the auspices of ‘if it’s private, it’s better,’” said Cruz. “But, my god — LUMA could not suck more if they tried.”  

    Protesters march during a demonstration against LUMA Energy in what organizers called All of Puerto Rico Against LUMA on October 15, 2021, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
    Protesters march against LUMA Energy in what organizers called All of Puerto Rico Against LUMA on October 15, 2021, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
    Angel Valentin / Getty Images

    LUMA took control with a vow to decentralize the grid and incorporate more renewable energy, keeping generation in line with Puerto Rico’s 2019 Energy Policy Act, which set a goal of 40 percent renewables by 2025. But as of late 2024, fossil fuels still generated 93 percent of the archipelago’s energy. LUMA has argued that it inherited a crumbling grid and a power supply that’s insufficient to meet customer demand. The territory’s power plants are managed by Genera Energy, a subsidiary of the troubled New Fortress Energy, a natural gas company that critics say has kept the territory dependent on fossil fuels at the expense of reliability. According to PREPA’s most recent fiscal plan, performance has grown steadily worse over the past few years, with customers seeing approximately 15 percent more service interruptions and 21 percent longer outages in December 2024 compared to March 2023. 

    As in New Orleans, Puerto Rico was vulnerable to these tactics because of years of disinvestment. In June 2016, former president Barack Obama signed into law the Puerto Rico Oversight and Management Economic Stability Act, or PROMESA, which would essentially lead the territory through a court-supervised bankruptcy process. Eight years later, Puerto Rico is still primarily controlled by the unelected financial oversight board established by PROMESA. The board handed many assets over to private interests after the hurricane. Charter schools, previously shut out of Puerto Rico, began to make inroads; the water system was nearly privatized; and toll roads were sold off to multinational corporations like Goldman Sachs. 

    “There’s a debt crisis, so there’s no public funds to fix anything,” said Marisol Lebron, an associate professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and the author of Aftershocks of Disaster: Puerto Rico Before and After the Storm. “Puerto Ricans are left holding the bag in a lot of ways, for both the failures of the state, but also the failures of these private entities that are claiming to be able to do the job better and cheaper than the government.” 

    But even privatization has its limits. While major cities and territories are lucrative targets for private interests, disasters often devastate remote regions, where asset values are low and labor is hard to come by. “For small towns, the private sector is not going to step in if it’s not a money-making business,” said Divya Chandrasekhar, a professor of city and metropolitan planning at the University of Utah, adding that depopulating areas in particular struggle to attract private investment. In remote parts of California, for instance, an alarming firefighting staffing crisis has left many small towns without adequate protection. Offers of private firefighting services — hired by insurance companies to protect their assets, or the very wealthy to protect their property — have risen accordingly. Critics, including city and state firefighters, have called for the regulation of these private services, arguing that they can hamper rescue efforts and pull badly needed water from public hydrants. During the Los Angeles fires in January, billionaire Rick Caruso hired a private company to protect the Palisades Village mall, which he owns, while nearby homes burned. 

    While climate change is poised to exacerbate familiar inequities like these, experts point to the opacity of privatized public services as a cause for growing concern. As more companies begin to incorporate artificial intelligence into their daily operations, it’s important for municipalities to look very carefully at the restrictions being placed on contractors and public-private partnerships. 

    “You can imagine a situation where a community has been impacted by a natural disaster. We’re going to give temporary housing to people, but this AI system is going to make the determination whether they qualify for this or not. I mean, that could be really problematic,” said Shahrzad Habibi, the research and policy director at In the Public Interest, a nonprofit that studies public goods and services. “I just think there’s an interesting philosophical underpinning on all of this. What are public goods? What do we, as a society, think everybody should be entitled to? And when do we, as a society, think you’re on your own?”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What happens when disaster recovery becomes a luxury good on Dec 23, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Only a few years ago, if you popped open a can of soda anywhere in the United States, the container you held more likely than not contained bits of magnesium harvested from the Great Salt Lake.

    Now, the country’s supply of the critical mineral looks uncertain. The largest producer, US Magnesium, filed for bankruptcy in September. Its half-century-old Rowley smelting plant on the west shore of Utah’s famed lake could shutter for good.

    The news comes as a relief for many environmental and Great Salt Lake advocates, but it also stokes broader anxieties over the supply chain for a material used in all kinds of products from car parts to wind turbines to solar-panel scaffolding and missiles.

    “If we remove any [magnesium production] capacity we have here, that means that we’re wholly dependent, essentially, on imports,” said Simon Jowitt, Nevada’s state geologist and the director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.

    Other industry insiders say losing US Magnesium isn’t necessarily a cause for alarm.

    “They haven’t been producing, really, for about three years,” said John Haack, president of Tennessee-based MagPro LLC, a magnesium metal recycling company. “The marketplace has pretty much adjusted.”

    Commercial magnesium comes from evaporating salty brine or seawater, mining dolomite rock, or recycling scrap metal. Until its production plant shut down in late 2021 due to equipment failures, US Magnesium asserted that it was the largest source of primary, non-recycled magnesium in North America.

    “There is no other significant producer of primary magnesium in the United States,” said Ron Thayer, the company’s president, in a sworn declaration filed in federal bankruptcy court on September 10, “and primary magnesium is a critical component to United States defense contractors.” It will take a $40 million investment for magnesium production to resume at the Rowley plant, Thayer later testified in a deposition.

    Just how much magnesium the company produced each year before it shut down is a carefully guarded trade secret. The U.S. Geological Survey reported this year, however, that the United States has the capacity to produce 64,000 metric tons of primary magnesium metal, compared to China’s 1.8 million tons.

    The magnesium market experienced some hiccups when US Magnesium mothballed its plant. In 2022, prices for the mineral doubled in some regions, and a factory that produced aluminum cans in Indiana temporarily shut down because of US Magnesium’s lack of production, according to the USGS. But by 2023, companies had found alternative magnesium providers and prices began to fall.

    Orange-hued wastewater at an industrial site
    The retrofitted waste pond at US Magnesium, which has ceased operations at the magnesium plant on the western edge of the Great Salt Lake, is pictured on December 12, 2024.
    Francisco Kjolseth / The Salt Lake Tribune

    The federal agency’s reports cited MagPro as a source of secondary domestic magnesium, which it produces from recycling. But Haack said his company produces primary magnesium as well, mostly for alloy products. He said his company is prepared to ramp up production to meet demand.

    “We haven’t really advertised [it] as much,” Haack said. “But we definitely produce primary, and we’re excited to expand more into the marketplace.”

    The federal government doesn’t appear to be taking any chances on the dip in domestic magnesium production, however. And while the current market might have adjusted to US Magnesium’s mothballing, experts worry about what the future — and foreign competition — might hold. Especially because magnesium is used in so many products.

    “It may not make things more expensive initially,” Jowitt said, “but certainly in the long term, it would mean that China would control the price of magnesium for anybody in the U.S. who wants to use it.”

    The U.S. Department of Defense awarded a $19.6 million grant to a Bay Area startup, Magrathea Metals Inc., in 2023, just two years after US Magnesium’s production plant shut down, to “establish domestic production of magnesium.” Jowitt pointed to the investment as a sign the federal government views a slowdown in production of the metal as a national security risk.

    Magrathea, which is scouting Utah as a potential site for a pilot demonstrating its technology, currently produces magnesium metal from seawater salt.

    Alex Grant, a chemical engineer and Magrathea’s founder, said his company aims to replace the production lost by US Magnesium’s closure by the end of the decade. The biggest challenge, he said, is finding a local workforce that understands the production process.

    “Building these large capital projects,” Grant said, “it’s a muscle that the U.S. has lost because we didn’t flex it enough.”

    The United States needs to continue producing and investing in domestic magnesium production, Grant added, if it wants to avoid crippling geopolitical consequences. That’s especially the case if China implements an export control — a type of tariff, ban or forced licensing — on the material, like it recently did for several rare-earth minerals. “Putting an export control on magnesium would provoke a war, plain and simple,” Grant said.

    Thayer, US Magnesium’s president, declined to answer questions about potentially losing market share to MagPro or Magrathea. But he disagreed with the assertion that the market has adjusted to his plant’s lack of production.

    “The suspended … production of magnesium has been replaced by Chinese/foreign imports,” Thayer wrote in an email, “not additional U.S.-based volume. Not ideal for U.S. supply chain independence.”

    The federal government took measures over the years to protect US Magnesium in order to keep its plant in business and a national supply of a critical mineral flowing. The Department of Commerce approved antidumping measures against magnesium from China starting in 1995, although it declined to adopt similar duties against Israel — which produces magnesium from Dead Sea salts — in 2019.

    Still, US Magnesium partly blamed foreign competition for its bankruptcies filed in 2001 and September of this year.

    Utah has long grappled with the environmental toll of the US Magnesium plant, which polluted the air along the Wasatch Front, Utah’s urban core, and contaminated land and groundwater near the Great Salt Lake.

    “It may be that [building] a newer plant, especially supported by the federal government, is a better way forward than trying to get something that’s problematic up and running again,” Jowitt said.

    A smokestack billows pollution over a lake with mountains in the background
    US Magnesium seen across the Great Salt Lake from Stansbury Island on March 26, 2022.
    Trent Nelson / The Salt Lake Tribune

    In Utah, royalties from US Magnesium’s mineral sales funneled just under $1 million each year over the past five years to the state, officials confirmed.

    Still, state resource managers have moved to revoke the company’s mineral lease and shut down its operations for good. The Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands cited unauthorized storage of hazardous waste on and around the bed of the Great Salt Lake as grounds for the lease revocation, among other violations. State regulatory actions are on pause as the company works through its current bankruptcy proceedings.

    “Historically, US Mag has always been a challenge to work with,” said Lynn de Freitas, executive director of Friends of Great Salt Lake, an environmental advocacy and watchdog group. “There’s a hell of a lot to clean up and address.”

    Efforts to manage US Magnesium’s Superfund status and shore up waste ponds under a consent decree with the Environmental Protection Agency appear in limbo as well. It also isn’t clear what the permanent closure of the plant would mean for the Wasatch Front’s air.

    A widely publicized 2023 report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that US Magnesium contributed up to 25 percent of the Wasatch Front’s wintertime particulate smog. Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, asked the Environmental Protection Agency soon after to include the plant as a reason the region was not in compliance with the Clean Air Act. But US Magnesium’s plant had been switched off for more than two years by the time the report was published.

    Thayer denied magnesium production had any impact on the region’s smog in emailed statements. He added that inversion pollution stayed the same after the plant shut down in late 2021.

    The EPA removed Utah’s Wasatch Front from its dirty air list for wintertime inversion smog last month. It’s the first time the region found itself in compliance with Clean Air Act standards in 15 years.

    In an email, Carrie Womack, a NOAA scientist and lead author of the US Magnesium pollution study, said the findings were based on modeling a single pollution event in 2017. Figuring out the impact of US Magnesium’s shutdown on Utah’s air would require modeling multiple years, Womack said. “Wintertime pollution has a lot of factors, only one of which is anthropogenic [human-caused] emissions,” she wrote.

    Regardless, magnesium production doesn’t necessarily have to take a heavy environmental toll, said Grant, Magrathea’s founder.

    “Everything US Mag did on the environmental front that was a problem, was a choice,” Grant said. “And they did it that way because they’re owned by a firm that does not care about anything besides making as much money as possible.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The country’s largest magnesium supplier shut down. Now what? on Dec 23, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.


  • This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • President Donald Trump spent most of 2025 hacking away at large parts of the federal government. His administration fired, bought out, or otherwise ousted hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Entire agencies were gutted. By so many metrics, this year in politics has been defined more by what has been cut away than by what’s been added on. 

    One tiny corner of regulation, however, has actually grown under Trump: the critical minerals list. Most people likely hadn’t heard of “critical minerals” until early this year when the president repeatedly inserted the phrase into his statements, turning the once obscure policy realm into a household phrase. In November, the U.S. Geological Survey quietly expanded the list from 50 to 60 items, adding copper, silver, uranium, and even metallurgical coal to the list. On Monday, South Korean metal processor Korea Zinc announced that the federal government is investing in a new $7.4 billion zinc refinery in Tennessee, in which the Department of Defense will hold a stake. 

    But what even is a critical mineral?

    The concept dates back to the first half of the twentieth century, especially World War II, when Congress passed legislation aimed at stockpiling materials vital to the United States’ well being. President Trump established the critical minerals list in 2018, with the defining criteria being that any mineral included be “essential to the economic and national security of the United States” and a supply chain that is “vulnerable to disruption” Being on the list can convey a slew of benefits to anyone trying to extract or produce that mineral in the U.S., including faster permitting for extraction, tax incentives, or federal funding. 

    As Grist explored in its recent mining issue, critical minerals are shaping everything from geopolitics to water supplies, oceans, and recycling systems. If there is to be a true clean energy transition, these elements are key to it. Metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel form the backbone of the batteries that power electric vehicles. Silicon is the primary component of solar cells and rare earth magnets that help make wind turbines function. Not to mention computers, microchips, and the multitude of other things that depend on critical minerals. 

    Currently, the vast majority of critical minerals used in the United States come from China — some 80 percent. In his first term Trump tried to increase domestic production of these minerals. “The United States must not remain reliant on foreign competitors like Russia and China for the critical minerals needed to keep our economy strong and our country safe,” he said in 2017. Securing a domestic supply was also a cornerstone of former President Joseph Biden’s landmark climate bills, the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act. 

    Now, as Trump has taken office again, he’s made critical minerals an ever more central part of his policy platform. We’re here to demystify why this has been a blockbuster year for critical minerals in the United States — and where the industry may go in the future.

    A highly unusual strategy 

    In March, Trump issued an executive order meant to jumpstart critical mineral production. “It is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent,” he said. The executive order was just the first step in a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to strengthen U.S. control over existing supply chains for copper, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and dozens of other critical minerals and to galvanize new mines, regardless of concerns raised by Indigenous peoples. The Trump administration has sought to accomplish these goals by both reducing the regulatory barriers to production and by investing in the companies poised to do it. 

    Since then, Trump has signed agreements with multiple countries to increase investments in critical minerals and strengthen supply chains. Most recently, the U.S. made a deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo, which holds more than 70 percent of the world’s cobalt. He has pushed federal agencies to make it easier for mining companies to apply for federal funding, and is inviting companies to apply to pursue seabed mining in the deep waters around American Samoa, near Guam and the Northern Marianas, around the Cook Islands, and in international waters south of Hawaiʻi — prompting global outrage and opposition from Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Chamorro/CHamoru peoples. At the same time, Trump’s volatile tariff policies have made it harder for American companies to source minerals, and cuts to federal funding have harmed mining workforce training programs and research into critical minerals.

    While the Biden administration provided grants and loans to various mining companies, Trump is deploying a highly unusual strategy of buying stakes in private companies, tying the financial interests of the U.S. government with the interests and success of these commercial mining operations. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has spent more than a billion dollars in public money to buy minority stakes in private companies like MP Minerals, ReElement Technologies, and Vulcan Elements. In Alaska, that strategy has involved investing more than $35 million in Trilogy Metals to buy a 10 percent stake in the company, which is a major backer of a copper and cobalt mining project in Alaska. 

    In September, the Trump administration finalized another deal with the Canadian company Lithium Americas behind Thacker Pass in Nevada, which is expected to be the largest lithium mine in the U.S. The Biden administration approved a $2.23 billion loan to Lithium Americas in October 2024; the Trump administration then restructured the loan and obtained a 5 percent stake in the project and another 5 percent stake in Lithium Americas itself. (A top Interior Department official has since been reported to have benefited financially from the project.) That’s despite allegations that the mine violates the rights of neighboring tribal nations and is proceeding without their consent, which Lithium Americas has denied. 

    The outlook for critical minerals

    Historically, the federal government has only taken equity stakes in struggling companies, such as through the Troubled Asset Relief Program that sought to stabilize the auto industry and U.S. banks during the 2008 financial crisis. “What we’re talking about here is something very different, which is an industry that has not yet launched,” said Beia Spiller, who leads critical minerals work at the nonprofit research group, Resources for the Future. 

