Category: environment

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Te Aniwaniwa Paterson of Te Ao Māori News

    Māori and Pasifika leaders are leading climate adaptation, guided by ancestral knowledge and Indigenous principles to build resilience and shape global solutions.

    Last week, they played a key role in launching a new Indigenous climate adaptation network at a wānanga ahead of Adaptation Futures 2025, held on October 13-16 in Ōtautahi Christchurch.

    The network aims to build a global movement grounded in Indigenous knowledge, centred on decolonising systems and financial mechanisms, and ensuring Indigenous peoples have direct access to climate finance, the funding that supports actions to address and adapt to climate change.

    Kaiwhakahaere Lisa Tumahai says Ngāi Tahu are in the midst of 'the challenge of our lifetime' - climate change.
    Kaiwhakahaere Lisa Tumahai . . . Ngāi Tahu are in the midst of “the challenge of our lifetime” — climate change. Image: Te Ao Māori News

    The wānanga was led by Lisa Tumahai (Ngāi Tahu), New Zealand patron for Adaptation Futures 2025 and deputy chair of the NZ Climate Commission, and Tagaloa Cooper (Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi, Niue), director of the Climate Change Resilience Programme at the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) in Apia, Samoa.

    “The Indigenous Forum came from what we learnt at the previous two adaptation conferences. The recommendations from Indigenous peoples were to step it up a bit at this conference and create an intentional day and space for Indigenous voices,” says Tumahai.

    “For the first time, people are really seeing the commonalities we share with other Indigenous populations, whether they’re from Canada, Africa, or the Amazon.”

    Tagaloa Cooper
    Tagaloa Cooper . . . encouraging Pacific rangatahi to take charge of their stories and lead discussions on what loss and damage mean for their communities. Image: Women in Climate Change Network

    Kotahitanga across Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa
    Cooper said many of the Pasifika in attendance felt “at home” in Aotearoa and welcomed the opportunity to have a major conference hosted in the region, as international events are often inaccessible due to high costs.

    “I’d like to have more of these types of conversations with our cousins in New Zealand where we can exchange knowledge, learn from each other, and also be innovative about how we do adapt,” she says.

    She added that, in speaking with Pacific participants, there was a strong call for deeper engagement with iwi across Aotearoa, particularly in rural communities facing similar challenges to small island nations, to create more opportunities for sharing and exchanging traditional knowledge.

    Cynthia Houniuhi
    Cynthia Houniuhi from the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change presented at the United Nations Adaptation Futures Conference. Image: Te Ao Māori News

    The value of Indigenous knowledge
    Cooper emphasised that Indigenous peoples hold a vast body of knowledge that has long been marginalised.

    “Science now is telling us what we’ve always known as Indigenous people,” Cooper says.

    “We must remember our ancestors navigated the vast oceans to get here and then grew nations in very difficult places. There is a lot to learn from our people because we have adapted to live in new lands and we’re still here.”

    As Indigenous observer for the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, lawyer Taumata Toki (Ngāti Rehua) says this is a growing area that deserves attention, given the value Indigenous peoples bring and how their knowledge can strengthen climate adaptation projects.

    Taumata Toki
    Taumata Toki at the UN headquarters for the 24th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). Image: LinkedIn/Te Ao Māori News

    He says he is continually inspired by Indigenous leaders around the world who are not only experts in Western knowledge systems but also grounded in Indigenous principles that are transforming how climate change is addressed.

    Toki says the guiding aim of tikanga is balance, a core concept that aligns with many other Indigenous worldviews and shapes how they approach climate change and sustainability.

    Barriers to climate finance
    Indigenous peoples globally have often had limited access to UN climate change negotiation spaces.

    Tumahai said barriers include accreditation requirements or registered body status to access climate finance.

    Cooper added that smaller nations and small administrations often lack the capacity, time, and personnel to develop complex project proposals, causing delays and frustration in the flow of funds.

    The devastation from Cyclone Gabrielle
    The devastation from Cyclone Gabrielle has prompted iwi to focus on preparing for future weather events, as climate change is expected to increase their frequency and intensity. Image: Hawkes Bay after Cyclone Gabrielle/Te Ao Māori News

    When asked whether Māori face additional barriers to accessing climate adaptation funding as Indigenous peoples within a developed nation, Toki says that, on a global scale, Māori are at the forefront of sovereignty over what development looks like.

    However, he acknowledges that when this is set against the wider context of what is happening in Aotearoa, “it doesn’t look the best,” pointing to the ongoing challenges Māori face at home despite their strong global standing.

    Māori-led adaptation and succession planning
    “When it comes to Māori-led adaptation, it needs to start in our court,” he says. “We need to have our own really thought-out discussion in terms of how we develop these projects to be both tikanga-aligned, but also wider Indigenous peoples’ principles aligned.”

    Iwi adaptation conference
    When asked about an iwi adaptation conference in Aotearoa, Tumahai say it is a great idea and could be driven forward by national iwi. Image: Phil Walter/Getty Images/Te Ao Māori News

    Once internal cohesion across iwi is established, state support will play an important role.

    Despite the challenges, Toki says the potential ahead is immense, both economically and environmentally, and Aotearoa has the opportunity to be world-leading in this space.

    Tumahai agrees that the work has to start at home, and her passion, which she has long championed, is succession planning to bring rangatahi into the work.

    “And with that succession planning, it’s not to be dismissive of the pakeke or kaumatua who are really that korowai and the knowledge holders,” she says.

    “We have our own systems that ensure the conversations are held and led where the knowledge is sitting.”

    Te Aniwaniwa is a digital producer for Te Ao Māori News and contributes to Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published by Te Ao Māori News and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The post California Can Lead a Just Climate Transition appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Storm-ravaged farmhouse in coastal Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to attach conditions to federal disaster assistance grants that require recipients to comply with federal immigration law, hampering the ability of states and localities to prepare for disasters.

    In January, Trump issued Executive Order 14159 calling for DHS to “undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a memorandum in February, directing sub-agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to scrutinize all federal financial assistance awards. The purpose was to identify funds allocated to sanctuary jurisdictions and to report on compliance within 30 days. By March, FEMA had added language to its grants requiring state and local recipients to confirm they’d help enforce federal immigration law or risk losing all federal funds administered by DHS.

    The language contains six specific criteria.

    1. Grant recipients must share information with DHS on the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of individuals.

    2. Recipients cannot encourage or induce noncitizens to enter the country illegally.

    3. Recipients must “honor requests for cooperation, such as participation in joint operations, sharing of information, or requests for short-term detention” of immigrants.

    4. Recipients must provide federal immigration agents “access to detainees” in correctional facilities.

    5. Recipients must not “leak or otherwise publicize the existence of” any federal immigration enforcement operations.

    6. Both grant recipients and subgrant recipients, including aid organizations, are required to follow the criteria.

    Finally, recipients are required to certify that none of the programs operated using federal funding can benefit illegal immigrants.

    In May, 20 states and the District of Columbia, which have collectively received more than $23 billion in disaster aid since 2017, filed a lawsuit alleging DHS had no authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. The plaintiffs also claimed the action violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which dictates federal agencies’ regulatory processes. By September, US District Court Judge William Smith ruled that the conditions FEMA imposed on funding were “arbitrary and capricious.” He further stated that DHS failed to provide genuine, fact-based justifications for implementing broad immigration conditions across all grants. Judge Smith also pointed out that DHS didn’t follow internal advice, overlooked how states would be affected, ignored public safety, and failed to consider alternative approaches, such as pausing targeted grants.