    “Whether that’s going to work, I think is unlikely,” Spiller continued. “The best way to get an industry up and running is to have policies that raise the tide for everyone, not just choosing winners.” 

    In reference to Lithium Americas, Spiller said, “If you actually look at the cost fundamentals, it’s not a very competitive company.” Lithium Americas mines metal from clay, an old process that requires a lot of land, open pit mines, and heavy machinery — whereas some newer operations use direct lithium extraction, which is more cost effective in the long term. “So we just took an equity stake in a company that is going to face headwinds in terms of costs — now the American public faces that downside.” 

    It must also be stressed that the Trump administration’s rapid push to shore up the U.S.’s control over critical minerals isn’t about transitioning the country away from fossil fuels. Instead, the whole effort seems to mostly be geared toward military uses. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” allocated $7.5 billion for critical minerals, $2 billion of which will go directly to the national defense stockpile. Another $5 billion was allocated for the department of defense to invest in critical mineral supply chains. 

    In October, a former official at the defense department told the Financial Times that the agency is “incredibly focused on the stockpile.” “They’re definitely looking for more, and they’re doing it in a deliberate and expansive way, and looking for new sources of different ores needed for defence products,” the unnamed official said.

    Last week the administration announced that next year they plan to take equity stakes in more mining companies. It’s possible, Spiller said, these investments could extend to outfits that are piloting deep sea mining. That carries a new set of risks, as many banks refuse to insure deep sea mining operations, it’s unclear whether seabed mining operations will be able to even get off the ground before the end of Trump’s term, and the legal repercussions associated with undermining the Law of the Sea could fracture the stability among global powers — and make global climate action that much harder.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The year the US doubled down on critical minerals on Dec 17, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Social and environmental reporting to be required of fewer companies after EPP aligns with far right to achieve goals

    Fewer companies operating in Europe will be made to carry out due diligence on the societal harms they cause, in what green groups have called a “betrayal” of communities affected by corporate abuse.

    The gutting of the EU’s sustainability reporting and due diligence rules, which was greenlit by MEPs on Tuesday, slashes the number of companies covered by laws to protect human and ecological rights, and removes provisions to harmonise access to justice across member states.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Atacama desert in Chile is one of the most beautiful and forbidding places on Earth, so dry that it’s sometimes used by scientists to test run Mars missions. Most years the area sees less than half a centimeter of rain, but this past September unusually heavy precipitation brought forth a desert bloom, blanketing the ground with delicate purple flowers that disappeared as quickly as they’d appeared.

    It was a rare treat for locals used to grimmer ornamentation: Since 2001, colorful mountains of used clothing have been the main feature growing across the Atacama. By the time the largest mound was set on fire in 2022, it contained some 100,000 tons of discarded fabric, roughly the weight of an aircraft carrier. Today, piles like it continue to grow.

    This fashion graveyard has become so large that some outlets have dubbed it the “great fashion garbage patch.” It owes its growth to the nearby duty-free port of Iquique, where Chile imports all manner of international goods without customs or taxes — including heaps of used clothing from the United States, Europe, and Asia. While the best items are resold to international markets, overwhelming volumes of cheap fast-fashion pieces don’t make the cut. Instead, they are dumped in the desert — an open secret that the government largely ignores. The burnings, whether they’re intended to destroy the evidence or make more space, fill nearby towns with smoky, unhealthy air.

    a woman holds up a shirt while standing in a dump with a giant pile of clothes
    Women sort through used clothes amid the tons that are discarded in the Atacama desert, in 2021 in Alto Hospicio, Iquique, Chile.
    Martin Bernetti / AFP via Getty Images

    Activists have been fighting against this desert dumping for years, documenting the burnings and suing both the federal and local governments to stop it. But the real blame for Chile’s mess lies beyond the country’s borders. From the moment these garments are spun from fibers to the time of their undignified disposal, they are part of a vast global pollution machine — one that has grown massively as the world economy has globalized and factories have begun pumping out ever-cheaper, ever-faster styles to customers half a world away. 

    This new hyper-vast, hyper-fast-fashion system is phenomenally destructive. Today, the clothing trade generates some 170 billion garments a year — roughly half of which wind up being thrown out within that year, and almost all of which despoil the world’s land, air, and seas. In the process, it generates as much as 10 percent of all planet-warming emissions, making it the second-largest industrial polluter, while also holding the distinction of being the world’s second-largest consumer and polluter of water. When all its many offenses are cataloged and counted, fashion is the third-most-polluting industry on the planet, after energy and food. 

    Things weren’t always this bad. While fashion has long left trails of environmental devastation in its wake — just ask the poor snowy egret, sacrificed by the thousands to decorate a generation of women’s hats — it was kept in relative check, even as globalization ramped up, by a 1974 trade agreement known as the Multi Fibre Arrangement. This agreement allowed nations to regulate the number of textile and clothing imports allowed into their countries, thereby protecting domestic production. But its expiration on January 1, 2005, essentially heralded fashion’s NAFTA moment. Low-cost goods from countries such as China and Bangladesh began flooding the United States and the European Union, which undercut domestic production in developing countries by saturating those markets with used clothing. The loosening of the century-old de minimis loophole in 2016, which allowed packages under $800 to enter the United States without tariffs, allowed Shein and Temu, the notorious Chinese e-commerce giants, to grow exponentially.

    Some observers of the fashion industry have speculated that it might be on the cusp of a reckoning. The elimination of the de minimis exemption, together with Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, has sent shock waves through the industry, rattling U.S. consumers — and with them, major brands like Shein and Temu. Both have already begun to compensate for the drop in U.S. sales by redirecting their efforts toward Europe and Australia while moving their operations to other countries. Other companies, meanwhile, have simply begun offsetting their losses by trimming their sustainability efforts, raising serious fears of an even faster race to the bottom.

    All of which raises the questions: How did we get into this situation? And, more important, how do we get out? 

    Store window display with sale, discount and mannequins
    The typical fast-fashion jeans are worn only seven times before being tossed, giving the garment a carbon footprint that is more than 10 times higher per wear than traditional denim.
    Olga Pankova / Getty Images

    Step 1: A dirty, bloated underbelly

    To understand how our garments got so noxious, it helps to go back to the beginning: to how our clothes become clothes in the first place. Take any item of attire — from Lululemon athleisure leggings to the summer of 2024’s viral Uniqlo baby tee; from the swankiest gowns to the most nondescript knockoff jeans — and the story is almost always the same: Most clothes start their lives deep in the ground, either as seeds of cotton or in the nearly 342 million barrels of crude oil that go into the making of synthetic fabrics every year. Most of the problems start with one of these two origin stories.

    Today, synthetic fibers make up nearly 70 percent of all textile production. Polyester has become particularly ubiquitous across styles and brands, whether those brands are fast-fashion behemoths or rarefied luxury houses. Its soft, stretchy nature can mimic traditional textiles or be engineered into modern, high-performance meshes. Its low cost — just half the price of cotton in some instances — makes it an attractive option for brands and suppliers looking to snag profits while offering lower prices to customers. 

    But beneath its malleable folds lies a nasty business. Commercialized by the chemical giant DuPont in the mid-1900s, the process of making polyester involves superheating two petroleum-based chemicals — ethylene glycol (also used in antifreeze) and terephthalic acid (commonly used in plastic bottles) — and extruding the mixture through tiny holes to form yarn. In 2015, this process was estimated to produce as much annual carbon pollution as 180 coal-fired power plants. As the resulting polyfabrics are woven, washed, treated, and sewn into garments, they continually shed plastic microfibers.

    Meanwhile, plant-based fibers like linen and cotton, which currently make up a quarter of global textile production, come with their own complications. Compared to other major crops, cotton is considered resource-intensive, earning a reputation among environmental organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Justice Foundation, as particularly thirsty, based on the amount of water it consumes, and dirty, based on the quantity of chemical pesticides used to grow it. The cotton fiber needed to manufacture a classic jeans-and-tee outfit requires roughly 500 gallons of irrigation water (and an additional 1,500 gallons of rainwater) to grow. And while cotton takes up a little less than 3 percent of all farmable land, its production accounts for some 5 percent of all pesticide sales and 10 percent of insecticide sales.

    Other, less common fashion fabrics, such as viscose (made from the pulp of more than 100 million trees per year), come with their own environmental trade-offs — a 2023 report found that nearly a third of those trees came from old-growth or endangered forests. Over the past decade, blended fabrics that mix various types of synthetic fibers and organic ones have become increasingly common, creating an engineering headache for recycling initiatives and spreading plastic’s presence ever further. 

    The environmental impact of your jacket

    The environmental impact of your jacket

    Quilted jackets stuffed with down — generally goose feathers — have been standard-issue for the last century. But polyester fill has begun to dominate the market, and manufacturers have relied on a toxic group of chemicals known as PFAS to waterproof the jackets. These “forever chemicals” don’t degrade naturally, and they have infiltrated drinking water, farmland, and the human body. Down carries its own baggage: It often involves plucking feathers from birds while they’re still alive.

    Brands have begun developing alternatives to PFAS in anticipation of bans that went into effect in 2025 in California and New York. Patagonia and Vaude have phased out PFAS use entirely, while Gore-Tex, Fjällräven, and Sympatex all offer PFAS-free options.

    Patagonia, Houdini, and Cotopaxi have also revamped their process for making synthetic fill to use recycled and plant-based materials and produce less emissions.

     

    The environmental impact of your T-shirt

    The environmental impact of your T-shirt

    Growing, weaving, dyeing, and manufacturing cotton into a T-shirt can require more than 700 gallons of water — enough for a single person to drink for 900 days. Cotton cultivation also requires heavy chemical use; some estimates indicate the crop accounts for roughly 16 percent of all insecticides sold worldwide.

    Hemp-jersey blends can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of a T-shirt. Hemp has low water needs, requiring as much as 90 percent less water than cotton. And because the plant sequesters a lot of CO2 as it grows, its overall carbon footprint is significantly lower than that of other fibers.

    Step 2: Toxic textiles

    Once the requisite materials have been grown, harvested, or extracted from DuPont’s primordial ooze, they’re turned into fabric, bleached, and dyed. This is an enormously toxic process that’s estimated to be responsible for 20 percent of water pollution worldwide. Pesticides used to grow cotton are flushed into waterways, along with bleach and the heavy metals — such as cadmium, chromium, lead, and arsenic — found in dye. The World Bank has identified at least 72 toxic chemicals involved in the standard industrial dyeing process, and once those chemicals make their way into aquifers, the knock-on effects are dire. 

    Dark sludge from clothing factories fills nearby lakes and streams, blocking the light needed for photosynthesis and destroying aquatic ecosystems. Even rinsing synthetic fabrics sends microplastics racing down the drain, and experts estimate that about half a million metric tons of microplastics make their way into the oceans each year — equivalent to the weight of 50 Eiffel Towers. Some of this contaminated water is then reused to irrigate local crops, causing health problems for the surrounding community, reducing crop yields, and harming biodiversity. 

    The Citarum River, in West Java, Indonesia, is a toxic testament to this process — the transformation of raw fabric into the pretty hues and bright patterns that make our wardrobes pop. Once a pristine waterway that flowed past cozy farming villages and bustling cities, it became a dumping site for hundreds of textile mills in the 1980s. As more and more arose along its banks, they spilled their waste directly into the river and its tributaries, staining them blue, red, yellow, and black and saturating them with mercury, lead, chromium, and other chemicals. For years, people who live near the river have reported skin rashes and intestinal problems along with more serious conditions like renal failure and tumors — and while the Indonesian government vowed in 2018 to make the river’s waters clean enough to drink by 2025, that deadline has come and almost gone. The river remains one of the most polluted in the world.

    A pile of stained and shredded pink clothing and textiles
    Piles of rags sorted by color await recycling in a textile factory in Valencia Province, Spain. Only 1 percent of used clothes are recycled and used to manufacture new clothes.
    Jose A. Bernat Bacete / Getty Images

    Step 3: How fast is too fast?

    Once the clothes have been manufactured and are ready to be shipped, fashion can generally be sorted into several buckets: fast, faster, and ultra-fast. More traditional brands like Levi’s, Gap, and Nike will design a collection of apparel in advance of a season and then commission the production of their garments to factories in other countries, thus starting the clothing’s journey along a lengthy supply chain. According to McKinsey, the lag time between design and sale can be as little as 12 weeks. Fast-fashion brands like Zara, H&M, and Forever 21 move through “microseasons” still more quickly, releasing dozens of collections per year. And ultra-fast-fashion brands like Shein, Temu, and Cider can design, manufacture, and ship a new garment in a matter of days. 

    All this speed means different kinds of waste, depending on which bucket a garment falls into. To know exactly how much of each garment to make, traditional and fast-fashion retailers try to predict demand. But because each individual blouse, skirt, and jacket requires its own bespoke assembly line, factories incentivize retailers to buy in bulk, which lowers the brand’s cost per item and helps the supplier stay efficient. It’s a tricky balance, but with profits and savings in mind, the default is to order too much.

    If you’re curious about which brands might be overstocking offenders, keep an eye out for frequent sales or steep discounts. In 2022, the apparel giant Asos was left with over $1 billion of unsold stock after sales dropped from the previous year. It struck a deal with a resale company to sell its remaining stock at a heavy discount. In the same year, Gap Inc. — which owns brands including Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, and Athleta — went on a discounting marathon, with multiple sales events in a row to trim down its warehouse bloat. Luxury fashion brands, which are known for destroying their excess merchandise to maintain their products’ exclusivity and value, are also responsible for the largest Black Friday discounts, with up to 46 percent of stock marked down in previous years.  

    Available statistics suggest that this global surplus could amount to anywhere between 8 billion and 60 billion garments a year, as reported in The Guardian. And that’s not including the textiles that never get turned into clothing. The destiny of all that material varies: Some of it is sold at a discount or recycled, but much of it winds up in landfills or incinerated.

    a child's shoe floats in a blue ocean
    A discarded shoe floats in the waters off Okinawa, Japan, in June. The footwear industry accounts for about 1.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — more than half that of the airline industry.
    D3_plus D.Naruse @ Japan / Getty Images

    Paradoxically, the new ultra-fast-fashion models embraced by brands like Shein are “more efficient,” according to Valérie Moatti, a former professor of fashion supply-chain management and strategy. Shein, for instance, claims to make only 100 to 200 copies of each garment, with unsold inventory in the single digits — thanks, largely, to its data-forward business model, which leverages predictive AI algorithms to identify “microtrends” in fashion. Yet that efficiency creates its own problems. In 2023, Shein nudged out Zara for the title of biggest polluter in fast fashion.

    Shein’s e-commerce model, while speedy, relies on small-package air shipment, which is highly carbon-intensive, instead of the bulk ocean shipping typically used by fashion brands. With up to 10,000 new items released for sale on its site every day, Shein has flooded the U.S. postal system with as many as 900,000 packages a day. This air shipping accounts for up to 38 percent of Shein’s emissions, which nearly doubled between 2022 and 2023 to 16 million metric tons of CO2. By contrast, Inditex, which owns Zara and uses primarily sea and road shipping, reported that it released a little over 2 million metric tons of CO2 transporting its products in the same year.

    The environmental impact of your jeans

    The environmental impact of your jeans

    New denim jeans, traditionally made mostly of cotton, carry many of the same environmental burdens as a cotton T-shirt. In recent years, elastic textures made from synthetic blends have added microplastics to the denim equation.

    Washing a single pair of jeans can release up to 56,000 microfibers into wastewater systems. They spread from there into the environment.

    Buying secondhand jeans can cut carbon costs by 90 percent, while cold-washing and and line-drying may reduce the carbon cost by 70 percent compared with machine-washing. Extending the lifespan of your garments by just nine months can reduce their carbon, water, and waste footprints by 20 percent.

    The environmental impact of your leggings

    The environmental impact of your leggings

    Most exercise leggings are synthetic, generally made up of roughly 85 percent polyester and 15 percent Lycra (commonly known as spandex). This means they’re a fossil fuel product and will shed microplastics when washed or worn.

    Since 2019, the production of activewear made from recycled polyester has increased by 80 percent. Buying from brands like Puma, Patagonia, and Adidas that use recycled polyester may help curb the carbon cost of your outfit. To prevent your clothes from shedding microfibers, the company Guppyfriend offers an eco-friendly washing bag.

    Step 4: From closet to landfill

    Once the spoils of someone’s latest shopping spree have found a home in their closet, they likely won’t remain there for long. In 2024, researchers found that the average fast-fashion pair of jeans is worn only seven times, giving them a carbon footprint 11 times higher per wear than traditional denim pants. A typical pair of jeans is kept, on average, for four years before being tossed.

    Even when clothes are donated, they often end up burned or in a landfill, where they belch greenhouse gases, like methane, as they decay. Anything made with synthetic fibers, like stretchy “denim,” see-through mesh, and athletic wear, sheds plastic microfibers into soil and waterways. And while California and New York have banned the toxic forever chemicals known as PFAS in apparel and textiles, decades of their use in waterproofing outdoor wear means that our discarded rain jackets are leaching the pollutants too. 

    “In the United States, we consume the most apparel in the world, and so we are also the largest exporters and waste creators of fashion,” said Rachel Kibbe, who leads American Circular Textiles, a coalition that lobbies for fashion policies that are “sustainable, profitable, and resilient” in the U.S. “It’s a missed opportunity to recapture resources that we’ve already put a lot of time, labor, energy, water, and chemicals into.” 

    Kibbe’s organization is at the forefront of the emerging movement around “circularity,” a term that refers to a closed-loop supply chain that continually repurposes clothing. Touted by international nonprofits, major brands, and advocates alike, the word has become the de facto slogan for those promoting clothing recycling. For Kibbe, circularity means extending the life of the materials as long as possible.

    Last year, her coalition provided technical feedback on a California bill that requires manufacturers to manage the recycling and reuse of their textiles. The law, passed in September 2024, mirrors a flurry of similar fast-fashion waste regulations in the European Union. But turning old rags into new garments poses a steep technical challenge. While features like zippers and buttons create their own difficulties for recycling clothes into new fabrics, the bigger issue is the industry’s growing reliance on blended fabrics — an intricate mix of synthetic and natural fibers that are difficult to pull back apart. 

    Although the technology exists to separate these fibers for reuse, it remains in its early stages and is costly to scale. In 2024, Renewcell, a textile-recycling company that partnered with major brands like H&M and Levi’s, went bankrupt.

    The environmental impact of your leather boots

    The environmental impact of your leather boots

    The leather used in shoes and handbags depends on cattle ranching, which is the primary driver of deforestation in the Amazon. Many vegan-leather options consist of synthesized plastics, which come with a heavy chemical burden.

    Soles are often made of synthetic rubber, a fossil fuel product that produces three to six tons of CO2 per ton of polymer material. Meanwhile, natural rubber has caused the deforestation of more than 4 million hectares of tropical forests over the past three decades.

    There’s a limited number of sustainability-minded shoe brands. Experts say that the most sustainable option for buying leather are stores that use local small-scale suppliers or source the hide as a byproduct from fair-trade farmers. In the future, other alternatives may be made from fungi. In 2023, the biotech start up MycoWorks announced the successful production of the world’s first commercial-scale mycelium biomaterial, which has 80 percent lower emissions than cow leather.

    The environmental impact of your running shoes

    The environmental impact of your running shoes

    A single running shoe contains as many as 65 discrete parts that require 360 processing steps to assemble, which is often done using coal-powered machines. On average, making a pair of shoes emits the equivalent of 30 pounds of carbon dioxide, over two-thirds of which come from the manufacturing process.

    Companies like Allbirds are producing new types of biofoam materials made from sugarcane and a bioplastic made with methane waste. In 2023, Allbirds introduced its MO.Onshot sneaker, a “net-zero carbon shoe.” Other companies, like Saye, are also using alternative biomaterials, such as plant-based leathers made from cactus, corn, and bamboo yarn.

    The circularity movement isn’t an isolated phenomenon. As the outrage over fashion’s many environmental faux pas has grown, so have the efforts to force the industry to mend its ways — through protests, the rise of a robust secondhand clothing market, and textile recycling regulations in the European Union and California. And the industry, ever image-conscious, has started to listen. Many historic offenders like Shein, H&M, and Burberry have set voluntary sustainability goals, including using recycled fabrics, reducing freshwater use, limiting packaging, and cutting emissions.

    But these efforts have often been slow and stuttering — more greenwashing than greening. And even at their most rigorous, they have come up against a problem that goes to the very heart of the modern fashion industry: speed. At the same time that brands have begun ramping up their sustainability efforts, many have also begun speeding up their production cycle, churning out ever more clothes at ever faster rates. The result is a fundamental incongruity: an industry hurtling forward at breakneck speed, even as it tries to change course. Or as Kristy Caylor, who has founded several sustainable apparel brands, including the clothing-recycling startup Trashie, observed: “We all know people who are doing a much better job, but overall, we’re still in the speedy cycle. If we’re still consuming at a rapid rate and the materials are better, but we’re still throwing it all out, have we really done a better job?”

    Lynda Grose, a designer and professor of design and critical studies at California College for the Arts, agrees that it’s too easy right now to produce new clothes. Even ethical fashion brands produce a great deal of waste. “I would say that the entire industry adopts fast-fashion tactics,” Grose said. “I don’t want fast fashion to be used as a scapegoat — the whole industry needs a magnifying glass.”

    rows of clothes on pink hangars
    A selection of used clothes hang on racks in a secondhand shop. Each year, roughly 700,000 tons of used clothing from the U.S. ends up in foreign markets in countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Pakistan, and Chile.
    Triocean / Getty Images

    The industry, which remains largely unregulated, also can’t really be trusted to police itself. To slow the warp-speed pace of modern fashion requires more than ad hoc efforts by individual brands. Tariffs, waste quotas, and taxes on waste could all cut down on the fashion industry’s seemingly intractable garbage issues. And a handful of places are already trying. In 2024, the European Union introduced rules banning large companies from destroying unsold textiles and footwear, while France recently approved legislation that imposes a mix of taxes, advertising bans, and sustainability standards on fast-fashion giants. And while some brands might bristle, many of these efforts — such as incentivizing clothing repair and recycling — could benefit the companies as well as the consumer. 

    For Lilah Horwitz, the director of content and marketing at Eileen Fisher Renew, which saves and repurposes old Eileen Fisher clothing, sustainability is about taking responsibility for the full life cycle of the clothes, even after they pass into the consumer’s hands. “We will take them back, no matter the condition, and we’re going to spend years trying to figure out what is the best thing to do with them,” she said. The catch is that “you have to make a good product the first time. You make something that hopefully lasts, and then you build the infrastructure and the systems to keep it lasting.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What your cheap clothes cost the planet on Dec 15, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Downing Street publishes list including ex-Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies and Iceland supermarket chief Richard Walker

    Reeves is now being asked about the leak to the Financial Times on 13 November saying that Reeves had dropped plans to raise income tax in the budget.

    Reeves claims some aspects of the story were misleading.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Jean Gay-Robinson said she ​“cried tears of joy” when utility ComEd switched all the polluting gas-fired equipment in her Chicago home to modern electric versions, at no cost to her. As a retiree on a fixed income, she is relieved that she’ll likely never have to buy another appliance, her energy bills are lower, and her home feels safer. ​“I don’t have to worry about gas blowing up or carbon monoxide, that kind of nonsense,” she said.

    Gay-Robinson is among the hundreds of people who have benefited from a provision of Illinois’ 2021 clean-energy law that allows electric utilities to meet energy-conservation mandates in part by outfitting low-income households with electric appliances that reduce their bills — even though such overhauls actually increase, rather than decrease, electricity use.

    Such policies are rare nationwide, but the approach could be a tool to help keep building decarbonization rolling as the Trump administration kills federal incentives for home electrification.

    Modern electrical appliances — like induction stoves, electric dryers, and heat pumps that warm and cool spaces — are generally much more energy-efficient than their fossil-fueled counterparts. That means electrifying appliances cuts the amount of fossil fuels burned, even in places where gas and coal plants feed the power grid, said Nick Montoni, senior program director of policy and markets at the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University. As more renewable energy comes online, the emissions linked to electrical appliances decrease even further.

    Plus, families breathe significantly cleaner indoor air when they change to an electric cooktop, due to the slew of health-harming pollutants emitted by gas stoves.

    But replacing appliances is not cheap, and under the Trump administration’s budget law, federal tax credits to help households afford electric heat pumps and water heaters expire in December — seven years earlier than they were previously supposed to. Meanwhile, the future is uncertain for the federally funded Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates (HEAR) program, an Inflation Reduction Act initiative that is administered by states and provides incentives for electric appliances. While some states have already launched their HEAR programs, the Trump administration put the remaining funds on ice earlier this year, and Illinois has not yet received its allotment.

    Amid this federal upheaval, state policies that incentivize utilities to pick up the tab for electrification can be especially impactful.

    “It’s expensive to electrify because it requires up-front cost,” said Montoni, who formerly served as deputy chief of staff at the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. ​“You have to be able to afford a heat pump, an induction stove, an electric water heater — those aren’t inexpensive. That’s why there are rebates and incentives.”

    Illinois utilities commit to electrification

    Illinois law requires ComEd to cut electricity consumption each year by an amount equivalent to 2% of the utility’s annual sales in the early 2020s. The state’s other big electric utility, Ameren, faces similar rules in 2029 under a law passed this fall, though in the past it had lower savings mandates.

    The 2021 Climate and Equitable Jobs Act specifies that a portion of mandated energy savings — 5% since 2022, 10% starting next year, and 15% after 2029 — can come from electrification. The law also created a formula to convert the amount of energy used by a gas-powered appliance to electricity in kilowatt-hours, allowing an estimate of how much energy is saved by switching from gas to electric.

    “So if a home gets partially or fully electrified through an electric energy-efficiency program, the utility claims the savings by calculating the difference between the gas therms in kilowatt-hour equivalents and the kilowatt[-hours] added via the electric measures,” explained Kari Ross, Midwest energy affordability advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    Montoni called the policy ​“a pretty interesting mechanism — not unique, but very rare, from what I’ve seen.”

    Michigan does have a similar policy, since a 2023 law allows electric and gas utilities to claim electrification as part of their mandatory energy-waste reduction. That legislation also includes a formula for determining the energy-efficiency gains from going electric.

    Montoni said allowing electric utilities to count electrification toward their efficiency mandates is an important way to incentivize the shift off fossil fuels, especially in the more than a dozen states where different utilities provide electric and gas service.

    When a utility provides both gas and electricity, electrification will typically show overall energy savings, Montoni explained. But when a utility provides only electricity, a formula similar to Illinois’ is needed for the utility to show that it is saving energy, even though a given customer’s electricity use actually increases after electrification.

    In northern Illinois, ComEd is the primary electric utility, operating alongside two major gas utilities.

    Through its whole-home energy-efficient electrification program, ComEd pays all up-front costs for electric appliances and heat pumps for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income. That initiative has electrified over 700 low-income households since it launched in 2022. The utility also offers rebates for customers of any income for purchasing electric appliances, including geothermal heat pumps.

    ComEd’s energy-efficiency plan approved by state regulators says that a quarter of energy savings from electrification must be for low-income households, and the utility can undertake electrification only if it will save a customer money on their energy bills. Michigan’s law includes a similar provision.

    “We carefully model each home to make sure proposed upgrades result in energy savings,” said Philip Roy, ComEd’s director of clean energy solutions. ​“Nationally, I’m pretty sure this is one of the more ambitious approaches to electrification, especially for income-eligible customers.”

    Gay-Robinson said she has saved some money on her bills since her home’s overhaul last summer, and more importantly, she has reliable appliances to get through Chicago’s extreme weather.

    She recommended the ComEd overhaul to a friend, who was suffering through hot summers in poor health and without air-conditioning. Gay-Robinson thinks the electric heating-cooling system her friend got at no cost may have saved her life.

    Gay-Robinson said she still prefers cooking with gas, but she’s grateful ComEd provided new cookware along with her electric induction stove. ​“I thought it would be hard to even work the doggone stove. It looks like something out of the future,” she said. ​“But it wasn’t as hard as I thought.”

    More retrofits like Gay-Robinson’s are on the way. In an agreement with stakeholder groups and regulators, ComEd has committed to spend a total of $162.3 million over the next four years on electrification and weatherization, which reduces the amount of power needed to heat and cool spaces.

    In central and southern Illinois, Ameren provides both gas and electric service.

    Ameren has not undertaken ambitious electrification programs like ComEd, and it had lower energy-efficiency mandates until the clean-energy law passed in October brought its targets into parity with ComEd’s. But Ameren will spend $5 million through 2029 helping customers switch from propane-fired heat, which is common in rural areas, to electric heat pumps.

    Changing times

    Home-electrification retrofits that lower energy bills may be harder to come by in Illinois and beyond in the future, as electricity prices spike due to the record-high cost of securing enough power-generating capacity for the PJM Interconnection regional grid, which spans 13 states.

    Since ComEd is only allowed to offer customers new electrical appliances that will reduce their bills, high electricity prices mean some exchanges that worked in the past will no longer qualify; keeping a gas appliance may be cheaper.

    “We are in a moment where further iteration is needed” on electrification policies, said Roy, also citing the impacts of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on appliance costs and the looming expiration of federal tax credits for energy-efficient equipment.

    Roy noted that with rooftop solar and batteries, a household can tap clean, free electricity to power their appliances. Illinois has robust incentives for low-income households to obtain solar, potentially at no up-front cost.

    “We see a lot of momentum with these programs,” said Roy. ​“We think [electrification] will play a key role in not just energy-efficiency goals but broader energy policy. Combining all those elements — traditional energy efficiency, electrification, rooftop solar, battery storage — we have a lot of the tools, we just have to fine-tune the policy structures and incentives so we can accelerate the transition.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Illinois families are going electric — for free on Dec 8, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • RACP chair Professor Jennifer Martin. Image: RACP Facebook

    Governance issues continue to plague the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) amid allegations of member silencing, board-stacking and escalating internal power struggles. Stephanie Tran reports.

    The Royal Australasian College of Physicians is bracing for another explosive board meeting – a snap meeting called for today – after members last week overwhelmingly backed president-elect Dr Sharmila Chandran.

    The extraordinary general meeting (EGM), called by a group of members seeking to “remove Dr Chandran as president-elect and board director”, was rejected by 74% of voting members last week, with 7,444 of the college’s 33,000 members participating. 

    It was the second time in less than a month members had been asked to vote on the identical proposal, following a string of EGMs costing the college an estimated ($) $1 million.

    The latest result also prompted renewed calls from some members for current president Professor Jennifer Martin to resign.

    RACP board in turmoil as dissident director prevails at doctors’ meeting

    ‘Interim controls’ consolidate power in chair’s hands

    Since the vote, tensions have intensified within the leadership of the College.

    Internal documents seen by MWM show a suite of new “interim controls” for board meetings and communications introduced in recent days by the faction aligned with current RACP president and board chair, Professor Jennifer Martin.

    Under the controls, entry to the virtual board meeting room will require chair approval; participants will remain muted unless invited to speak; and the chair will be able to pause proceedings and move directors into a waiting room if she considers conduct to have “escalated”. The controls will be administered by the governance team “at the direction of the chair”.

    The measures were drafted by CEO Steffen Faurby and his staff as part of a WHS hazard report addressing what they described as the “psychosocial hazard” of “unsafe behaviour” at board meetings.

    Both Faurby and Martin are currently the subject of bullying claims in stop-bullying applications before the Fair Work Commission. Both deny wrongdoing.

    Concerns over board-stacking ahead of snap meeting

    The RACP board is preparing to meet today to appoint new directors, despite there being no further scheduled board meetings until February.

    Sources say the proposed appointments have not gone through an open expression of interest process or been discussed transparently across the full board. 

    They raised concerns about board stacking ahead of Chandran’s scheduled commencement as president in May, when she would also assume the role of board chair under current college rules.