    Despite Smith’s injunction, states are arguing that the language has not been removed from the grants. DHS is claiming that the language remains as a trigger clause in the event of the injunction being “stayed, vacated, or extinguished.” Meanwhile, the general hurdles the Trump administration has placed on aid are having real-life consequences for communities across the US facing disaster. These actions, which include the elimination of programs designed to fund mitigation projects, are leaving states and localities less prepared for when disaster inevitably strikes.

    The Trump administration’s persistent effort to add immigration strings to FEMA funding feels like a “poison pill” move, especially since Trump has openly discussed shifting responsibility for disaster aid to the states. It’s as if they’re actively discouraging states from accepting the funds. The problem with this approach is that it disregards the separation of powers; funds allocated by democratically elected representatives should be distributed to their constituents without additional, arbitrary, and politically motivated conditions. DHS’s efforts undermine national disaster preparedness and response efforts, leaving vulnerable populations at greater risk. For now, only the judiciary branch is standing up for the American people. It’s about time Congress started doing that as well. One simple step would be to streamline the Stafford Act to remove vagueness that allows presidents to decline disaster aid on a whim. Congress also must assert its authority over government spending by censuring the president, challenging the executive branch’s overreach.

    Unfortunately, we currently have a legislative branch that won’t do anything without Trump’s approval, with senior administration advisers allegedly joking they control Congress with an “iron fist.” And that’s when the government is operating. Until we have more than just one branch adhering to the principle of separation of powers, communities across the US affected by disasters will feel the brunt of DHS’ arbitrary decisions.

    The post Trump Keeps Trying to Attach Conditions to FEMA Funding Despite Court Orders appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • On the surface, it looks like Britain’s biggest water company, Thames Water, is being rescued. Behind closed doors, in boardrooms, legal chambers, and government briefings, it is being carved up. The issue is not water, pipes or pumps. The issue is money, control, and who gets paid first.

    Thames Water is not being saved. It is being fought over.

    A company that supplies around fifteen million people has become the subject of a quiet but consequential struggle. It plays out not through infrastructure, but through spreadsheets, security documents, and competing legal strategies. Nearly £19bn of debt sits on its balance sheet. Britain’s largest water utility is now governed less by engineers and regulators than by the creditors who financed its capital structure.

    Almost every pound that enters Thames Water flows between two camps. One is tightly coordinated, legally aggressive, and commercially focused. The other is well-resourced, broadly aligned with government priorities, but too fragmented to move decisively. Each is waiting for the other to blink.

    Thames Water: a quick guide to the battlefield

    Ofwat, the water regulator, sets five-year limits on customer bills. The current review, PR24, will cover 2025 to 2030.

    If a company disputes Ofwat’s ruling, it can refer the case to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Thames Water did exactly that, but Ofwat granted a deferral until 22 October 2025, buying time for a private solution.

    The Special Administration Regime (SAR) is the government’s legal backstop. If a water company becomes insolvent, a court appoints administrators to keep services running while debts are restructured.

    In this structure, Class A debt has the highest repayment priority, followed by Class B and junior instruments.
    In plain terms, whoever sits highest in the repayment queue usually ends up calling the shots.

    The first camp: ‘Hammer and Scalpel’

    This bloc consists of Elliott Management and Silver Point Capital. Akin Gump LLP acts as counsel, but the legal strategy is driven by the credit funds. Together, they shaped the 2025 restructuring strategy approved by the High Court in February.

    Market observers refer to them as ‘Hammer and Scalpel’. The name reflects both method and mood: one applies blunt pressure, the other executes precise legal dissection.

    Its goal is clear – maintain control of Thames Water within the private credit ecosystem. Keep the company out of statutory processes like SAR, which would reduce its influence and subject operations to government oversight. That would be a less predictable and potentially lower-return environment.

    It was central to the design of the restructuring plan that Bloomberg, Reuters and the Financial Times each described as the template for future private-sector rescues.

    In modern infrastructure finance, the pipes leak money before they leak water.

    Behind the spreadsheets lies a simple thesis: value can be extracted from distressed infrastructure assets, provided legal risk is managed and control is secured early. Environmental outcomes and long-term reinvestment may follow, but they are secondary to creditor recoveries.

    The second camp: the ‘Whitehall Investor Group’

    Opposite them sits the Whitehall ‘Investor Group’, a coalition of over one hundred institutions that hold portions of Thames Water’s debt. They control a large share of Class A bonds, along with smaller holdings across Class B and related instruments.

    The group includes UK-based insurers, pension funds and asset managers such as abrdn – institutions more comfortable with regulatory briefings than litigation.

    At first glance, they appear to hold the upper hand. They own the senior debt. But control does not follow size; it follows coordination, and here, the group falls short.

    Its members have different mandates, governance structures and risk appetites. It moves slowly and cautiously. Meanwhile, Hammer and Scalpel move as one. It controls the levers, not just the numbers.

    There is also the issue of timing. The 2025 restructuring plan gave real authority to the steering creditors who negotiated it. Institutions that joined later, no matter how large, have limited influence over how the plan is now implemented. The Whitehall group may own much of the paper, but it does not control the process.

    Its strategy is political rather than legal. It prefers stability to confrontation. In private discussions with government, it argues for the use of SAR. Its language is framed in terms of consumer protection and regulatory continuity. But the message is simpler: if the company fails, the state must guarantee repayment.

    How creditor control works

    Credit control in this context is procedural. In capital stacks like Thames Water’s, Class A bondholders sit at the top. But in a financial workout, early mobilisation and legal alignment matter more than formal ranking.

    Under UK restructuring law, a plan can be approved even when entire creditor classes object, provided it meets the relevant alternative test. That test asks whether the plan produces a better outcome than administration. If so, and if the right voting thresholds are met, the court can impose the plan across all creditor classes.

    In February 2025, Thames Water’s steering creditors reached agreement on a plan that provided up to £3bn in new funding. The court approved it. The plan bought time. It did not resolve the conflict.

    The cost of this war

    That same £3bn facility reveals how rescue finance compounds:

    • Interest rate: 9.75% fixed.
    • Annual cost: approximately £300m when fully drawn.
    • Legal and advisory fees: £136m during the first phase.
    • Total financing charges (2.5 years): projected to exceed £800m – more than 27% of the principal.
    • Cumulative cost (5 years): roughly £3.3bn, exceeding the loan itself.

    This is not mismanagement; it is design. The system works exactly as built – creditors first, customers later. Liquidity is secured, but value disappears through interest and fees before it ever reaches operational use.

    What happens next?

    In one scenario, if Hammer and Scalpel complete its recapitalisation, Thames Water will remain privately controlled. Governance will follow the restructuring terms. Operational delivery will be tracked through compliance reports. But risks will remain, and environmental outcomes will depend on future investment, not guarantees.

    In the opposite outcome, if the Whitehall Investor Group prevails, whether through political pressure or default, the company will enter Special Administration. Court-appointed administrators will take over, restructure liabilities, and launch a new public entity: New Thames Co.

    In both cases, the cost will land on consumers. Ofwat projects that household bills could rise between 25 and 35 percent in the next regulatory cycle. More costs will follow: compliance, remediation, refinancing. The process may vary, but the outcome does not.

    What the government could do, but will not

    There is a third path. The government could buy the controlling debt position, currently valued around £7bn, including a control premium, and refinance it on sovereign terms.

    This would deliver:

    • Immediate control.
    • Reduced financing costs.
    • Avoidance of SAR.
    • Public ownership of essential infrastructure.
    • Reinvestment of profits into the system rather than interest payments.

    It would be cheaper than a bailout and faster than a court battle.