    The concerns come amid whistleblower complaints about the RACP’s governance, including allegations that members’ funds have been used to pursue internal factional disputes. Martin has previously rejected claims that college funds have been used to “shut down” critics, saying all expenditure relates to maintaining proper governance.

    College response

    MWM put questions to the RACP about governance concerns within the college. In response, they provided a transcript of a video message from Martin that was sent to College members following the EGM last week.

    “The Board respects the outcome and will fulfil the constitutional steps that follow,” Martin said.

    “My own position is also clear. I will continue in my role as President. I will not be diverted by campaigns or by attempts to personalise institutional issues. I am here to Chair the Board to ensure the work of the College continues, and it will be conducted under proper governance.”

    Shemozzle: RACP in crisis as doctors’ meeting looms, whistleblower emerges

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Bishopscourt Melbourne. Residence of Anglican Archbishop. Image: Bishopscourt.org.au

    Lavish renovations to “Bishopscourt” mansion, a host of unregistered trusts and other financial irregularities, present the new Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne with a raft of earthly challenges. Stephanie Tran and Michael West report.

    When The Right Reverend Dr Ric Thorpe, Melbourne’s new Archbishop delivers his first sermon at St Paul’s Cathedral, he is unlikely to tee off with an exegesis of the famous biblical passage Mark 12:41. 

    This is the parable where Jesus tells the disciples about the poor woman who gave two small coins, all she had, to the Temple offering.

    Anglican parishioners in Melbourne have cause for concern over the administration of Church finances. An investigation by Michael West Media has unearthed details about expensive renovations to the $40m Bishopscourt mansion in East Melbourne and long-running governance failures including dozens of unregistered trusts that may be subject to millions in potential tax liabilities.

    The revelations come at a time when the finances of establishment churches in Australia are on the wane; are unlikely to please parishioners who part with a fraction of their earnings in the offering plates on a Sunday.

    “A vanity project”

    According to documents obtained by MWM, the former Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, Philip Freier, wanted to host the Archbishop of Canterbury at Bishopscourt when he came to Australia for a visit in 2022.

    Rather than putting him up in a hotel at lesser expense to the Diocese, the Bishopscourt Trust Management Committee (BTMC) contracted Virtue Construction to renovate the 1850s bluestone mansion. But things did not go as planned and documents show the costs blew out from $190,000 to around $350,000.

    A whistleblower familiar with the Church finances claims the works were unnecessary and pushed through without proper authorisation, describing them as “a vanity project”. The whistleblower also alleges the construction contract was split into two to avoid the BTMC’s $200,000 financial delegation limit, and that the Archbishop did not appropriately manage potential conflicts of interest.

    Church denies archiepiscopal conflict

    “The Archbishop, as the occupant of Bishopscourt, had a conflict of interest in relation to any material improvements or expenditures on Bishopscourt … The works in question included a renovation of a bathroom and bedroom.”

    The Diocese strongly disputes these claims. In a statement, a spokesperson said:

    “While there is a residence for the Archbishop at Bishopscourt, the overwhelming construction and cost of those renovations have been to the community facilities and upgrade of quarters for visitors to the Diocese.

    “While the Archbishop of Canterbury did visit Bishopscourt, there were no substantive renovations conducted in anticipation of this visit, and no splitting of contracts as suggested in your question.”

    Internal documents reviewed by MWM confirm that the Bishopscourt trust was not registered with the ACNC at the time. They also record that the construction contract was issued in two parts, though the Diocese denies this was done to circumvent the financial limit.

    Departing Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier

    Departing Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier

    A pattern of governance concerns

    The whistleblower alleges the Bishopscourt project was only one example of broader systemic problems.

    He claims that when he joined the Trust Corporation in late 2019, he encountered minimal documentation, incomplete records and missing trust deeds, and that these concerns went unaddressed for years.

    “There were no records handed over. There were no trust deeds. There were no financial statements for any of the trusts. There were no details about who were the signatories on any of the accounts.”

    “As I investigated more matters, I became aware that the poor governance had hid a number of legal compliance issues.”

    The Diocese holds approximately 300 trusts. Documents seen by MWM indicate that within the top 20 per cent of trusts by value (48 trusts), 30 were not registered with the ACNC.

    While not unlawful in itself, the whistleblower alleges the Diocese incorrectly self-assessed these trusts as income tax exempt, potentially leaving the Church with significant tax liabilities.

    He described the Church’s response to concerns as “very defensive”, comparing it to the early reaction to the Church’s handling of child sexual abuse claims.

    “The initial knee jerk reaction was a denial of the issue and an attempt to minimise and belittle it.”

    Church begins to clean up its acts

    After years of internal complaints, the Diocese has begun taking steps to address the compliance issues.

    Earlier this month, the Diocese resolved to register all unregistered trusts with a corpus over $100,000 by the end of next year.

    “Through a lot of pushing, we managed to get a resolution in November that any unregistered trust with a corpus above $100,000 would be registered by the end of next year,” the whistleblower said.

    A spokesperson for the Diocese provided the following response regarding steps the Diocese is taking to ensure they comply with ATO and ACNC requirements:

    “The Melbourne Anglican Trust Corporation (MATC) is the authority that manages the trusts of the diocese and has been undertaking a project to review compliance requirements for the ATO and ACNC for over two years. Trustee law is a complex area which we are working through with the ACNC and ATO.”

    For incoming Archbishop Ric Thorpe, these legacy governance issues present a formidable challenge as he steps into the role.

    “There needs to be a commitment to transparency. These issues need to be acknowledged and addressed so that the new Archbishop has the opportunity to come in with it with as much of a clean slate as possible.”

     

    This post was originally published on Michael West.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Phillip Stafford has been converted. After two years driving a Tesla, he says there’s no going back to gasoline — the money he saves on fuel alone makes that clear. And since his work as a crisis counselor takes him all over Richmond, Virginia, he charges often.

    That’s made him picky about where he buys electrons. On a crisp fall afternoon last month, Stafford had his Model 3 plugged in at a Sheetz. A red and white Wawa sandwich wrapper on the seat hinted at where his heart lies in that convenience store rivalry. Still, brand loyalty only goes so far when the battery is running low. Given a choice between the two, Sheetz wins. “It has more watts, so it charges a little faster,” he said.

    A man charges his Tesla model 3 at a charging station at a Sheetz convenience store
    Phillip Stafford tends to favor Wawa, but when it’s time for a charge, he leans toward Sheetz. As more fuel retailers offer charging, consumer preferences could shift from who provides the cheapest fuel to who makes waiting for the car to fill up the best experience. Benton Graham

    The seemingly small question of where to spend 20 or so minutes topping off a battery reveals the transformation taking hold among fuel retailers. For more than 50 years, chains like Wawa, Sheetz, and Love’s Travel Stops have defined when and where people refuel. As EVs reshape mobility, they are among the retailers embracing charging.

    Their challenge goes beyond providing power to turning the time drivers spend plugged in into profitable foot traffic. Selling electricity alone won’t pay the bills; the real money lies in selling snacks. Making that work requires reimagining what a pit stop looks and feels like, even as costly infrastructure upgrades and shifting federal policies complicate the transition.

    Wawa and Sheetz are among the furthest along. The Pennsylvania-based companies have built out hundreds of chargers and enjoy fervent fanbases that make them two of the most popular convenience stores in the country. Their made-to-order sandwiches, vast array of snacks, and clean restrooms have made them regular stops for road trippers and commuters alike — and now, for EV drivers looking to recharge their cars and, often, themselves.

    A wawa gas station across the street from a sheetz gas station
    Wawa and Sheetz are a few blocks apart along Lancaster Avenue in Cumru Township, Pennsylvania.
    Bill Uhrich / Getty Photos

    They offer a glimpse of the road ahead. As electric vehicles move ever further from niche toward norm, the focus for retailers like these could shift from who offers the cheapest fuel to who can make waiting for the car to fill up the best experience.

    “The problem with a lot of current gas stations is [they’re] not that nice of a place to spend 15, 20, or 30 minutes,” said Scott Hardman of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California-Davis. “Hopefully in the future, we’ll see more of them turn into coffee shops, cafes — places you actually want to be.”


    That future is slowly coming into focus. Retailers like Wawa and Sheetz have spent the past few years exploring what the transition from selling gasoline to selling electricity might look like. Even with the headwinds EVs face, at least 26 percent of cars on U.S. roads could be electric by 2035, and some projections suggest they could account for 65 percent of all sales by 2050.

    The two chains offer a place to plug in at roughly 10 percent of their locations. Wawa has installed more than 210 chargers, while Sheetz provides more than 650 at 95 locations that have logged more than 2 million sessions. Clean amenities and expansive menus with offerings like Wawa’s turkey-stuffed Gobbler and Sheetz’s deep-fried Big Mozz have placed them near the top of convenience store satisfaction rankings

    A black eV is parked at a tesla charging station at a Wawa in North Wales, PA
    An electric vehicle charges in front of a Wawa convenience store in North Wales, Pennsylvania, on November 21, 2025. Lauren Schoneker

    Both say embracing cars with cords builds on what already attracts customers. Wawa frames it as an extension of its “one-stop” model for food and fuel. Its competitor calls charging “a seamless extension of the Sheetz experience.” The language differs, but the message is the same: Selling electricity works if it brings people like John Baiano inside.

    The New York resident owns two Tesla Model Ys and travels throughout the northeast for his two businesses, a Bitcoin consultancy and a horse racing operation. He plugs in at Wawa because the stores are clean, offer plenty of amenities, and provide a comfortable place to check in with clients. “I use the bathroom, maybe get a snack,” he said. (He prefers the turkey pinwheel.) “I was a little nervous about the charging aspect of things. Once I started experiencing this, it was seamless.”

    At the moment, most public quick chargers are tucked away in the far corners of shopping centers, inside parking garages, and other functional but hardly inviting places to spend 20 minutes. They’re fine when you’re out and about running errands, but not terribly appealing at night and not particularly conducive to a road trip.

    Tesla dominates the space with its Supercharger network, which provides over half the country’s quick chargers, with Electrify America, EVGo, and ChargePoint together accounting for another 25 to 30 percent. Retailers like Love’s Travel Stops, Pilot Flying J, and Buc-ee’s are joining Sheetz and Wawa in working with those networks and others to add chargers alongside gas pumps. Their efforts signal how a system built for gasoline is starting to evolve for electricity.

    Everything Stafford and Baiano like about plugging in at a convenience store reflects an Electric Vehicle Council study that ranked security, lighting, and 24/7 access as three things drivers most want in a charging station. Another survey found that 80 percent of them will go out of their way to get it. Reliability is another concern — and a frequent complaint with the nation’s current charging infrastructure. As EVs become more common, drivers are going to be less willing to put up with malfunctioning or broken chargers than the early adopters were.

    Three cars parked at an ev charging station in a mostly empty covered lot
    Three EVs charging at an Electricity America EV charging station in a parking garage in Boston.
    Lindsey Nicholson / UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    Ryan McKinnon of the Charge Ahead Partnership, which pushes for a comprehensive charging network, sees fuel retailers as a logical place to build out such a system because they already have the right locations and amenities. “What EV charging needs is a competitive and lucrative marketplace where folks can actually make money selling EV charging,” he said.

    Therein lies the challenge. Buying and installing a quick charger can cost more than $100,000. Beyond that lie fluctuating prices from utility companies, which one leading charging provider said is a key factor in deciding where to locate the devices. Retailers won’t recover that by selling electrons alone, given that the machines might generate just $10,000 in revenue each year, Hardman said. EVGo noted in its second quarter earnings report that it earned just under $12,000 per stall.

    Making this work for retailers requires getting people out of their cars and into the stores. Just as gas retailers earn two-thirds of their profit selling sandwiches, snacks, and sodas, those selling electricity can expect to do the same. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that installing an EV charger increased spending by 1 percent, which would cover 11 percent of the cost of installing the charger. (Other studies have found similar benefits for surrounding businesses; Tesla Superchargers can boost revenue by 4 percent.) 

    For some retailers, chargers are a loss leader meant to pull customers into stores, said Karl Doenges of the National Association of Convenience Stores. Others see them as a way to secure increasingly scarce electrical capacity while it’s available. Some are moving “forward on a charging station, even though they don’t think [the market is] 100 percent ready,” he said.

    Even the strongest business cases for installing the devices depended on Washington’s help to pencil out. Incentives the Biden administration created through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided billions in grants, tax credits, and matching funds to help expand the fueling infrastructure of tomorrow, particularly in rural and low-income communities that a free market might overlook. 

    When Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election, there was little doubt federal support for this ambitious effort would change. Yet the upheaval was more dramatic than expected. In February, the Trump administration paused the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, or NEVI, program, the backbone of Washington’s effort to build a nationwide charging network. Fuel retailers, which have been some of the effort’s biggest beneficiaries, expressed concern.

    The administration reluctantly reinstated NEVI, which had installed just 126 charging ports by the time Trump won his second term, in August. “If Congress is requiring the federal government to support charging stations, let’s cut the waste and do it right,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said at the time. But with most of the funding allocated, the program will likely expire in 2026. 

    When it revived NEVI, the Trump administration updated recommendations for states, which administer the funds, in a way that seems to favor a national network run by big chains with highway operations. The Federal Highway Administration’s guidance explicitly recommended building charging infrastructure near fuel retailers. 

    Nonetheless, at least some of those companies see this as a difficult moment for EV charging. Joe Sheetz, executive vice chairman of the family-owned company, has said momentum is slowing because much of the funding has come from the government and big players like Tesla. Some smaller chains are backing away, but Sheetz said his company will keep at it.

    a sheetz gas station at dusk
    The sun sets over a Sheetz in Prince William County, Virginia. Bill O’Leary / The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Even as EV adoption grows, most people will continue to plug in largely at home. About 80 percent of charging occurs there, and some providers, like It’s Electric, are skipping partnerships with fuel retailers, focusing instead on slower and cheaper level 2 chargers that are convenient for apartments or homes without garages and do the job in four to 10 hours.

    Charles Gerena, a lead organizer of the advocacy organization Drive Electric RVA, rarely visits a public charger in his Chevy Bolt. But on longer trips, he’s noticed more opportunities to plug in, especially in rural areas where fast charging was once scarce. On a recent road trip to Virginia Beach in his wife’s Ford Mustang Mach-E, he took advantage of the car’s ability to tap the Tesla Supercharger network and used the PlugShare app to find a reliable station — at a Wawa.

    “I like Wawa’s food better than Sheetz,” he said. “I think I’m in the minority. My daughter actually likes Sheetz better.” Still, for Gerena, reliability trumps loyalty. “If it gets a lousy rating, I’d be wary of going to it, regardless of which gas station it was.”

    Despite customer loyalty that can sometimes divide households, retailers are learning that sandwiches and snacks aren’t enough. Success will depend on providing plenty of opportunities to plug in, and making sure the hardware works when drivers need it. 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How gas stations can become the best place to charge your EV on Nov 24, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket — and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher. 

    If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing — by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging.

    Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert. 

    Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit. 

    “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case.

    According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years, Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States.

    “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel. 

    The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems. 

    In the original complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims. 

    Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system. 

    “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.”

    A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.” 

    The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint — this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net zero emissions by 2040. 

    James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company.

    The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts. 

    “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agrifood companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized. 

    That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments — including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies.

    Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable. 

    Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said. 

    But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.”

    Editor’s note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are advertisers with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label. on Nov 21, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Whyalla with Sanjeev Gupta

    State and Federal Governments are proposing to add $2.4 billion to the Whyalla Steelworks financial disaster, while the man responsible rides into the sunset. Kim Wingerei with the story.

    The South Australian government put the Whyalla Steelworks into administration in February 2025, following years of mismanagement and mounting debts – including unpaid royalties – under the leadership of Sanjeev Gupta.

    Despite that, Gupta continues to advocate for the “green steel” dream, a potential nightmare if the South Australian and Federal Governments get their way.

    Their rescue plan involves support for transitioning the plant from coal-fired to gas-powered. However, that is only feasible if the Government is prepared to subsidise the gas. At current prices, Australian gas is too expensive.

    It is, of course, also not “green”. Natural gas emits less CO2 than coal-burning plants in theory (assuming minimal gas leaks), but for the green steel dream to come to fruition, renewable energy is paramount.

    Bluescope to bid?

    Bluescope Steel (ASX:BSL) is the preferred bidder, holding a right-of-last-refusal in what the SA Government hopes will be a “competitive bidding process”.

    But Bluescope is demanding “multibillion-dollar gas subsidies” if it is to proceed with a bid.

    At their AGM this week, outgoing CEO Mark Vassella and CEO-elect, Tania Archibald, were both at pains to reiterate the company’s commitment to Net Zero, but neither made mention of the potential for a Whyalla acquisition.

    According to a new report by Climate Energy Finance (CEF), “Gas-based production of iron and steel in SA is entirely uneconomic, with gas prices there some of the highest in the gas-producing world.” And as readers of MWM well know (even if Matt Canavan doesn’t), our high gas prices are caused by the gas oligopoly’s siphoning of gas into export markets.

    Gas Empire: how Australians are paying for foreign profiteers

    CEF estimates gas supply subsidies for a gas-based Whyalla would exceed $1.7B over a decade, but that may still not be enough to make it competitive.

    As the logical supplier of gas to Whyalla, Santos (ASX:STO) would be the principal beneficiary of these subsidies.  Over the last ten years, Santos has paid a total of $3.1m in income tax on $42.8B in revenue.

    An opportunity missed

    CEF’s Matt Pollard told MWM, “The transformation of the Whyalla Steelworks is a generational opportunity, but South Australia stands at a critical juncture. A methane gas-based ‘transition’ would be a grave strategic misstep and misalignment of economic policy with climate objectives, with lasting budgetary and national interest impacts.

    Gas is unequivocally not the solution for Whyalla in the interim, nor the long-term.

    Green Steel is a massive opportunity for Australia to move up the value chain of steel production while reducing our emissions. South Australia, in particular, is well-positioned with one of the lowest-cost, highest-penetration variable renewable energy grids in the world, with its 72% variable renewable energy penetration.

    CEF Director Tim Buckley points out how “global moves to accelerate decarbonisation of global iron and steel supply chains mean Australia faces a massive strategic threat to our top export commodity,” iron ore.

    The report’s co-author, The Superpower Institute, led by former ACCC chair Rod Sims and economist Ross Garnaut, echoes those sentiments, “There is an incredible opportunity for Whyalla to become Australia’s first green iron and steelmaking success story. … Government support for a gas option at this point would be a significant misstep.”

    As for Sanjeev Gupta, his company, GFG Alliance, gets a $375,000 slap on the wrist by ASIC for late reporting, with the debts he left behind will be paid by taxpayers.

    Whyalla mega-rescue leaves questions for watchdog ASIC

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Entrepreneurs, professionals, families and community leaders from across Aotearoa New Zealand came together last night for the inaugural Fiji Business Awards NZ, reports Webfit News.

    Hosted by the Fiji Business Network (NZ) at Auckland’s Remuera Club and backed by platinum sponsor Bunnings Trade, the evening was a reminder that many Fiji businesses in New Zealand have started from humble beginnings — often with little capital but a determined drive.

    And these businesses are now creating jobs, mentoring others and giving back to the community on both sides of the Pacific.

    The Fiji Business Network is a not-for-profit group of business owners and professionals with links to Fiji.

    “Its focus is simple but powerful,” said one of the organisers. “Help members connect, share referrals, support start-ups, and invest back into Aotearoa New Zealand, Fiji, and the wider Pacific.”

    Network president Atesh Bhej, managing director of the Biz Group of companies, told participants that many in the Fiji business community had arrived in New Zealand with  little money, worked long hours, and slowly built something strong for their families and communities.

    “For many guests, this awards night was not only about trophies,” said network secretary Nik Naidu. “It was also about seeing their journeys recognised in public.”

    Naidu and the network’s committee pulled together an impressive range of finalists and a strong judging panel, including former All Black Keven Mealamu (MNZM) and board member of several organisations such as Fit60 HQ Training and NZ Rugby.

    Winners included Trivision Entertainment Ltd (Small Business of the Year) and Feroz Aswat of Auckland Copiers and Solutions Ltd (Business Leader of the Year).


    Fiji Business Awards NZ 2025.           Video: Webfit News

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Image Tiago Muraro, Unaplsh

    “Self-management a best kept secret”. Dr Sarah Russell investigates the government’s new Home Care package, finds ‘ka-ching’ for private providers.

    The Aged Care Royal Commission was blunt about some aged care providers rorting home care packages.

    In their final report, the royal commissioners noted that a Level 4 home care package – then worth around $52,000 a year – offered on average less than nine hours a week support for older people.

    Meanwhile, older people who managed their own home care package could buy more than double the support – around 20 hours a week.

    And now we find out that the Albanese Labor government is enabling aged care providers to take an even bigger cut of the aged care budget, this time via those who self-manage Support at Home.

    Self-management has always been a well-kept secret.

    Most older people opt for an aged care provider to manage their support workers and suppliers. They simply don’t know there is an option to manage their home care themselves.

    Pay per shower: fully-funded aged care turns market-driven aged support

    Although the new Support at Home program allows older people to self-manage, the rules have changed significantly. So too have payment processes.

    In the past, invoices from support workers and suppliers were submitted to the self-managed provider. The provider paid these invoices from the client’s home care package. 

    The new Support at Home – Self Management Fact Sheet explains that self-management can involve “paying invoices for services and being reimbursed”. As a result, some providers require older people to pay their support workers and suppliers from their own pocket. They are later reimbursed.

    This policy assumes people have the cash available to pay for their home care services.

    Provider-managed and self-managed care are two fundamentally different approaches to home care. Provider-managed puts the aged care provider in the drivers’ seat. In contrast, self-management is based on shared decision making between the older person their support workers and the self-managed provider.

    In my 2021 research Consumer views of self-managed home care packages older people described “choice, control and costs” as their main reasons for switching from provider-managed to self-management. They also appreciated being treated as adults.

    With self-management, older people were not only able to choose who worked in their home, when they came and what they did but also able to negotiate directly with their support workers about how much they were paid. 

    Support at Home package expensive

    The financial benefits of self-management will be much less with the Support at Home program. From 1 July 2026, older people will no longer be able to negotiate lower rates with support workers or services outside the government approved pricing schedule.

    In addition, those who self-manage will be charged an overhead for the third-party service. 

    This overhead fee has been capped at 10 per cent – with clients encouraged to “negotiate” this fee based on how much work the provider is required to do before paying an invoice (e.g. ensuring the third party supplier meets workforce requirements). Not surprisingly, some providers simply charge their clients a 10 per cent “processing” or “loading” fee on each invoice, irrespective of how much work they did.

    Another significant change is the requirement of a co-contribution. With the new system, providers resemble debt collectors – responsible for collecting the government’s co-contribution. 

    Complex fee-fest

    To ensure providers are not out of pocket for this co-contribution, some require their self-managed clients to pay for their support services out of their own pocket and then submit proof of amount they have paid. They are then reimbursed the full amount they have paid less the amount of the co-contribution.

    Some providers have changed the payment process for all clients, both those who have been grandfathered (on home care packages) and new clients (on Support at Home).

    Take for example an 88 year old pensioner who has a Level 4 home care package. He lives in a remote location with no local aged care provider. His only option is to self-manage. He employs local support workers and suppliers who are all registered with a provider. 

    Previously, invoices from the registered nurse, support workers and suppliers were submitted to the provider. These invoices were then paid in full from his home care package. The provider charged a monthly administration fee.

    Since the recent introduction of Support at Home program on 1 November, his provider has changed the payment process – to ensure the provider collects the co-contribution.

    Although this man’s home care package has been grandfathered (i.e. he does not pay a co-contribution), his provider recently asked him to pay his monthly support services from his own pocket. The provider would then reimburse these costs.

    Just to be clear, a pensioner is asked to pay around $5,000 per month for his support services, money he does not have.  As a result, he has a home care package he can no longer afford to access.

    Fortunately, his registered nurse acted as an advocate. The provider agreed to continue to pay the monthly invoices. However, there will undoubtedly be other older people living in remote areas who have an assessed need for support but will be unable to afford to access it. 

    The Support at Home program has made self-management a much less attractive option.

    As a result, providers, not older people, are back in control. Ka-ching.

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Lachlan Murdoch

    Lachlan Murdoch won the battle to follow in his father’s footsteps and obtain control over News Corp, a media conglomerate in decline. Is he up for it? David Tyler asks.

    Imagine inheriting a media empire after spending $1.1B per sibling just to buy them off. Then discovering you’ve just spent billions to secure control of something that looks glorious on the surface but is, underneath, a paper tiger gasping for oxygen. That’s Lachlan Murdoch in 2025.

    The real story of Lachlan’s consolidation isn’t that he won. It’s that he inherited a media empire at precisely the moment when media empires stopped being empires. A forensic examination of how News Corp became a hollowed-out dynasty, why Lachlan can consolidate control but can’t actually run the thing, and what it means for democracy when the last large-scale independent news organisation enters managed decline.

    Rupert Murdoch built an empire on rat-cunning, ruthless leverage, and an almost mystical ability to play politicians and markets like a fiddle. But Lachlan Murdoch, now 52 and finally sitting in the CEO chair, faces a problem Rupert never had to seriously contemplate: what happens when the empire requires actual business acumen to maintain?

    Rupert had a superpower: he understood that media power flows from controlling narrative. He was so vast in his hubris that only he could plead humility as the most transparent whopper imaginable. When the News of the World phone-hacking scandal caught him in 2011 and revelations emerged that his journalists had hacked the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, Rupert went public, saying he was “humbled.” And the world, weirdly, believed him. At least long enough to let him keep most of what he’d built.

    When forced to apologise, Rupert learned the vocabulary of contrition. He already knew the performative theatre. Lachlan learned the jargon, but he’s not even a ham actor.

    Now imagine trying to navigate Gotham City with half your father’s cunning, one-tenth his ruthlessness, and none of his instinctive grasp of how power actually works. Nor his theatricality. That’s Lachlan Murdoch in 2025; striding through the ruins of a media empire,

    cape-less, clueless, and surrounded by villains he can’t even name.

    Latter day Uday

    There’s something almost tragic in Lachlan Murdoch; or “Uday,” as media critic Richard Ackland memorably nicknamed him in 2003, invoking the image of Saddam Hussein’s son inheriting an empire he couldn’t actually run. Clutching the reins with one hand while the entire media kingdom staggers and weaves like one of those horses that break down in The Melbourne Cup.

    Next, the stewards will bring out the screen.

    Murdoch’s kingdom was built with ink, intimidation, and insider tips. Today, it’s a property tech company pretending to be a media dynasty, profitable only in the margins while its core business, journalism, dogs and buckles like newsprint in the rain.

    Of course, there’s a tragic twist in the tale. In September 2025, after a drawn-out legal brawl in Nevada, Rupert locks in Lachlan’s control of the empire until 2050. Sounds decisive? Hold on. A Nevada court had already ruled in December 2024 that Rupert and Lachlan had acted in “bad faith” trying to amend that supposedly irrevocable family trust.

    Bad faith. From a court. That’s not the kind of judgment you want tattooed to your name as you consolidate power.

    The family trust circus

    The settlement cost serious money: $1.1 billion per sibling to three siblings, meaning roughly $3.3 billion total to buy out their stakes. At first glance, tidy consolidation. But look closer and you’re seeing ego masquerading as strategy. The family trust’s holdings in both News Corp and Fox shrink from roughly 40% to about one-third. That’s material control leaking away, just so Lachlan can wear his father’s rapidly hollowing crown.

    And then the coup de grâce arrives. Within weeks of the settlement, the Institutional Shareholder Services; the proxy adviser whose recommendations actually move Wall Street money, tells shareholders to withhold their votes for Lachlan’s reelection to the News Corp board. It isn’t a polite suggestion. They flag his “substantial” pledges of company shares as loan collateral and rip into the dual-class share structure that disenfranchises ordinary shareholders.

    Imagine your company’s governance watchdog publicly telling the money managers not to back you. OOPS. That’s not just awkward.

    That’s the corporate equivalent of being uninvited from your own party.

    The exodus

    Two weeks before the shareholder drama landed, Siobhan McKenna, one of News Corp Australia’s top executives and Lachlan’s trusted counsellor for two decades, announced her retirement at the end of 2025. Yes, the Foxtel sale made her role as broadcasting CEO “redundant” in the formal sense. But she was far more than “just another suit.”

    McKenna was the architect who steered Sky News and Foxtel through a digital minefield that would have destroyed most managers. She had the technical skill to understand the numbers and the rare capacity to tell Lachlan “no”—and make him listen. That’s not replaceable. That’s gone. Finito. Kaput.

    McKenna followed Viet Dinh, the Fox legal mastermind who stepped down in December 2023 after the Dominion Voting Systems settlement ($787.5 million) exposed Fox News’ dangerous liaison with disinformation. Dinh wasn’t just an adviser. He was the architect, the seasoned operator who played the game while Lachlan posed for the company photograph.

    Lose one trusted counsellor and it’s bad luck. Lose both within eighteen months, and it’s a more than carelessness. It’s the loss of the architects. It’s Lachlan discovering that he can consolidate control but he can’t actually run the thing.

    Can he?

    The Foxtel play

    When News Corp sold Foxtel to DAZN in April 2025 for a $US2.2B enterprise value, the company dressed it up as strategic brilliance. And fair enough, there’s something to that. They secured $578m in shareholder loan repayment, grabbed a 6% minority stake in DAZN, and scored a board seat. CFO Lavanya Chandrashekar hailed the “balance sheet strength” and the “accretion to earnings per share.”

    The numbers look tidy. But here’s the thing: owning a minority stake in someone else’s streamer while your rivals control it isn’t owning the game anymore. It’s a retreat from direct content control, the very guts of News Corp’s Australian legacy, to a position of passive interest.

    It’s also a clear signal about what News Corp believes it can actually defend.

    Dow Jones (premium business journalism that still has paying readers), Digital Real Estate (particularly REA Group, their 61% stake in the dominant property listings platform), and Book Publishing (HarperCollins, which actually grows). Everything else is being abandoned or contracted. And property bubbles always burst while monopolies get busted.

    REA Group is where the real money is now. It dominates residential property listings in Australia, but there’s a problem: it’s currently under ACCC investigation for that very market dominance, with the regulator examining its pricing power and whether it’s exploiting its monopoly position.

    News Corp’s profit engine is profitable precisely because it’s monopolistic, and monopolies have political shelf lives. That’s not a stable foundation. That’s a sword hanging by a thread.

    Aging readers

    Here’s the uncomfortable part nobody wants to say out loud: News Corp’s core readers are old, and they’re not being replaced.

    The Australian’s average reader age is pushing toward 65. The Daily Telegraph’s readership skews similarly senior.

    These aren’t growing audiences. They’re declining cohorts.

    The substitution rate, young readers replacing old readers, is negative across print properties. This isn’t cyclical. This isn’t temporary. It’s a death spiral baked into the demographics.

    Digital audiences are younger but fragmented, underpaying, and served by competitors with better technology and deeper pockets. News Corp makes money from premium print readers. Those readers are dying. The replacement cohort prefers TikTok and YouTube. That’s not a market problem. That’s a structural irrelevance.

    Political landscape shift

    Rupert understood something fundamental: control media and politics will follow. News Corp didn’t just report elections; it made them. Front pages shaped policy decisions, swayed votes, and built governments. That was the real power, not the journalism, nor the game of mates, but the agenda-setting.

    That world is gone. Today, News Corp echoes political firebrands instead of shaping the script. Trump doesn’t need the Wall Street Journal; he has Truth Social and an army of podcasters. Real power now accrues to platforms outside traditional media,

    to figures News Corp can amplify but not control.

    Here’s what’s weird: News Corp’s Australian titles still carry political weight, but their leverage has evaporated. It’s not because they’re silent; they’re louder than ever. It’s because the Senate is now a negotiation chamber, not a rubber stamp.