    The government could buy the debt and own the outcome. It chooses not to.

    It will not happen. Not because it is unaffordable, but because the system is not designed to displace power. Too many political and regulatory figures are professionally close to the credit funds involved. To act decisively would mean challenging that relationship, something Westminster has not done in decades.

    The reckoning

    Thames Water’s crisis is no longer just financial. It is systemic.

    A public utility has been recast as a yield instrument. The infrastructure still moves water, but the company now exists to service debt.

    Hammer and Scalpel want control. The Whitehall Investor Group wants protection. The government wants distance. Of the three, the last is the least defensible.

    This is not a story about water. It is a story about governance, law, and the allocation of power.

    The rivers remain polluted. The bills will rise. The liabilities will be refinanced again and again, until a different kind of reckoning comes – one triggered not by financial covenants, but by public exhaustion.

    Someone should probably turn it off and on again. No one seems to know who holds the switch, or whether they even want to.

    Feature image via Channel 4 News/Youtube.

    By Philip Greenwood

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Tuesday 21 October, Thames Water announced that it had agreed with Ofwat to defer an appeal with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) over demands to increase customer’s water bills.

    The news comes as the Environment Agency gives the flailing polluter the lowest one-star rating after repeated sewage spills.

    Thames Water: off the hook again

    Water companies are legally obligated to submit investment plans to Ofwat every five years for approval. Final Determinations are the result of this process – and set binding price limits that companies can charge during this period. It also sets out targets for environmental performance, infrastructural investments, and goals to improve their service.

    Thames, alongside five other water companies, had previously appealed to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in February to increase customer’s bills.

    But in March, Thames and Ofwat agreed to defer this for up to 18 weeks. And on 18 July 2025, Ofwat extended this deferral still yet further until 22 October 2025.

    Now, Ofwat has agreed to delay this appeal once again. The regulator has not set a deadline for the end of this deferral.

    Thames Water has said the latest deferral allows continued discussions between its senior creditors, the London and Valley Water Consortium (L&VW), Ofwat, and other relevant regulators to salvage the flailing water company.

    However, as the Canary previously reported, its creditors plan involves flouting pollution rules for another 15 years.

    And, nationalisation campaign group We Own It noted, Thames Waters creditors:

    have stated that – according to the terms of the deal – a ‘full return to legal, regulatory and environmental compliance’ would not take place until at least 2035-2040. Instead, they have put forward their own ‘improvement accountability framework’. Thames Water creditors want to set their own rules.

    Specifically, under its plan, Thames would only have to cut sewage pollution by 30% by 2050. But as We Own It has pointed out, this flies in the face of the Labour Party government’s own pledge to halve sewage pollution by 2030.

    Over 20,000 people have signed the group’s petition telling Ofwat the deal with Thames is unacceptable.

    In the ‘long-term interests of customers’? Give over

    Moreover, Thames Water went to pains to emphasise that the deferral does not mean it’s withdrawing its appeal to ratchet up customers bills.

    It’s doing so, supposedly, in the corporate-capitalist magnanimity of serving the:

    long-term interests of its customers, communities or the environment.

    Of course, this all looks a tad laughable next to the Environment Agency’s latest announcement. On Thursday 23 October, it gave the water company a one star rating over its appalling environmental performance for 2024.

    To make matters worse, the regulator noted that:

    Serious incidents—those causing significant environmental harm—have increased by 60% compared with 2023. Thames Water, Southern Water and Yorkshire Water were responsible for 81% of these serious incidents

    Responding to the CMA deferral announcement, an Ofwat spokesperson said:

    Thames Water has requested a further deferral of its 2024 Price Review final determination reference to the Competition and Markets Authority.

    Given the ongoing discussions with the company’s creditors, Ofwat has agreed to this request and informed the CMA.

    Thames Water and Ofwat agree that at this point in the review process there is no benefit in setting a definitive expected end date for the deferral decision.

    Translation: Ofwat has once again let Thames Water off the hook. Because in deferring the appeal, it has effectively delayed final decisions over the debt-laden water company’s investment plans for the next five years as well. And as it stands, Thames’ CMA appeal now has an indefinite deadline.

    So as it continues to pump pollution into UK waterways, there’s every chance somewhere down the line the CMA and Ofwat may very well greenlight the corrupt firm hiking customer’s bills. And given how easily the toothless regulators have rolled over for other water companies this month, this wouldn’t come as any surprise.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Image by Fré Sonneveld.

    In the fight for a just transition to renewable energy in the United States, New Yorkers achieved two major legislative wins in 2019 and 2023. Today, the realization of that landmark legislation hinges on whether the Democratic governor will uphold those legislative commitments – or yield to a resurgent Trump administration and the escalating energy demands of AI data centers.

    During the peak of the youth-led climate movement in 2019, New York was one of seven states (and Puerto Rico) to set 100% clean energy goals. The aggressive 2019 legislation, titled The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, mandated that New York achieve 70% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% emission-free energy by 2040.

    But the legislation offered little “how to” for doing so. In late 2019, community organizers, environmental justice groups, and Democratic state assemblymembers came together to form the Public Power NY coalition to advocate for their plan: the Build Public Renewables Act.

    What is the Build Public Renewables Act?

    The BPRA took advantage of a unique entity in New York: the New York Power Authority, a public utility company founded in 1931 by then-Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt. The utility built two major dams on the Canadian border which still supply a fifth of New York’s power today. FDR believed public utilities would serve as a check against for-profit monopolies on energy resources and provide cheaper electricity for New Yorkers.

    The BPRA authorized NYPA to build and own new renewable energy and battery storage projects in order to meet New York’s 2019 climate goals. The legislation also included a program for low-income New Yorkers to receive clean energy credits, required new projects to be built with union labor, and mandated the closure of New York City’s peaker plants – high-emission fossil fuel plants known for polluting Black and Brown neighborhoods when energy demands peak in the summer months. In many ways, the BPRA was a state-level Green New Deal.

    “Thanks to FDR’s vision and the fighting spirit of New Yorkers, we have the tools in place to launch a new era of public power that serves all people – not just wealthy investors,” State Senator Julia Salazar and Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha wrote in 2024. “Through NYPA, we can build a truly green New York, with 100% renewable energy, plentiful union jobs, lower bills and cleaner, healthier air.”

    Public Power NY spent four years campaigning for the passage of the BPRA. They organized statewide orientation sessions and rallies to help New Yorkers understand how for-profit utilities affect their cities. Con Edison, for example, was charging the second-highest residential rates in the country while paying $1.4 million in annual dues to trade associates like the American Gas Association, which lobbies against renewables and for a deregulated energy market.

    In response to public pressure, Governor Kathy Hochul incorporated the BPRA into the 2023-2024 state budget – with one critical difference. Under the original BPRA, NYPA was not only empowered to build out renewables: it mandated that NYPA evaluate the private market’s progress toward the 2019 goals and build clean energy projects if the market was not on track to meet those goals. Under the 2023-2024 state budget legislation which passed, NYPA is mandated to evaluate progress toward the 2019 goals – but it is not legally required to contribute progress when the private market fails.

    At the time, public power advocates were concerned that this so-called “BPRA-Lite” legislation gave too much flexibility to NYPA.

    “In my opinion, her version is designed to fail,” Shrestha told Prospect in 2023.

    The current status of public power in New York

    Renewables generate about a third of New York’s current energy production – over of half of which comes from the hydropower plants built by NYPA decades ago. Between 2017 and 2024, the share of renewables in New York increased by less than one percent.

    In June 2024, Public Power NY released a report recommending that NYPA build 15 gigawatts of renewables by 2030 – enough to power 12 million households. When a draft plan released in October 2024 proposed a set of projects only worth 3.5 gigawatts, the campaign collected 5,300 public comments demanding the full 15 gigawatts.

    In response to public pressure, NYPA released an updated plan in July 2025 with 17 more solar arrays and 3 wind turbine projects – bringing the total proposed energy capacity to 7 gigawatts.

    “Our priority is to build at least 15 GW of public renewables by 2030 in order to cut pollution from racist peaker plants, lower New Yorkers’ energy bills, create green union jobs, and get back on track to our climate goals,” Michael Paulson, co-chair of Public Power NY and associate director of Sane Energy Project, told me via email last week. “15 gigawatts will deliver 25,000 union jobs, a five-year faster phaseout of the state’s most polluting plants, and at least twice the total energy bill discounts as the current plan. There is no excuse not to do this.”

    The legally binding 2030 goal of 70% renewables isn’t the only time-crunch New York faces. The BPRA was the legislative tool needed to take advantage of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which offered tax credits and other incentives for building renewables. But the IRA was one of the first items President Trump targeted with executive orders on his first day back in office.

    The end of IRA clean energy tax credits came under H.R. 1, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” which Trump signed into law in July 2025. Under this legislation, clean energy projects can only qualify for the IRA tax credits if they start construction before July 2026 or come into service by the end of 2027.

    “Trump’s attacks on renewable energy, including the dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act, is all the more reason that an ambitious buildout of public power is the critical boost New York needs,” Assemblymember Shrestha told me via email last week. “NYPA is well-positioned to ambitiously build projects before the IRA provisions sunset.”

    A spokesperson from NYPA told me last week that they are “aggressively pursuing” renewables despite the federal challenges. At the U.S. Climate Alliance roundtable in September, Governor Kathy Hochul announced she would grant $200 million from the state budget for NYPA to build renewables while keeping prices low for ratepayers.

    However, in early August, Governor Hochul admitted that New York was unlikely to meet the 2019 climate goals, citing economic challenges. Despite the possibility of missing legally binding state targets, the governor has recently approved and advocated for alternative energy projects, including a revived gas pipeline and an upstate one-gigawatt nuclear plant.

    Competing visions for New York’s energy

    In early August, Governor Hochul came under fire by over 100 climate groups for reviving the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, a gas pipeline previously rejected by New York regulators.

    While the governor denies any deal was made, the White House said Hochul “caved” to Trump’s demand for the NESE pipeline in exchange for lifting a stop-work order the administration had placed on a New York offshore wind project.

    Several protests have been held across New York opposing the revived pipeline project.

    The NESE pipeline was not the only project discussed by Trump and Hochul. The governor told Bloomberg TV she also sought Trump’s help in streamlining approvals for nuclear energy.

    In June, Governor Hochul announced she was directing NYPA to build a one-gigawatt advanced nuclear power plant in upstate New York. Under state law, nuclear is not considered renewable; the new nuclear plant will not contribute to the 2019 goal of 70% renewables by 2030.

    During a NYPA board meeting in July, Senior Vice President Alexis Harley said that nuclear energy will help New York meet increased energy demands from new data centers powering artificial intelligence. Hochul has been supportive of developing upstate New York into a tech center similar to Silicon Valley.

    Across the country, the high power demands of new AI data centers are preventing fossil fuel power plants from retiring. A typical AI data center consumes as much electricity as 100,000 households and uses billions of gallons of water to cool its computers.

    “The cherry on top, of course, is that [nuclear] is aligned with the priorities of the federal administration,” Harley said during the board meeting.

    Public power advocates oppose the new nuclear power plant, calling it a distraction from the renewable goals signed into law.

    “Instead of embracing public power, Kathy Hochul is pushing an energy plan written by tech billionaires, gas utility CEOs, and Donald Trump,” Paulson told me via email. “She is publicly calling for an economy built around energy-guzzling, job-killing AI data centers, and fast tracking the Williams NESE Pipeline, which may as well be called the Trump-Hochul pipeline, all of which make energy even less affordable for New Yorkers.”

    The Public Power NY coalition continues to push for NYPA for a full 15 gigawatts of renewables by 2030. In late September, six members of Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, wrote a letter to NYPA’s Chief Executive Officer Justin Driscoll in support of the demand for 15 gigawatts.

    Earthjustice also filed a lawsuit in March on behalf of several climate groups accusing Governor Hochul and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation of failing to introduce climate regulations that were due in January 2024.

    “The failure of Governor Hochul and DEC to follow the clear mandates of our climate law has real consequences for New Yorkers — more storms and other severe weather, more pollution and a less livable future,” said Bob Cohen, the policy and research director at Citizen Action of New York. “The time for action is now.”

    While the Trump administration, Governor Hochul, and the Public Power NY coalition clearly have different visions for New York’s energy future, New York legally committed to a future with renewable energy in 2019. With NYPA and the BPRA legislation that passed via the 2023-2024 state budget, New York has the tools to achieve this legal mandate via a just transition – and become an example for other states which set clean energy goals.

    Whether it does so may depend on Governor Hochul’s willingness to focus on the public power New Yorkers fought for and stand up to the Trump administration.

    The post New York’s Bold Fight for Public Power appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Key ministerial meeting data for Labour cabinet member Steve Reed is currently missing from the government’s transparency register. The missing information concerns three month’s worth of meetings between January and March 2025, that the Streatham and Croydon North MP held with external organisations and individuals while acting Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

    The department has now been aware of the missing data for two months. To date however, it has failed to publish the details of these meetings. Of course, in the context of revelations over Reed’s shenanigans as previous director of shady think tank Labour Together – it also raises some potentially troubling questions as well.

    Steve Reed’s mysterious missing ministerial meetings

    The Canary first noticed that Defra was lacking any ministerial meeting entries for the environment secretary towards the end of July. We originally contacted the department to query the missing data on discovering this. However, after the department failed to respond for over four weeks, we followed this up again at the end of August. At this point, Defra told us it had purportedly never received our original email. This was alongside two Freedom of Information (FOI) requests the Canary submitted to the department within a day of this query – both of which Defra claimed it had also never received.

    The delay meant that the Canary only heard back from the department on 23 September. This was within 20 working days of reissuing the query, that Defra interpreted as a FOI request.

    In this, the Canary pointed Defra to at least two departmental press releases detailing meetings Reed had attended with external organisations during the reporting period. The email highlighting this also questioned why this information was absent from Defra’s register.

    In its response to the Canary’s query on 23 September, the department put the missing entries down to an “administrative error”.

    Defra did not disclose the data to the Canary because it explained that it would be updating the register “imminently”. Evidently, the Canary has a very different perception of the word “imminently”. Because, at the time of writing, almost three months later, this information is still not available to the public.

    Curious omission…

    But of course, it’s one of those conveniently ambiguous “how long is a piece of string” terms. Defra could easily claim in data transparency time-scales, four weeks is in fact rather ‘imminent’. Nevertheless, the point is still that we’re nearly at the end of October and the department has failed to publish the transparency data. Notably, this was originally due for publication at the end of June. In short, the information is nearly four months late. Moreover, it has (verifiably) known about its absence for nearly two of those months.

    The Canary contacted Defra, but the department refused to comment.

    The ministerial data’s curious and continued omission is enough to make you wonder if there just might be something among those entries the former environment secretary and now housing sec may not want the rest of us to see.