    The cross-bench has learned that Murdoch doesn’t actually control their seat. Labor learned it when they got to government despite News Corp’s best efforts. The Greens and independents never believed it in the first place.

    Rupert could make Prime Ministers. Lachlan can influence headlines. That’s not the same thing.

    A dying demographic: how Murdoch is slowly killing the Liberal Party

    All about the algorithms

    Here’s something Rupert never had to deal with, but Lachlan must: Google and Meta determine what percentage of News Corp’s content actually reaches its intended audience. News Corp publishes 8+ billion page-views monthly, but which readers see those page-views depends on algorithmic decisions made in Silicon Valley that News Corp has no influence over.

    Google could reduce News Corp traffic by 50% tomorrow and face no consequences. Meta could down-rank News Corp content to irrelevance. These platforms have all the power; News Corp has none. The company can’t threaten them, can’t negotiate from strength, can’t even ensure distribution of what it publishes.

    That’s not just a distribution problem. That’s the complete inversion of the power relationship that built News Corp’s empire.

    Let’s be blunt: traditional media is dying

    and no amount of Lachlan’s ego or corporate strategy stops it. The business model that fuelled Rupert’s empire – mass audiences, mass advertising, mass influence – is shattered. Audiences have splintered across infinite platforms. Advertisers followed the eyeballs. The cash dried up.

    As Hemingway once observed about bankruptcy, it happens “two ways. Gradually, then all at once.” News Corp is in the gradual phase, the phase where earnings still beat consensus and the board still congratulates itself, but the trajectory is unmistakable.

    The company’s real growth asset isn’t journalism. It’s REA Group, digital real estate classifieds. News Corp is morphing quietly into a property tech firm with legacy journalism assets that used to subsidise profits but now just burn cash.

    That’s not a media company anymore.

    It’s a real estate company with very expensive baggage.

    A hollow victory

    November 2025 earnings did beat forecasts, adjusted EPS of 22 cents versus 19 cents predicted. That’s decent. But look at the longer picture: share price down 7.98% year-on-year and 8.54% in October alone. Not a train wreck yet. More like slow choking. The stock isn’t collapsing; it’s being gradually repriced downward as markets slowly accept that this is a declining business that’s not going to turn around.

    News Corp isn’t dead, yet. It’s still profitable. It still owns precious mastheads. It’s still diversified with real growth assets in property tech.

    But is it dying? Absolutely. The erosion comes from inside, slow, steady, and structural.

    Uday’s, aka Lachlan Murdoch‘s, consolidation looks like a victory on paper. But what is he actually controlling? The keys to a castle whose walls are crumbling.

    Republished with permission. Read the full version here.

    Fake news, old habits. Can Murdoch journalism be unlearned at the ABC?

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Doctor with stethoscope. Image: Online Marketing, Unsplash

    Lavish spending, a board-room brawl, bullying allegations and a court stoush, a suite of EGMs and doctored documents have the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in crisis. Michael West investigates. 

    On June 26, directors and top executives from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) gathered for dinner at the swish Bambini Restaurant nestled above Sydney’s Hyde park within the grand sandstone of the St James Trust Building.

    The bill came to around $6,000 so the top brass must have partaken of Bambini’s ‘award-winning wine list’ as well as its captivating culinary experience, sophisticated ambience and ‘Parisian charm’. It was a convivial evening whose festivities did not portend the intrigue which was to follow.

    Move against whistleblower

    The very next day, the chair Jennifer Martin and her allies called for an extraordinary general meeting to split the role of RACP president and chair, a move designed to stop popular director turned whistleblower Dr Sharmila Chandran from becoming chair of the Board.

    This set in train a tumultuous board stoush at the top of Australia’s peak medical body with allegations of bullying and dubious corporate practices which has since spilt into the courts, the court even closing proceedings to the media.

    Documents obtained by MWM show alarming irregularities in corporate governance by the Board, including excessive spending, altered Minutes of Meeting, failure to keep the RACP’s 32,000 members informed and the ignoring of external legal advice on good governance.

    Fair Work secret bullying proceedings

    Fast forward four months and at a three-day hearing of the Fair Work Commission in October Dr Chandran, who had brought whistleblower claims of bullying against the chair Professor Martin, was herself grilled in the witness box for two and a half of those days.

    Chandran was the only witness to be cross examined and, not only did counsel for the College succeed in their request to close the Court for confidentiality, the whistleblower’s lawyers were not permitted to question the other side. 

    Curiously, the media was turfed out at the request of the RACP and, despite Dr Chandran’s claim of bullying in the workplace, she was forced to endure a harrowing 15 hours in the witness box. The matter has been held over until next year.

    In the meantime, in the wake of the Fair Work hearing, Dr Chandran was re-elected with a handsome majority to the Board, despite the Board’s efforts to depose her. 

    An EGM … make that three

    The next chapter in this extraordinary board spat is likely to draw the ire of many of the College’s members as another EGM is set down for later this month, November 26, at which the Board is again attempting to have her removed as a director.

    All this has come at a high cost, and staff at RACP have come under enormous pressure.

    MWM has obtained evidence which shows an extravagant spend by the Board, an extravagant over-spend that is above the RACP Governance Budget, on lawyers and EGMs.

    Among the more than $1m in estimated costs is $250,000 on the three EGMs brought to stop Dr Chandran from becoming chair and well over $300,000 for law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.

    MWM has put questions to RACP (see questions and responses below). RACP did not directly respond to questions but chair Professor Martin provided a statement which said the College “remained committed to good governance” and noted in respect of the treatment of Dr Chandran: 

    “College funds have not been used to “shut down” any person. All actions taken by the Board have been directed to ensuring the proper functioning of governance.”

    Jigging the Charter

    Further to the governance saga, MWM has viewed changes made by the Chair to the RACP Charter. The new Charter of May 2, 2025 made many changes including inserting clauses to provide for the chair and/or the treasurer to investigate directors. It is an unusual conflict of interest for, for instance, a chair to spend an organisation’s resources to personally investigate a director.

    It is also unusual, perhaps counter to the Corporations Act (S203C), for the Board to have powers to dismiss a director. Normally, it is the Regulator who deploys this power, not directors of a company.

    The squeamish Requisition

    In September 2025 The Board announced it had 100 ‘requisitioners’ signed up to remove Dr Chandran and, later in the same month, announced the second EGM called to remove her, yet the Board did not publish the list of requisitioners to members.. MWM has seen governance advice by an external law firm saying the Board had a legal obligation to ‘publish the lists’.

    Tensions had been festering for some time on the College Board. At the meeting in May this year, things had boiled over when the company secretary was impeded in doing her job and the Chair sought to control who was in and out of the meeting. 

    According to sources, the Chair removed comments made at the meeting made by Dr Chandran even though they had been included earlier in the minutes, as is routine corporate governance practice, by the company secretary.

    Having spent $250,000 already on two EGMs to remove Dr Chandran, unsuccessfully, another estimated $200,000 will be spent by the RACP on the November meeting, again with the aim of removing the whistleblower from the Board.

    The only resolution of the looming November meeting is to remove her, this despite the failed motion on October 31 where Dr Chandran romped back in with 65% of the vote (8,200 votes) despite all the Chair’s efforts.


    Response to questions by Professor Jennifer Martin, chair of Board and President of RACP

    We recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in all aspects of governance.

    In recent years, like many member-based organisations, the RACP has faced complex governance issues and at Board level a high degree of conflict, and recently, disruption.
    This has required independent legal and procedural advice. All expenditure has been approved in accordance with financial delegations and subject to external audit.

    Expenditure on independent professional advice or meetings convened under the Corporations Act has been necessary to uphold those obligations, not to advance any individual interest.

    College funds have not been used to “shut down” any person. All actions taken by the Board have been directed to ensuring the proper functioning of governance.

    The ACNC and ASIC continue to have independent oversight of the College and its directors.

    It’s inappropriate to comment publicly on internal deliberations or on individual directors’ remarks.
    The College’s governance processes include mechanisms for any director to raise concerns about minutes, and those processes were followed.

    We remain committed to transparency and good governance but not at the expense of appropriate Boardroom confidentiality and will continue to report financial and governance performance through audited annual reports and communications to members.

    The questions which were asked

    1. MWM has seen email evidence of significant RACP governance spending above Budget (c $1m), much of it has been spent on lawyers and EGMs dealing with the Dr Chandran matter. Could the chair provide her view on how this level of spending of members’ money is justified?
    1. Do you agree that this amounts to spending money to shut Dr Shandran down?
    1. MWM has viewed changes made by the Chair to the RACP Constitution. The new Charter of May 7, 2025 made a lot of changes. How do you justify the changes in 11.2 which provide for directors to have each other investigated? Is it a conflict of interest for the Chair to spend College resources investigating a director (11.2)?
    1. 11.3 provides that a director found to be in breach can be dismissed by the Board. Is it not the Regulator, rather than the Board, which has and should have the powers to dismiss a director (Corps Act 203C)?
    1. According to the KWM governance advice to RACP regarding the requisitioners to remove Dr Chandran, the Board has an obligation to “publish the lists”. Has this been done, and if not why not?
    1. Should not this information be available to all RACP members?
    1. Could you please provide the names of those 100 who signed the requisition?
    1. Regarding the Board meeting in May, could RACP please explain on what basis the Chair altered the minutes of the meeting afterwards, adding that “the Chair abstained” from a vote on the RAO report? Also, why were comments made by Dr Chandran removed from the minutes?
    1. Was a complaint made about the changing of the Minutes, and how was this complaint dealt with?
    1. Has the Board taken legal advice on the Chair altering minutes of meeting and regarding the changes to the Constitution? What is this advice and who provided the advice?

    Physician heal thyself: Royal College power-struggle spills into Court

     

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Trelawney Parish sits in a rural, agricultural region of Western Jamaica that borders the country’s largest contiguous rainforest. Under normal circumstances, the parish is relentlessly green — covered in lush vegetation and long rows of orange trees — but the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa has “almost completely annihilated” the area, according to firefighter Ronell Hamilton. “Everything here is brown right now. It looks like California.”

    The strongest storm to strike Jamaica in recorded history, Melissa arrived on the island last week as a Category 5 storm with wind speeds of 185 miles per hour. As of press time, at least 67 people had been killed — 32 in Jamaica, 34 from flooding in Haiti, and one in the Dominican Republic — and thousands of homes have been flattened. In Black River, a coastal community south of Trelawney that is being called the storm’s epicenter, an estimated 90 percent of structures were destroyed. Thirty miles north, in Wakefield, Hamilton says that even buildings built to serve as hurricane shelters, such as the school and the fire station, were severely damaged. 

    Climate change is making monster storms like Melissa more powerful by supercharging the meteorological elements in which they thrive: Warming ocean waters feed hurricanes, as does warming air. Studies have shown that the atmosphere can hold 7 percent more moisture for every 1 degree Celsius of warming. Elevated wind speeds allow storms to carry more moisture as well, leaving devastating flooding in their wake. A rapid analysis from Imperial College London found that climate change made a massive storm like Melissa 4 times more likely. Another report from the research group World Weather Attribution found that it increased wind speeds by 11 percent and rainfall by 16 percent relative to a world without global warming.

    Early estimates indicate the storm may have caused up to $4 billion in insured losses and about $7 billion total in Jamaica alone. Much of the country is still without electricity or cell phone service and many roads remain impassable, so the full extent of the destruction has yet to be evaluated.

    As wrenching as the storm has been, Jamaica is well aware of its vulnerabilities in a warming world and has spent decades carefully planning for just this kind of a scenario. As a result, it’s in a unique position to secure many of the resources it needs for its recovery. The country has built up a multi-layered system of financial protection since Hurricane Gilbert hit in 1988 and, experts say, its response could serve as a model for other island nations looking to build secure financial infrastructure that will ensure they can respond to disasters quickly. 

    At the center of this system is a $150 million “catastrophe bond,” which the country first issued to investors in 2021 and renewed last year. It will now be paid out in full to help support the country’s recovery. Catastrophe bonds appeal to investors because they offer a high reward in the form of elevated interest rates, in exchange for high risk — namely, the risk that the catastrophe will occur and trigger a monster payout from the investors. The bonds are generally set to expire in three to five years. If no disaster occurs during that period, the investors recover their initial investment as well as the exorbitant interest it has accrued. But if a storm does hit, all of the money goes to the affected country. 

    These bonds are attractive to buyers because they’re totally disconnected from the rest of the financial market; during the Great Recession that began in 2008, for example, catastrophe bonds became a popular financial instrument because they were still producing high yields even as benchmark interest rates were nearly 0 percent. And if all goes well, they can be enormously lucrative. They’re attractive to countries like Jamaica, because they can be triggered according to parametric standards, meaning once a storm hits a predefined limit, such as central pressure at or below 900 millibars, the money is automatically released. 

    The catastrophe bond market has been growing since Hurricane Andrew hit Florida in 1992. At the time, it was the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history, and insurance proved unable to cover the full cost of the storm. “The idea was to then put some of that risk into the financial markets,” said Carolyn Kousky, associate vice president for economics and policy at the Environmental Defense Fund. Jamaica is unique, said Kousky, because it has “made this really beautiful stack [of financing tools] to cover disasters.”

    In addition to the catastrophe bond, the country has built up its own emergency contingency budget, taken out parametric insurance with the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility, or CCRIF, and prearranged for a credit line in case of emergencies. (The CCRIF policy pays out rapidly for a range of types of hurricane damage, whereas the catastrophe bond is only triggered by the most extreme storms.) This level of planning, said Kousky, grew out of a “growing recognition that relying on disaster aid is not a great strategy, because disaster aid often takes a long time to get to countries and can sometimes be ill matched to need.” A steady stream of pre-secured cash can help vulnerable nations better navigate these kinds of horrific events.  

    “The question is whether this would be available again,” said Sara Jane Ahmed, the managing director and finance advisor to the V20 Ministers of Finance, which represent the world’s most climate-vulnerable economies, who warned that a payout so large could scare off financial interests. Ahmed added that rebuilding with more resilient infrastructure could help make a new bond more appealing.

    Investing in catastrophe bonds is essentially playing Russian Roulette with air pressure — even a storm as strong as Hurricane Beryl, which made landfall near Jamaica last year as a Category 4, did not quite meet the threshold for a payout. And as climate change causes storms to grow stronger, investors could shy away from catastrophe bonds or insist on even higher interest rates and more stringent metrics for a payout. 

    “People are looking for a silver bullet for all these things and everything has a tradeoff,” said Jeff Schlegelmilch, director of Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness.

    “The biggest problem with catastrophe bonds is that they come after the disaster, not before, to prevent it from happening, [which] is where the money is needed most,” he said, pointing to infrastructure upgrades, seawalls, and other hurricane-proofing measures as areas where catastrophe bond investors could also support adaptation efforts before the storm — and reduce their own risk of a bond payout in the process. “If these same companies are investing in catastrophe bonds, and they don’t want to see the payouts, then better investment in preventing the disaster to begin with is the best way to kind of protect that investment. We need it on all sides.” 

    The question of how to pull investors into the adaptation market is “an ongoing challenge,” said Kousky. “When you invest in climate adaptation and risk reduction … you’re reducing future losses, but avoided losses are not really a cash flow.”

    Tweaking catastrophe bonds to direct a small amount of their interest back to the issuing state or country could offer one solution. On Oak Island in North Carolina, for example, the North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association has sponsored a catastrophe bond that includes a resilience feature. When no catastrophe strikes and investors collect their yearly returns, a portion of their profits are put towards funding home hardening upgrades, like hurricane-fortified roofs. 

    “We’re always going to have disasters,” said Schlegelmilch. “But they don’t have to be as bad as they are.” 

    How Jamaica’s recovery will play out on the ground remains to be seen. The damages look like they will exceed even the country’s carefully planned financial safety net. A week after the storm, “there’s still no electricity, still no water,” said Hamilton, the firefighter in Trelawney Parish. “Food is running out.” 

    Editor’s note: The Environmental Defense Fund is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline After Hurricane Melissa, Jamaica’s climate resilience plan faces its biggest test yet on Nov 7, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Gambling 'help'.