    Of course, while the Canary (currently) has no evidence to prove any impropriety on the part of the former Secretary of State in this instance, it’s hard not to note the parallels with a certain organisation Reed was also front and centre of, namely, the controversial Labour Together.

    ‘Admin error’: now where have we heard that before?

    The think tank knows a thing or two about purported ‘admin errors’. Just ask Reed’s fellow former Labour Together director and current chief of staff to the prime minister, Morgan McSweeney. In 2021, the Electoral Commission fined the think tank over £14k in undeclared donations. Naturally, the think tank had put this breach down to an “admin error”.

    Dogged investigation by journalist Paul Holden has cast extreme doubt on this. In his new book The Fraud, Holden lays out a swathe of evidence that points to the genuine possibility that the “admin error” was nothing of the sort. In a detailed timeline of events, Holden shows how with precedent – specifically, the think tanks “appetite for misdirection and subterfuge” – the evidence could:

    just as plausibly give rise to the suspicion that McSweeney’s failure to report donations was intentional.

    And let’s not forget Reed was co-director at the time of this electoral law breach.

    Missing data, hacked data: not Reed’s first rodeo

    As it happens, we also know, once again thanks to Holden, that Reed has previous for potential data criminality. Reed had the editor of independent local news site, Inside Croydon, in his sights for holding his political allies in local government to account. As Holden’s book noted, Inside Croydon revealed how the council had become “so dysfunctional” under its Labour Party leadership that it had required a:

    £120m bailout to remain afloat after declaring bankruptcy in 2020.

    It was amid this context that an anonymous individual hacked Inside Croydon’s news site to identify informants. As the outlet has since reported on Holden’s revelations:

    This stolen information was then used to launch Labour Party disciplinary proceedings against the site’s sources. All of this was known to some of the most powerful people in the Labour Party bureaucracy — General Secretary David Evans and Alex Barros-Curtis [the party’s executive director of legal affairs; since 2024, a Labour MP] most notably — who were copied in, allegedly with the approval of Steve Reed.

    So, Reed certainly has form on rule-breaking to eschew public scrutiny.

    Something to hide?

    What could the Croydon MP possibly have to hide?

    Meetings with fishing lobby figures to mothball a full bottom trawling ban in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)? Kicking back with water company cronies to discuss their united front against water renationalisation?

    If the Canary had to hazard a guess, it seems very likely it could have something to do with Labour’s weak response to the profiteering water suppliers. That would be the privatised water racket ripping off the public, spewing sewage into waterways, and operating an all-round shoddy service. Labour’s flagship ‘bonus ban’ hasn’t stopped companies dishing out eye-watering pay packets to its fat cat executives. Who’d have guessed?

    Incidentally, Inside Croydon has continued holding the unscrupulous cabinet secretary to account in his government roles. Because funnily enough, the outlet found in November 2024 that Reed hadn’t been taking minutes at a number of his meetings with the water industry. Go figure. In other words, the public has no way of knowing what Reed and water company lobbyists were talking about. This is the same Reed who last year enjoyed £1,786 football tickets courtesy of the parent company of Northumbrian Water. We’re sure this has nothing to do with any of this.

    Obviously, we can only really speculate about reasons for this transparency data “admin error”. However, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that there are meetings this government would rather the public didn’t know about. Once the data goes live, it certainly does warrant extra scrutiny. And that’s not least because – this is accountability-dodging Labour right miscreant Steve Reed we’re talking about after all.

    If we’re wrong, then let’s see the information on the missing meetings. Otherwise, what can we do but speculate?

    The Canary contacted Steve Reed for comment, but his office had not responded by the time of publication.

    Featured image via the Canary.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Greenpeace

    Cook Islanders holding a banner reading “Don’t Mine the Moana” have confronted an exploration vessel as it returned to Rarotonga port today, protesting the emerging threat of seabed mining.

    Four activists in kayaks paddled alongside the Nautilus, which has spent the last three weeks on a US-funded research expedition surveying mineral nodule fields around the Cook Islands in partnership with the Cook Islands government.

    The Nautilus expedition comes just six months after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to expedite deep sea mining, tasking the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to fast track the licensing process.

    The research conducted on the Nautilus expedition was funded by NOAA’s Ocean Exploration Cooperation Institute.

    Campaigners against seabed mining are calling the expedition one of the first steps in the Cook Island-US partnership on their critical minerals deal which was announced in August, and say it demonstrates the political motive behind the expedition is to advance seabed mining.

    Louisa Castledine, Cook Island activist and spokesperson for the Ocean Ancestors collective, said the Pacific movement against seabed mining was strong and mining enablers were not welcome.

    “Right now global superpowers like the US are vying for control of deep sea minerals throughout the Pacific, in an attempt to assert their military might,” she said.

    Traditional life ‘at risk’
    “Seabed mining will lead to the destruction of our home environments and put our Indigenous rights, cultural ways of living, and wellbeing at risk. Any government or corporate looking to exploit us in this way is no true partner of ours.”

    Castledine said Cook Islanders needed to open their eyes to the threats imposed by the seabed mining industry and stop the corporate takeover of our ocean.

    “We have long endured environmental and political injustices, brought about by colonialism, that forcefully displace and compromise our way of living and survival.

    “We are taking a stand against the exploitation of our people and resources. As Indigenous peoples and custodians of the ocean we say NO to seabed mining.”

    In August, the US and Cook Islands governments announced their official partnership on developing seabed mineral resources. A senior official at the Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority described this research vessel expedition as “a first step in our collaboration”.

    Two of the three deep sea mining exploration licences in the Cook Islands’ EEZ waters are held by US companies.

    Seabed mining is an emerging destructive industry that has not started anywhere at commercial scale. If it goes ahead, seabed mining within Cook Islands waters could pave the way for mining throughout the Pacific.

    Pacific ‘blue line’
    Greenpeace Aotearoa is also campaigning to stop seabed mining before it starts.

    Campaigner Juressa Lee said:”We’re here today, standing alongside our allies in the Cook Islands, who like many across the region want a Pacific blue line drawn against this destructive industry.

    “Just like Greenpeace stood with Pacific peoples in the fight against nuclear testing, we will continue to ally with them against this reckless industry that is gambling with our future.

    “The Nautilus, which was confronted today, is doing exploration for the US. Pacific people will not be sidelined by corporations and powerful countries that try to impose this new form of extractive colonialism on the region.”

    Further south in the Pacific in Aotearoa, Trans-Tasman Resources is seeking consent to mine the seabed off Taranaki, despite fierce opposition from local iwi, community groups, NGOs and more than 50,000 New Zealanders.

    “People here in the Cook Islands face the same fight we’re up against in Aotearoa. In both cases, Indigenous peoples are leading the resistance against seabed miners, to protect ancestral territories and waters for future generations. Together we will resist them every step of the way,” Lee said.

    More than 940 leading marine science and policy experts from over 70 countries have raised concerns about deep sea mining, and are calling for a precautionary pause on the start of deep sea mining to allow time to gather more scientific information on deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystems.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • With COP30 fast approaching, the first UN climate summit to take place in the heart of the Amazon, a new investigation exposes an uncomfortable reality. It’s an unescapable fact: the flow of finance into oil and gas extraction across the rainforest shows no signs of slowing, even as many of the banks behind it promote themselves as champions of climate action.

    According to environmental group Stand.earth’s new report, Banks vs the Amazon Scorecard, and updated Amazon Banks Database, just 10 banks are responsible for almost 75% of all direct financing for oil and gas across the Amazon basin since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016.

    Together, those 10 banks, led by JP Morgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America, Itaú Unibanco and HSBC, have poured more than $15bn into Amazon oil and gas projects.