    Sports podcasters who “ought to know better” are enthusiastically promoting online gambling (with all its consequences). Andrew Gardiner reports. 

    Still looking for that tiny corner of Australian society, politics and sports media our ubiquitous gambling industry hasn’t reached? Here’s a pro tip: sports podcasts aren’t where you’re likely to find it.  

    Problem gambling has established causal links with depression, anxiety and suicide. Yet sports podcasters – some of whom revealed their own experiences of mental illness not long ago – have been happy to take the money and shut up about problem gambling. 

    Take former AFL ruckman/forward Daniel Gorringe (who revealed last year he “wanted to be injured” to avoid the pressure of performing up to his status as a top 10 draft pick) and his former co-host (and teammate) Dylan Buckley, who spoke of “vomiting and intrusive thoughts” pre-match, at one stage wishing he would be hurt on-field “and not have to play for six weeks”. Gorringe hosts Dan Does Footy, Australia’s top sports podcast.

    Axed by Carlton in 2017, and out of the AFL, Gorringe found himself with “nothing in the bank, no purpose anymore … and it got to a real bad spot where I was seriously considering not wanting to be here”.

    An ambassador for mental health training program Tackle Your Feelings, he shows clear empathy for those who have been on the journey – common among athletes – of performance anxiety and severe depression. 

    The elephant in the studio

    But what of others among the one in six Australians who seriously contemplate suicide, who weren’t elite athletes and took a different path to that same dark place? On air at least, the now-feuding Gorringe and Buckley ignore the elephant in the studio: problem gambling, a known suicide precursor

    In fact, Gorringe and others actively enable it.  

    “Together we ride the wave of each bet,” he told Sportsbet’s website. That’s right, readers: Daniel Gorringe, ‘independent’ podcaster with experiences of suicidal ideation, is the online face of Sportsbet, a leading gambling website accused of promoting a known cause of suicide. 

    Sportsbet also sponsors Gorringe’s  NRL counterpart, Get ‘Em Onside, where the website’s trader, Sean, previews the weekend’s rugby league betting action. Its sponsorship dollars don’t end when the footy does, with popular cricket podcast The Grubs also a member of the vast Sportsbet stable. 

    Get ‘Em Onside

    In return, Gorringe and former NRL playmaker Joel Caine (from Get ‘Em Onside) provide insights, tips, and betting analysis via the company’s online tipping platform. 

    Not to be outdone, Buckley co-founded Producey, a podcast producer, and Clubby, a sports network which “helps brands reach one of the hardest audiences to market to and connect with – the 18-34 year old male”. There, he was joined by Sportsbet’s former head of partnerships, Adam Pattison.

    Podcasts on the Clubby roster include 200 PLUS, another Sportsbet cohort which went to extraordinary lengths to promote the thorny sport of greyhound racing by buying an actual greyhound, Conqueror, and offering shares in the dog to its audience. “Keep up to date with all things racing and the people’s dog, Conqueror!”, the podcast proudly proclaims

    Another Clubby stablemate, comedian Broden Kelly (who hosts The Footy with Bro), explains gambling’s sway over sports podcasters. Success in that medium is “hard to sustain unless you’re at the ABC or take gambling money”, he posted

    “Gambling companies target vulnerable creators and their ad space”. 

    Image: Andrew Gardiner

    Media and law graduate ‘Tim’ of Adelaide, who brought MWM’s attention to what he called Gorringe and others’ “hypocrisy” on gambling, hit rock bottom himself just 12 months ago. “I attempted suicide in October 2024 and I am so glad that I failed; I love my life (and) am now at a stage where I feel I can help others”, he said. 

    Saturation gambling ads in sports (which target 18-34 year old males like Tim) are a particular peeve of his. Tim finds it hard to believe young men like Gorringe, who contemplated suicide, can promote activities that place others in danger of the same fate. 

    He also loathes politicians who effectively turn a blind eye. “MPs from both of the major parties take blood money from gambling websites, so they’re allowed to operate unregulated. It’s disgusting,” he said. 

    Yet … gambling ad reforms stalled

    Canberra has yet to formally respond to the 31 recommendations in 2023’s ‘You win some, you lose more’ report, such as an hour-long blackout on ads before live sports broadcasts, and a limit of two ads per hour outside of this. Nonetheless, arguments for some kind of regulation seem compelling: the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation says there were 948 gambling ads daily on the state’s free-to-air television in 2021. 

    But Tim says any new regulations on ads won’t impact the gambling companies’ online presence, adding that whatever rules emerge will do little to slow down the juggernaut that is online sports betting.  

    Tim and MWM sent a number of questions to Clubby Sports, the most urgent of which were whether or not the company had put in place any strategies to mitigate the downside of sports betting, and what it was doing to support young males struggling with their mental health. We had not heard back from them by publication time. 

    “I watched (September’s AFL Grand Final) with 20 of my best mates”, Tim said. “About 80 per cent of the room placed bets on the game through the Sportsbet app”.

    “That was harrowing”. 

    Isolated … trapped

    A case study on the influence and impact of online sports betting is ‘Jack’, whose shocking story aired on The Imperfects podcast in 2023. Listeners were shocked by some of the tactics employed by companies to exploit ’Jack’s’ vulnerability. 

    “When I was at my worst and I didn’t have much money to my name … they would call me every couple of days”, ‘Jack’ said. “I had a personal contact at the betting company and they’d call me and they’d say, ‘Jack if you deposit $100, we’ll give you $300 extra dollars, could you do that now?’”.

    “I was living pay to pay, as a gambler I would get sucked in. So I’d deposit (the money) and that money would last maybe a couple of hours max and then I’d be back to square one”. 

    “At one point, I got a phone call: ‘Jack, do you enjoy your AFL? We can see you bet on it quite a bit. Do you want a couple of tickets to the footy this weekend? You can come into the box’.”

    “Because I felt so isolated and trapped from my gambling (addiction), having that person (make an offer like that) made me feel special”.  But ‘Jack’ knows the low points, too, where that short-term buzz of excitement gives way to a brutal reality of financial strain, relationship problems, mental health decline, stress-related health issues, potential legal entanglements and, yes, thoughts of self-harm or suicide. 

    ‘Jack’ is just one of the 9.3 per cent of Australian men (and rising) who bet on sports, a large number of whom wind up attempting suicide. “(It’s) the sure way of getting nothing for something”, American playwright Wilson Mizner once wrote.   

    The process of recruiting vulnerable Australians like Jack begins with the galaxy of retired stars and media personalities on the sports gambling payroll, happily providing tips or producing content on anything from television screens to streaming audio. But Tim’s especially venomous when it comes to podcasters with mental health histories of their own. 

     “Daniel Gorringe contemplated suicide, and Dylan Buckley was in a tough place too. They ought to know better”.

    Revealed: 239 million reasons gambling reforms are being smothered

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Smart metering

    Electricians working on the national smart meter rollout told MWM in June that low rates were putting lives at risk. Now, they report things are getting worse. Zach Szumer with the story.

    The nation’s accelerated smart meter rollout could turn tragic or face a shortage of workers, with a fresh round of rate cuts further worsening conditions in the sector, electricians have told MWM

     The government wants every house in Australia to be fitted with a smart meter by 2030 and, with less than 50 per cent of homes in states like NSW, SA and QLD having the new meters, new rules have been introduced to speed up the rollout. 

    Already, homeowners in much of Australia can no longer refuse to have a smart meter installed, and a new round of additional rules will kick in on December 1

    By that date, over 170 meter installers will also have to find a new source of income as the company they work under has lost its contract with Intellihub – a metering company co-owned by massive private equity firms Brookfield and Pacific Equity Partners.

    Smart meters not so smart for underpaid installers

    One Service Stream contractor, Richard, told MWM the company “didn’t think it was ethical to lower rates any further than what they were based on the work that we do and that cost them the contract”.

    Some said the news came as a shock, as they had been told in August 2023 that Service Stream had secured a four-year agreement with Intellihub.

    MWM has seen a copy of a 1 August 2023 email confirming the announcement.

    The big squeeze

    As we reported, low pay rates were “driving technicians to rush work under unsafe conditions that could lead to serious injury or death,” as one put it.

    Many believe Intellihub’s latest round of rate cuts will make things worse.

    One Service Stream contractor, Francis*, told MWM: “Intellihub’s just squeezing the companies below them like Service Stream and then Service Stream squeezes us as the techs.”

    However, he doesn’t have much hope that change will come from above. “I don’t think anything’s going to happen unless something tragic happens,

    like someone dies or some damage to property occurs …

    “In terms of people cutting corners, because rates have dropped quite a lot, quite substantially, some techs have said to me things like, ‘Oh, I just skip the testing altogether if I have to, if I’m running too far behind’”.

    “I’m sure not every technician is doing that, but at the end of the day, if you rush people enough and they’re going backwards and they’re losing money because they’re not completing enough jobs because the jobs aren’t paid well enough, then of course people are going to skip steps”.

    Another Service Stream contractor, Alexander*, said “deaths from electrical shock, houses burning down for electrical faults” were possible if things continued as they are.

    Several electricians said the new rates – which flatten out the extra pay they previously received for ‘additional services’ – gave them far less incentive to repair electrical faults they discovered during installations.

    Accelerated rollout speed bumps?

    Both Francis and Alexander said the accelerated smart meter rollout could suffer from an exodus of qualified technicians.

    “With rates where they are today, with the changes, I don’t see why anyone would want to stay in the industry,” Francis said.

    Alexander said,

    it’s very hard to see businesses being profitable on the rates that are being offered.

    “But I feel that some people, unfortunately, might be forced into having to take those options, and I feel that that’s kind of what Intellihub are hoping.”

    “I feel it’s been a very selective and devious decision to employ these new standards, if you will, so close to Christmas, when everybody’s really relying on getting those funds in at that time of year”.

    ‘Pivotal’: major update on $4.8b renewables project

    Roger*, who works for a company that will continue to work with Intellihub, agreed, saying: “I reckon a lot of people will quit”.
    Based on the new Intellihub contractor rate card he’d been given, his income would decrease by around 30 per cent, he said.
    “I won’t return to metering based on these numbers; it’s too unsafe and underpaid.”

    He said the situation was redolent of the federal government’s pink batts scheme, the Rudd-Labor government’s rollout of home insulation that led to multiple deaths and hundreds of house fires.

    Who’s watching the market?

    Several months ago, after hearing electricians’ concerns about Intellihub’s growing dominance of the metering industry, MWM sought data on the company’s market share from the three bodies that oversee Australia’s energy markets.

    All three – the Australian Energy Market Commission, Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and Australian Energy Regulator (AER) – said they didn’t have this information.

    Starring role for households in least-cost transition

    Intellihub was also contacted – and asked about its market share, as well as a response to electricians’ complaints – but has yet to provide an answer.

    Several years ago, an Intellihub representative provided the ACCC with an estimate that, as of 31 December 2022, the company had a roughly 20-30% share of smart meters deployed to energy retailers across the National Energy Market.

    *All names have been changed at the request of those interviewed.

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • AI. 3D render of AI and GPU processors. Igor Omilaev: Unsplash

    “Keeping perspective” is Michael Pascoe’s mantra. He writes that AI mania has not just warped perspective, it risks blowing up reality.

    Over more decades than I care to count of market watching and reporting, I haven’t seen a time when there’s been more wide-spread conviction that we’re experiencing a dangerous bubble that’s sure to pop, yet the money keeps pouring in to inflate it. 

    The lead up to the “Crash of 87”, now viewed in the rearview mirror as a minor hiccup, was relatively muted. Not even the “dot bomb” bubble at the turn of the century, when all a company had to do to get a share price boost was to add “e” or “dotcom” to its name, was as widely perceived as over-cooked as the present outlook. 

    “This time it’s different”

    This time round there is vastly more money chasing itself with a circular investment boom at its core built on promises of revolution and, inevitably, that “this time it’s different”. This time round there are trillions of dollars being splurged on a heady mix of momentum riding, FOMO (fear of missing out), and massive bets that the first movers will win all. 

    There are the market telltales of sky-high valuations for inexperienced startups merely intending to build data centres or AI-somethings, but they are sideshows, mere flotsom that will be blown away when the reckoning occurs, as the shells and frauds were when the dot bomb burst. 

    As a general rule, things tend to turn out to be not as bad as you fear or as good as you hope.

    This time round, the hope is about the level of bad.

    The serious game is the impact both the reckoning and the AI promises will have on the real economy, on employment and wealth. That’s where the potential is for a GFC-scale event, not a piddling ’87 or dot bomb. 

    And this time round, still carrying the cost of all their COVID efforts, governments and central banks will be less able to ameliorate the pain. We’re already reaping the result of a global easing cycle with global government deficit spending fuelling asset inflation with its subsequent wealth effect. After what was, with the benefit of hindsight, overcompensation during COVID, the ammo isn’t there to fight another shock.

    Two quite different articles this month have highlighted the impossibility of the nirvana being promised by the AI investment promoters. Former colleague Alan Kohler writing for the ABC was the bleakest, seeing a future where a GFC-size bust is the least-worst option. 

    Returns not there

    The other is a note to clients by independent economist Gerard Minack showing the AI spend simply can’t generate the returns for investors  to justify it. 

    I’ll come back to that. Kohler first, adding the AI and crypto bubbles together for frightening numbers:

    Somewhere between $3 trillion and $6 trillion has been invested in building AI infrastructure and software, and that has been responsible for almost all US economic growth over the past year.

    The top 10 American AI companies have provided most of the US stock market’s gains over the past two years and are now valued at $35 trillion, almost half the total market.

    Meanwhile there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies worth $5.8 trillion, of which Bitcoin represents more than half.

    The total cash in the AI and crypto bets is more than a quarter of global GDP; it’s probably the greatest technology investment boom/bubble in history.

    No probably about it, in my opinion. It would not take a total crash to send shocks through the financial and real economies.

    Jobs armageddon the quid pro quo

    But Kohler’s Doomsday outcome is that it would be worse if the investment ends up being justified by profits created as it would create massive longterm unemployment for the many while the very few at the top continue on their present path of becoming even more unimaginably rich. 

    Gerard Minack’s note has a smaller focus and thus more concrete outcome: there’s a lot of capital being burned. 

    Minack limits his numbers to the “AI8” listed entities, Alphabet, Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Broadcom, Nvidia and Palantir. In this bubble phase, investors keep rewarding companies that increase planned AI-related investment spending. But:

    “The larger the investment spend, the greater the revenue that will need to be generated to ensure an adequate return on that investment. In my view that revenue hurdle is already implausibly high. Whatever the technical wonders that AI will generate, the investment returns will disappoint. That will inevitably lead to significant market losses.”

    Greatly simplyfying Minack’s analysis, the AI8 will conservatively have investment stock of more than US$1 trillion by the end of next year. That’s allowing for 20 per cent depreciation on an investment spend heading above US$2 trillion in 2027. (And a reminder that this is ignoring the investment spending of unlisted companies such as Open AI.)

    $1T for a 10% return

    So how much revenue will their AI businesses need to generate to get a reasonable return on this stock of invested capital? I’ll skip the details of Minack’s figuring but AI would need revenue of some US$925 billion a year to achieve a modest 10 per cent return on invested capital. And that return compares with the hyper-scalers’ current 25 per cent ROIC. 

    By comparison, Minack quotes Praetorian Capital’s Harry Kupperman’s observation that the incredibly successful Microsoft Office 365 subscription services had revenue of US$94 billion last year. 

    “In other words, to achieve an average ROIC, the AI industry will need to support 7-10 firms with businesses as widely deployed, and widely subscribed to, as Office 365.”

    And then it gets harder. If the hyper-scalers’ current 50 per cent gross margin falls closer to the S&P500 average, they would require additional revenue of US$1.2-$1.6 trillion. As Minack concludes, “good luck with that”.

    A further complication is that AI will cannibalise much of the hyper-scalers’ existing businesses. 

    I would further speculate about what competition between that many players would do to margins. There’s also the well-reported phenomenon of much of the AI splurge being circular – the major players are hanging out and taking in a lot of each other’s washing.

    Show me the money

    It’s all good fun until investors reach the imminent “show me the money” stage and the music stops. 

    That’s when the big boys take a hit and the fringe players, the bubble startups, lose their shirts. 

    As for the concurrent crypto-bubble, RBA Governor Bullock last week pointed to the challenge for the financial system’s security if quantum computing ever effectively works. 

    “If you believe what they say on the tin of quantum computing, what takes 200 years to decrypt now, to break, will take a matter of minutes. So it is a big threat,” she said. 

    Decrypted crypto is no crypto at all. 

    And the Toddler King

    Then there is the little matter of the world’s biggest economy being run by a febrile toddler king and a mob of self-enriching accomplices. 

    It all adds up to the biggest mystery: how markets are so willingly charging higher to yet more records regardless of risk with the biggest gains at the riskiest end.

    On one hand there’s the view that the reckoning is always a little further off. On the other, the second law of “old bond dog” Anthony Peters comes to mind:

    “Nobody gets fired for being long a falling market, but woe betide anyone short a rising market.”

    Good luck with that, too. 

    All the way with Donald J. Albo supporting mass murder

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Starmer’s announcement on visit to Ankara comes as jailed opposition leader Ekrem İmamoğlu faces fresh charges

    Britain has agreed to sell 20 Typhoon fighter jets to Turkey in an £8bn deal despite concerns about alleged human rights violations by its government.

    Keir Starmer signed the deal during a visit on Monday to Ankara to meet the country’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The prime minister said the deal would boost the Nato alliance, despite criticism of Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian administration.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Ministers hope to secure a deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council that could add £1.6bn to the UK economy

    Rachel Reeves will lead a delegation of senior business leaders to Saudi Arabia on Monday as she hopes to deepen the UK’s relationship with a state that has been widely criticised for human rights abuses.

    She is the first UK chancellor to visit the Gulf in six years and is expected to meet senior Saudi royals, US administration representatives and global business figures.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    New Zealand’s Space Minister Judith Collins was warned just two months into Israel’s war on Gaza that new BlackSky satellites being launched from NZ could be used by that country’s military, reports Television New Zealand’s 1News.

    According to a network news item on Friday, government documents showed officials had recommended the launches go ahead in spite of risks, saying there were no restrictions on trade with Israel.

    Minister Collins gave the green light and RocketLab began launching the the Gen-3 BlackSky satellites from Mahia Peninsula earlier this year.

    In the documents, obtained by 1News political reporter Benedict Collins under the Official Information Act, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials said while there were risks, the positives outweighed the negatives.

    The officials’ advice on the satellite launches stated: “While it poses risks, there is a net good associated with commercially available remote sensing due to the wide range of applications,” 1News said.

    One risk they identified related to Israel, but they said there were mitigating factors.

    “There are no United Nations Security Council sanctions on Israel, and New Zealand does not implement autonomous sanctions outside the context of the conflict in Ukraine,” they advised the minister.

    “There are also no policy restrictions on New Zealand’s trading relationship with Israel.”

    World court warnings
    However, over the two years of war on Gaza since 7 October 2023, several nonbinding legal opinions by the world’s highest court and UN agencies have warned Israel about its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and also warned countries and companies about complicity with the pariah Zionist state.

    In the latest ruling this week, the International Court of Justice said Israel was obliged to ease the passage of aid into Gaza, stressing it had to provide Palestinians with “basic needs” essential to survival.

    The wide-ranging ICJ ruling came as aid groups were scrambling to scale up much-needed humanitarian assistance into Gaza, seizing upon a fragile ceasefire agreed earlier this month.

    ICJ judges are also weighing accusations, brought by South Africa, that Israel has broken the 1948 UN Genocide Convention with its actions in Gaza.

    Another court in The Hague, the International Criminal Court (ICC), has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    According to 1News, the NZ documents also show that when MBIE officials recommended the application be approved they were aware experts at the UN were warning a possible genocide could unfold in Gaza and that schools and hospitals were being bombed.

    ‘Appalling’ decision
    The officials’ advice came in December 2023, two months after the Hamas attacks on Israel which left 1200 people dead. Israel in response launched a retaliatory offensive in Gaza that has killed more than 68,000 people, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

    Minister Collins said this week the decision had been the right one.

    “We don’t have sanctions on Israel, we’re not at war with Israel, Israel is not our enemy,” she said.

    But Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said it was an “appalling” decision that could fuel human rights abuses, reports 1News.

    Officials at New Zealand’s space agency declined to be interviewed by 1News about Blacksky and RocketLab did not respond to a request for an interview with its founder Sir Peter Beck.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A wave of AI-created videos online are pushing claims of a migrant invasion and election rigging: AAP

    A wave of similar AI-generated avatar videos is spreading online claiming a “migrant invasion” and that a “civil riot” is coming from “hard-working Australians. Rachel Jackson from AAP FactCheck investigates.

    She looks every bit the city professional – sharp blazer, confident tone, polished backdrop.

    But the woman issuing a rallying cry for this weekend’s anti-immigration marches and the end to Australia’s “invasion” hasn’t just stepped out of a CBD boardroom.

    She’s a digital creation conjured by a few words fed into an artificial intelligence video generator.

    An AAP FactCheck investigation reveals a wave of similar AI-generated avatar videos spreading online, pushing claims of a “migrant invasion” and election rigging, sometimes with violent overtones.

    In one video, a gun-toting man stands before a cheering crowd, warning that a “civil riot” is coming from “hard-working Australians”.

    A TikTok user has several AI-generated videos opposing immigration and tobacco and alcohol taxes

    A TikTok user has several AI-generated videos opposing immigration and tobacco and alcohol taxes

    AAP FactCheck analysed content from two main accounts: LoveMyAu primarily features young, professional-looking female AI avatars across TikTok, X and Facebook; while SaltyHypsi showcases young Anglo-Australian men, often dressed in military gear on TikTok.

    Many of the LoveMyAu videos promote anti-immigration March for Australia events, the latest of which was on Sunday.

    “We must resist or we cease to exist,” a blue-suited woman says as she looks into the camera in one video.

    “Invasions have never been welcomed,” declares another.

    “Invaders do not get to walk in and take countries unopposed.”

    Another video, which has attracted more than 70,000 views, shows a series of smartly dressed women strolling along a boardwalk, delivering lines reminiscent of a political broadcast.

    “I believe the government has used mass immigration to manipulate election results,” one says.

    The videos often appear like a slick political broadcast but are entirely created using AI

    The videos often appear like a slick political broadcast but are entirely created using AI

    Other videos from the same account use similar avatars to accuse the government of throwing “our own people” to the streets to house migrants and urge Australians to “fight, fight, fight” or lose everything.

    While the avatars are lifelike, they bear familiar AI hallmarks – unnaturally smooth skin, inconsistent lighting and shadows, while the lip-syncing is slightly off. Some clips still display the Veo watermark, identifying Google’s AI video generator.

    The SaltyHypsi account includes avatars of soldiers, men addressing rallies and figures prompting viewers to sign petitions against digital ID and taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

    One video with more than 60,000 views shows a man in body armour holding a gun before a crowd waving Australian flags.

    “Our prime minister is refusing to take Australian citizens seriously,” he says.

    “A civil riot is what is coming from hard-working Australians.”

    In another, a man seemingly standing in the Australian bush declares: “Australia, the time for marching has ended and taking action might be our final chance to protect Australia and the future of our children”.

    One AI-created avatar wears an army-green T-shirt while stating "the time for marching has ended".

    One AI-created avatar wears an army-green T-shirt while stating “the time for marching has ended”.

    AAP FactCheck put a series of questions to both accounts but did not receive a response.

    Such videos can be created in seconds by typing a prompt into one of the numerous text-to-video AI generators.

    Dr Jessamy Perriam, a digital sociologist at ANU’s School of Cybernetics, says the appearance of the avatars is not accidental and they are likely designed to be an enhanced version of the people they would like to influence.

    “They’re creating avatars to look like their aspirational acceptable Australian to others who don’t match that description,” Dr Perriam says.

    AI also enables users to make their messages appear more socially acceptable by having them delivered by a “six o’clock TV news face” while preserving the anonymity of those behind it, she adds.

    “Would there be as much engagement with these videos if it were just a video of the person creating it sitting in front of a webcam, saying the same words?”

    A social media user created a range of women using AI to promote anti-immigration protests.

    A social media user created a range of women using AI to promote anti-immigration protests.

    Bill Browne, a director at The Australia Institute who specialises in digital technology and political advertising, says the comments beneath many of the videos show some viewers are confused about whether the people depicted are genuine.

    “It is disturbing how easy it is to make convincing depictions of something that never happened and someone who never existed,” he says.

    “I don’t think politicians, regulators or the public fully appreciate yet the implications of artificial intelligence or large language models.”

    University of Sydney academic Fiona Martin has researched AI and the use of deepfakes and says the use of such avatars is likely to expand rapidly in the coming years.

    She sees the goal of this kind of content as an attempt to heighten emotional reactions, play to confirmation biases and encourage people to recruit others to the cause.

    “The problem is, even if we regulate against AI political personas in Australia, you’re seeing hostile state actors running operations out of countries that will never regulate this activity,” she says.

    Artists brace as AI, the greatest theft in history, swamps us now

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Lawyer hopes investigation for OECD into 2021 find near Australian military testing range sets precedent

    The weapons manufacturer Saab was “directly linked” to a human rights violation when a missile it produced was found in an Indigenous heritage area, an investigation for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has found.

    The four-year investigation could lead to more companies being held accountable for how their weapons are used by clients, according to human rights lawyers involved in the case.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • A new study confirms that commonsense workplace protections from extreme heat — water, shade, breaks — help save workers from being injured on the job. The finding — something labor and climate advocates have long known and pushed for in public policy — comes just as the federal government shutdown may have suspended the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s lengthy rulemaking process to create the U.S.’s first-ever nationwide heat standard for workers. 

    Some experts now fear that the agency, which ordinarily takes about seven years on average to establish new rules, will face further delays.

    In order to calculate the risk of injury on hot days, researchers from the public health schools at Harvard University and George Washington University utilized OSHA’s database for workplace injuries, pulling nearly 900,000 cases from 2023. They found that 28,000 injuries were attributable to heat, and that workers in all industry sectors, including those who mostly work indoors, were impacted. The study, published this week, also found that the risk for injury starts to increase when the heat index, a measure of how temperatures really feel to the human body, reaches 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and then becomes even more likely once the heat index passes 90. 

    “This study elegantly confirms what all of us have experienced,” said Charlotte Brody, vice president of health initiatives at the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups. “When it gets really hot, it’s hard to do hard work safely. And the hotter it gets, the more clumsy and fuzzy thinking we get.”

    Much of the prior research on the impact of heat on workers has focused on illnesses caused by exposure to high temperatures — such at heat stroke, fatigue, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting. By examining the likelihood of workplace injuries on hot days, researchers are revealing other hidden costs of extreme heat — for both laborers and employers. 

    “It’s very clear that heat causes more than simply heat illness and unfortunately heat fatalities,” said David Michaels, one of the authors of the study and a professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University. “But it also causes thousands of injuries every year. When you’re working in heat, you can much more easily make mistakes.” Michaels also served as the head of OSHA from 2009 to 2017.

    “The numbers on this one are a little bit eye-opening,” said Juanita Constible, a senior advocate for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who described this study as the first national look at the impact of heat on workplace injury. (Barrak Alahmad, lead author of the study and senior research scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said his team was not aware of any other nationwide study that covered the contiguous United States.)

    a construction worker with a hard hat on drinks from a cold bottle of water in front of street construction
    A construction worker drinks water during record-breaking heat in the Boston area. David L. Ryan / The Boston Globe via Getty Images

    Constible added that worker injuries hurt employers’ pocketbooks in the form of workers’ compensation claims. Recently, the insurance company Liberty Mutual found that worker injuries cost employers more than $58 billion in 2021. 

    Crucially, the study also found that states that have enacted their own heat standards to protect workers had a lower risk of injury on hot days compared to states that lack such rules. Constible considered this “the most critical piece of the paper.” She added, “It’s the first big picture look that we have at how well standards are working to reduce these kinds of traumatic health problems.”

    The idea that working on hot days may not just be uncomfortable, but also potentially dangerous, is likely not surprising to labor and climate advocates. It’s also probably unsurprising to anyone who has had to work on hot days.

    “People know it intuitively when they’re out mowing their lawn for a few hours and they get really hot and miserable, right?” said Constible. “It impairs our judgment, makes our hands slippy, affects our posture.”

    With time, the human body can become acclimated to hotter temperatures. But employers often use this to justify not providing basic necessities like water, rest breaks, and shade to workers, said Brody. “This study shows that hot weather creates more workplace injuries and that a commonsense heat rule matters,” she said.

    OSHA is currently in the process of receiving final comments from parties that testified on a Biden-era proposal for a national heat rule earlier this year. But the federal government shutdown could potentially drag on or complicate this phase. “I think we can expect that this will lead to delays in promulgating an OSHA rule,” said Brody.

    Constible, who testified at an OSHA hearing on the proposed heat rule in June, said that what the ultimate impact of the shutdown will be is unclear. For now, the online portal through which she and others can submit final comments to the agency remains active. Since the shutdown began last Wednesday, OSHA has not extended its deadline for comments, which is currently October 30. 

    But could a prolonged federal funding shortage change that? The online portal is, after all, just a website, that “like all the others, requires maintenance,” said Constible. Without that, “the question is: Will it continue to work?” She noted that there is an option to email comments to the agency. “If the deadline does not get extended and the website’s not working, then we’ll just start emailing. Or I’ll walk down to OSHA’s office.”

    Grist’s emailed request to OSHA for comment returned an automatic message citing the government shutdown as a reason why the account is not being monitored.

    Even if the current heat standard proposal continues to move through OSHA without a shutdown-related delay, Constible and Brody expressed concern it may ultimately be watered down — due to industry groups who say following standards is expensive and burdensome and President Donald Trump’s deregulatory agenda. 

    Michaels, however, argued that, “if the Trump administration recognizes the importance of protecting workers, they will issue a strong standard.” 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline New research shows there’s a simple way to protect workers. Is OSHA listening? on Oct 10, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Half of Tory members also want Kemi Badenoch to be replaced as Conservative leader. This live blog is closed

    Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, was doing an interview round for the Conservatives this morning, and Miatta Fahnbulleh, the faith and communities minister, was on the air on behalf of the government. They were both asked about the latest development in the flag phenomenon – the former footballer turned property developer Gary Neville saying that he took down a union flag flying at one of his building sites because he felt it was being used in a “negative fashion”.

    Asked if Neville (a Labour supporter) had a point, Fahnbulleh told ITV’s Good Morning Britain:

    I think he’s really right, that there are people who are trying to divide us at the moment …

    I spent a lot of time going around our communities, talking to people. People are ground down. We’ve had a decade-and-a-half in which living standards haven’t budged and people have seen their communities held down. And you will get people trying to stoke division, trying to blame others, trying to stoke tension.

    I think people that put up flags, the vast majority of people that do, do so for perfectly reasonable patriotic reasons. And I think reclaiming our flag as a flag of unity and decency and tolerance, which is the way most people see our flag, is a very positive thing.

    So I’m afraid I really cannot agree with the comments that he’s made.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Indigenous groups in Mexico opposed to the planned brewery say families already have little access to water – and that their way of life is also under threat

    On a summer evening in southern Mexico, a percussion group using water bottles as instruments leads a procession through Mérida, capital of Yucatán state. Children walking alongside elderly people are guided by members of Múuch’ Xíinbal, a Maya land rights organisation. The placards they carry declare: “Water is not for sale.” A heavy chant accompanies the march: “It’s not a drought – it’s plunder!”

    At a rallying point in the city, protesters read from a manifesto and accuse the government of prioritising profit over water, health and land. They denounce a wave of mega-projects imposed without their consent, from industrial-scale pig farms to the controversial Maya Train tourist expansion. But they reserve their greatest anger for the Heineken brewery in Kanasín, near Mérida, which was announced in June.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.