    Share of direct financing for oil and gas extraction in the Amazon biome: top 10 banks vs. all others tracked in the report (2016-2025)

    Amazon bank monopoly shift

    But a shift is underway. European lenders, once deeply entangled in the region’s fossil fuel industry, are beginning to pull back, while banks in the Americas are stepping in to fill the gap.

    France’s BNP Paribas and Britain’s HSBC have reduced their exposure following the introduction of Amazon-specific exclusion policies that prohibit financing for companies involved in Amazon oil and gas activities. As a result, the banks have dropped in recent financing rankings: BNP Paribas now 45th, HSBC 17th, with $4m and $12m respectively since January 2024.

    In contrast, the biggest increases now come from the Americas. Brazil’s Itaú Unibanco tops the latest list with $378m in new financing in the past 18 months alone, a 3-place jump that puts it ahead of JP Morgan Chase with $326m, and Bank of America with $317m.

    Peruvian bank Credicorp and Canada’s Scotiabank have also sharply increased their roles, with Credicorp nearly tripling its contribution to $154m.

    Top 10 banks by share of total direct financing (January 2024-June 2025 is shown as a percentage of financing from 2016-2025)

    Loopholes abound

    Dr. Devyani Singh, lead researcher for the database and scorecard said:

    Our research reveals that although European banks like BNP Paribas or HSBC applied more robust policies to protect the sensitive Amazon rainforest than their peers, significantly dropped in financing ranks, no bank has yet brought its financing to zero. Every one of these banks must close the existing loopholes and fully exit Amazon oil and gas without delay.

    The scorecard ranks 18 major global banks on five criteria, from Amazon-specific policies to human-rights safeguards, grouping them as “frontrunners”, “moderate achievers”, “followers”, and “laggards”.

    Only BNP Paribas earns the top tier. HSBC, Barclays, ING, and Société Générale are judged moderate achievers, having introduced partial exclusion rules.

    Citi, Santander, BBVA, Intesa Sanpaolo, and Standard Chartered follow with limited project-level restriction, while Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Itaú Unibanco, Scotiabank, Credicorp, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Canada, and Banco Nordeste sit among the laggards, banks with little or no Amazon-specific policy and rising exposure.

    Stand.earth’s analysis also underscores a transparency gap: direct Amazon financing represents only 2% to total identified fossil fuel finance to companies operating in the Amazon. This means that the true scale of exposure is likely far higher.

    Martyna Dominiak, Stand.earth’s senior climate finance campaigner and lead author of the report, said:

    The Banks vs. The Amazon scorecard and Amazon Banks Database update present not only a clear opportunity but an urgent deadline ahead of COP30 for banks to stop financing fossil fuels in the Amazon. For Indigenous Peoples resisting extractivism — and their allies — the region’s first climate COP is a pivotal moment demanding an Amazon free from fossil fuels.

    Devastation and disease

    The timing couldn’t be more urgent, as the Amazon, the world’s largest tropical rainforest, is approaching an irreversible tipping point, where deforestation, degradation, and climate change, could flip it from carbon sink into a carbon source.

    Oil and gas operations are contributing to deforestation and degradation by opening roads and pipelines, driving settlements, clearing land, polluting waterways, bringing total chaos and devastation.

    According to investigations cited in the report, over 6,000 oil-contaminated sites have been documented across the rainforest, in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia. Communities living near extraction zones report rising cases of cancer, miscarriages, and respiratory disease.

    Still, governments continue to expand drilling. Brazil auctioned 68 new oil blocks in the Amazon earlier this year, while in Ecuador drilling continues in Yasuní National Park despite a 2023 referendum to stop it. In Peru, 31 new blocks have been auctioned since 2023, overlapping with the lands of more than 400 Indigenous communities.

    Olivia Bisa, president of the autonomous territorial government of the Chapra Nation, said:

    It’s outrageous that Bank of America, Scotiabank, Credicorp, and Itaú are increasing their financing of oil and gas in the Amazon at a time when the forest itself is under grave threat. For decades, Indigenous peoples have suffered the heaviest impacts of this destruction. We are calling on banks to change course now: by ending support for extractive industries in the Amazon, they can help protect the forest that sustains our lives and the future of the planet.

    Corruption and violations

    The database links over $2bn in new financing since early 2024 to just six companies: Petrobras, Eneva, Gunvor, Gran Tierra, Pluspetrol Camisea, and Hunt Oil Peru. Each one of them face allegations of corruption, environmental damage and/or violations of Indigenous rights.

    Eneva, a Brazilian gas producer whose operations overlap Indigenous Gavião Real territory, located in the municipality of Silves, in eastern Amazonas, was forced to suspend its activities following an order from federal court citing violations of Indigenous rights and environmental law.

    Despite the ruling, Eneva continues to receive financing from Itaú Unibanco, Banco do Nordeste, Banco da Amazonia, Bradesco, BTG Pactual, Banco do Brasil, XP Investimentos, Santander, and Arab Banking Corporation.

    Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil giant, is pressing ahead with plans to drill at the mouth of the Amazon River. Environmental experts have repeatedly warned that the project could threaten marine life, fisheries, and coastal ecosystems in the region.

    The case involving Swiss oil trader Gunvor highlights how loopholes in banking policies still allow problematic clients to slip through. Gunvor was convicted of bribing Ecuadorian officials to secure oil contracts between 2013 and 2020, yet it continues to benefit from financing by ING, one of Europe’s largest banks, illustrating how partial exclusions and project-level bans can still leave room for continued support of controversial fossil fuel projects.

    The road to Belém

    Stand.earth is calling on all banks to phase out Amazon oil and gas financing by 2030, including loans, bonds, and advisory services, and to strengthen Indigenous rights policies in the line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

    Central to this is respecting free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), according to the ILO 169 Convention, which gives Indigenous nations the right to say no to projects on their lands.

    The organisation argues that the upcoming COP30 summit in Belém, at the heart of the Amazon, is the perfect stage for banks to announce real commitments.

    If banks choose to act, COP30 could mark a turning point, not only for the Amazon, but also for the financial industry’s role in the climate crisis. If they don’t, the next decade could decide whether the world’s greatest rainforest lives or dies.

    Featured image via Lays Ushirobira /Stand.earth

    By Monica Piccinini

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • For centuries, farmers in Melendugno, a town located at the tip of southern Italy’s boot heel, built stone walls to mark the boundaries of their fields, shield their crops from the winds blowing out of North Africa, and divide farmland from pasture.

    Today, those same ancient stones stand watch over a changed landscape of parched olive groves, tall metal fences, and barbed wire. Beyond the fences, framed by a few remaining ancient olive trees, sits the Melendugno Reception Terminal — the western endpoint of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).

    The post The Methane Hunters Of Melendugno appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • If you eat meat, your dinner plate might be responsible for as much carbon as your entire home’s electricity bill. That’s according to a groundbreaking study from the University of Michigan and the University of Minnesota, published in Nature Climate Change. The study traced the greenhouse gas emissions behind beef, pork, and chicken all the way from farm to city.

    The researchers created what they call a “carbon hoofprint” for more than 3,500 US cities, revealing how much pollution is tied to each region’s meat supply chains. The results are staggering: America’s total urban meat footprint is bigger than the entire carbon footprint of Italy.

    retro_burger_meat

    “This has huge implications for how we gauge the environmental impact of cities, measure those impacts, and ultimately develop policies to reduce those impacts,” said Benjamin Goldstein, co-leader of the study and assistant professor at Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability.

    The data also highlight how simple dietary swaps could rival the benefits of expensive home retrofits. “If you just cut out half of your beef consumption and maybe switch to chicken, you can get similar amounts of greenhouse gas savings depending on where you live,” Goldstein added. While he suggested switching to chicken in place of beef, omitting all animal meat would further minimize environmental impact.  

    “If we can get people to use this type of study to think about how diets in cities impact their environmental impacts, this could have huge effects across the United States,” Goldstein continued.

    What the study found and what you can do about it

    The team’s analysis dives deep into how supply chains affect emissions. While many assume that cities eating more meat automatically have higher footprints, that’s not always true. The researchers found that emissions varied widely depending on where the meat was produced, how the animals were raised, and what their feed was made from.

    “There’s not a single emissions value for the meat we consume,” explained Rylie Pelton, a research scientist at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment. “That’s because the supply chains are different in different locations. And also the impacts of production—the ways that beef, chicken, pork and feed are produced—are different in those different locations. That all matters from an emissions standpoint.”

    VegNews.FactoryFarming.cows.AdobeStockAdobe

    To illustrate, Los Angeles sources its beef from processing plants across 10 counties, but those facilities rely on livestock from 469 counties and feed from 828. Every step—from fertilizer production to manure management and long-haul transport—adds more emissions.

    “This is really the first systematic and analytical effort to map what we call urban-land teleconnections,” said Joshua Newell, another senior investigator on the project. “It’s understanding that cities have massive impacts beyond their borders.”

    The study’s findings come amid growing awareness of food-related climate impacts. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock accounts for about 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and beef alone contributes more than 40 percent of that. Swapping just one weekly beef meal for a plant-based option can shrink a person’s diet-related carbon footprint by nearly 10 percent, research from the University of Oxford shows.

    eating healthy food

    The Michigan-Minnesota team hopes its city-level data will inspire more tailored climate policies. Instead of focusing solely on home energy efficiency, municipalities might consider food-focused programs—such as Meatless Monday campaigns or city-sponsored incentives for plant-forward meals in schools and cafeterias.

    For consumers, the takeaway is simple: you don’t have to give up meat entirely to make a meaningful impact. As Goldstein noted, halving beef consumption can yield the same emissions savings as investing thousands in solar panels.

    “We can start identifying linkages between cities and the rural areas that produce our food,” Pelton said. “If we can identify those links, there might be opportunities for cities to engage with those distant locations, to help provide financial incentives and support in general to adopt certain practices that would ultimately help their own carbon footprint.”

    Jennifer Schmitt, a senior research scientist and co-author of the study, believes that cooperation is key. “We are all connected,” she said. “My hope is that this is the beginning of an urban-rural conversation. I get that that may seem ideal, but whatever. I’m an idealist.”

    This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

  • By Teuila Fuatai, RNZ Pacific senior journalist, and Susana Suisuiki, RNZ Pacific Waves host

    The future of the Manawanui wreckage and potential compensation payments remain a major talking point in Samoa.

    The Royal New Zealand Navy vessel ran aground on a reef off the south coast of Upolu in October last year and sank.

    New Zealand paid NZ$6 million to the Samoan government over it — however communities are yet to see any money.

    Tafitoala village has been directly affected by the maritime disaster.

    Resident Fagailesau Afaaso Junior Saleupu said the New Zealand High Commission and Samoa government held a short meeting regarding potential compensation options this week.

    Three options were tabled around the distribution process. One involved the Samoa government being responsible for the distribution of payments among families and affected businesses. Another involved the district authority being responsible for distributing payments.

    The Samoa government has previously said it intends to finalise the compensation process once it passes a budget, which it reportedly intends to do at the end of this month.

    Tight timeframe
    Fagailesau said this week’s meeting, which involved representatives from Samoa’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, seemed to be on a tight timeframe.

    “It’s not enough time for us to raise questions and . . . give them our opinion about the problem.”

    He believed the Samoa government should be responsible for distributing the money directly to those affected and said many people were concerned that the wreckage remained on the reef.

    “I don’t think it’s good for us in the long run.”

    Fagailesau also said many locals feared the compensation amount — which equates to WST$10 million — simply was not enough to manage the long-term impacts of the wreckage on the environment.

    He also said families in Tafitoala had been severely limited by the 2km prohibition zone around the wreckage.

    “My village — we are fighting for a big amount for us because we are the . . .  people that are really affected.

    “The 2km zone — it covers the area that we access for fishing every day. We’re eating tinned fish.”

    More meetings
    Fagailesau also said the Samoa government told locals it intended to hold more meetings over compensation in the future.

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters said he had not been aware of any locals eating tinned fish due to the wreckage.

    Peters spoke to RNZ Pacific Waves about the Manawanui. He reiterated that the Sāmoa government was leading the ongoing process around compensation and the wreckage, which included any discussion around its removal.

    He also denied there was any cover-up over the environmental impacts of the wreckage.

    To date, no environmental report on the impacts of Manawanui sinking has been made public.

    “It’s not a matter of being covert or secretive about it,” Peters said.

    “It’s analysing what we’re dealing with, and I think that probably better explains what’s happening here.”

    Open and transparent
    Peters said the New Zealand government had been open and transparent in it’s dealing and continued to work with the Sāmoa government over the Manawanui incident.

    “This terrible tragedy happened, which we massively regret — no one more than me.”

    But Samoa surf guide Manu Percival said the New Zealand government’s behaviour had not been good enough.

    For months, Percival had been in contact with the New Zealand High Commission about compensation for the boat fuel he used in the immediate aftermath of the disaster to assist with clean-up.

    “It’s real crazy. No one’s got any compensation.”

    He also said it had been difficult to get any concrete answers from the Sāmoa government over the future of the wreckage and compensation.

    “It’s kind of getting tossed between two different government departments.”

    Percival believed New Zealand should remove its wreckage and that the compensation amount paid to the Samoa government was “an absolute joke”.

    However, Peters said the NZ$6 million was the amount requested by the Samoa government.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Tacoma, WA – On October 14, a group of several dozen Tacoma activists gathered in the sunset of Fireman’s Park to oppose the expansion of the city’s liquid natural gas (LNG) plant. The event was organized by a broad coalition of Black, brown, indigenous, and other liberation movement groups, led by the of the Coast Salish Water Warriors (WW).

    Speaker Marilyn Kimmerling with Climate Alliance of the South Sound (CASS) explained that the LNG facility near the Port of Tacoma is both a refinery and storage place. The oil travels from across the country through underground pipelines to the LNG plant at Tacoma’s tide flats.

    The post Tacoma Organizations Protest LNG Plant appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recently published its General Comment on the environmental dimension of sustainable development. In addition to recognising human rights defenders, the Comment clarifies State obligations towards marginalized communities and notes the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels. It also outlines States’ extraterritorial obligations.

    ISHR provided two written inputs to the draft of this General Comment earlier this year – a standalone submission regarding the recognition and protection of environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) based on the Declaration+25, a supplement to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and a joint submission in partnership with the Center for International Environmental Law, Earthjustice, FIAN International, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam.

    States parties should respect, protect, and promote the work of environmental and indigenous human rights defenders, as well as other civil society actors who support people in marginalized and disadvantaged situations in realizing their Covenant rights.’ States parties should take all necessary measures to ensure that environmental human rights defenders and journalists can carry out their work, without fear of harassment, intimidation or violence, including by protecting them from harm by third parties.

    ISHR welcomes that priorities from the joint NGO submission to the CESCR are reflected in the General Comment, in particular Indigenous Peoples’ right to ‘free, prior and informed consent’ and the need to transition away from fossil fuels (including by reducing ineffective subsidies).

    However, we regret that the Comment does not more explicitly acknowledge the critical role of EHRDs in promoting sustainable development or strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) as an obstacle to their engagement. The CESCR has previously noted the risks faced by HRDs and provided guidance on their recognition and protection in the context of land issues in General Comment No. 26 and it should have extended this analysis to EHRDs in the context of sustainable development. The use of SLAPPs to silence HRDs has been acknowledged by other UN bodies, including in the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Mary Lawlor, to the Third Committee of the General Assembly.  

     Some additional highlights from the General Comment are set out below. 

    • The Committee found that ‘[t]he full realization of Covenant rights demands a just transition towards a sustainable economy that centres human rights and the well-being of the planet’. 
    • States should supervise commercial activity, establish a legal obligation for businesses in respect of environment and human rights due diligence, and ensure that victims of human rights violations stemming from businesses have redress. 
    • States have obligations to conduct human rights and environmental impact assessments, which are to be undertaken with ‘meaningful public participation’.
    • States have an extraterritorial obligation to ensure that any activities within the State or in areas under its control do not substantially adversely affect the environment in another country. This also extends to preventing businesses in the State from causing such harm in another jurisdiction. Even though the CESCR does not expressly mention it in the Comment, this should also apply to cases of attacks against EHRDs. 
    • The CESCR also clarifies States’ obligations towards marginalized communities, spotlighting the concept of intersectionality. It also explicitly notes that equal exercise of economic, social and cultural rights by women and men is a prerequisite for sustainable development, encouraging States to redistribute the unpaid domestic work undertaken by women and girls.
    • Environment-related obligations have also been set out for States in the context of specific Covenant rights, for example, the right to self-determination , right to freely utilize natural resources , right to work , right to an adequate standard of living, right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, right to education and other economic, social and cultural rights.
    • The General Comment recognises that certain communities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation – it calls on States to identify and protect those at risk. The CESCR focuses particularly on children (specifically calling for child rights defenders to be recognised and protected and for their participation in climate action to be facilitated), Indigenous Peoples, peasants, pastoralists, fishers and others in rural areas, and displaced persons.

    ‘Environmental degradation, including climate change, intensifies the vulnerabilities of individuals and groups who have historically experienced and/or experience marginalization. These vulnerabilities are shaped by intersecting factors such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age, migratory status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.’

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/cescr-general-comment-states-should-protect-environmental-and-indigenous-hrds-work-in-the-context-of-sustainable-development

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Mountain Goat nanny and kids. Photo: Sam Parks.

    Mountain goat nanny and kids. Glacier National Park, Montana.

    Our leaders are letting the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) die. But, maybe that’s okay. It’s time for a National Environmental Protection Act.

    By the 1960s, century-accumulated costs of “progress” highlighted the need for new legislation. Rachel Carson had documented the effects of pesticides in Silent Spring. American Interstate System construction was bulldozing communities and ecosystems. Ohio’s Cuyahoga River caught fire—again. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs opined that we were destroying our environment because of an information deficit, and NEPA would correct this.

    A “procedural” statute, NEPA doesn’t mandate less environmentally destructive outcomes. Instead, its language suggests that the authors believed a government, in cooperation with its people, would make better choices with better information: a policy “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere ….” Congress would execute this policy by requiring federal agencies to produce detailed statements—environmental impact statements (EISs)—on major federal actions. EISs would disclose foreseeable and adverse environmental impacts that could not be avoided and consider reasonable alternatives.

    NEPA is the process that enables Wilderness Watch, and our supporters, to inform various federal agencies how proposed activities would impact Wilderness and whether they comply with the Wilderness Act. This has included stream-poisoning projects, predator-killing decisions, and proposals to reintroduce livestock to places in Wilderness where grazing has been absent for decades. Anyone who has commented on a project the agency is considering has likely done so under NEPA.

    Because NEPA is merely procedural, it has suffered a death by 1,000 cuts accumulated over the decades.

    All three branches of our government and both political parties bear responsibility for NEPA’s demise. In May’s judicial bludgeoning, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) narrowed the scope of environmental review with blinders, allowing the U.S. Surface Transportation Board to view 88 miles of proposed railway in Utah without considering how the project would enable upstream fossil fuel production and downstream fuel refining by geographically connecting them. The Court reiterated NEPA as a “purely procedural statute that…simply requires the agency to prepare an EIS—in essence, a report.” In condoning compartmentalized environmental analysis over the bigger picture, SCOTUS summarized how our government regards NEPA nowadays. NEPA is a procedural hurdle on the way to an inevitable project. Sometimes the public can pause it, but only temporarily.

    Many agencies in this current administration just transitioned their NEPA regulations into meaningless fluff that disempowers the public, but the accumulation of less flagrant offenses over the years led to this moment. The environmental assessment (EA)—originally created to ascertain whether significant impacts are possible and thus whether an EIS must proceed—has been inappropriately utilized at ever-broadening scales. For example, the Forest Service has recently conducted an EA for a 2.4 million-acre forestwide burn project—which includes 842,000 acres of Wilderness—in the Sequoia and Sierra national forests in California. The project will have no end and will indiscriminately burn Wilderness, roadless, botanical, and research areas. This is the largest intervention and manipulation project ever proposed for Wilderness. Yet, the EA’s draft decision claims this behemoth project will have no significant environmental impact.

    In another example, when the public told the National Park Service (NPS) in 2018 that it hadn’t justified how killing half of the mountain goats on the Olympic Peninsula and helicoptering the other half into the North Cascades—impacting eight Wilderness areas— was the best environmental choice, NPS maintained it neither had to identify nor choose the “environmentally preferred alternative.”

    One last example: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received 34,783 comments on a proposal to build the Ambler Road in Alaska, which would run adjacent to and negatively impact the Gates of the Arctic Wilderness. BLM counted 30,000 of these opposition comments as “one” because they were “standardized letters” with the same text, minimizing that 30,000 people agreed with the ideas in the letter, enough so to spend their own time submitting a copy. These offenses occur regardless of who heads the executive branch.

    Congress also has contributed to the fall of NEPA. In the “Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003” (HFRA), Congress allowed the Forest Service to designate “treatment” areas without NEPA review, and created categorical exclusions (CEs) that allow logging in those areas, adding more CEs in decades since. The Council of Environmental Quality initially created CEs to avoid NEPA processes for actions with highly unlikely environmental impacts, enabling agencies to avoid environmental reviews for activities like mowing lawns at Forest Service ranger stations. Congress used HFRA to transform this administrative feature into legislative loopholes bypassing NEPA, deeming that 3,000 acres of logging (which underwent EISs in the 1990s) has “no environmental impact” simply because lawmakers don’t want to believe it. The “Fix Our Forests Act” bill pending in Congress elevates this to a macabre level, excising the public and NEPA with “fireshed” designations within which 10,000-acre CEs are permissible— so logging, burning, and grazing may proceed largely unexamined and unchallenged.

    Our government doesn’t want better information. In our upside-down world, if the government spends the time to propose a project with potentially large environmental costs, NEPA and its values are annoying speed bumps to apparently inevitable “progress.” Since NEPA won’t sway decision makers from environmentally destructive decisions, it merely complicates how quickly the government can accomplish projects because of public pushback. It’s time for a National Environmental Protection Act, one that mandates substance over procedure, and reflects values that the NEPA authors thought we had.

    The post RIP NEPA: Don’t Mourn NEPA’s Death, Replace It With Something Stronger appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Reform’s Andrea Jenkyns has launched an attack on the UK’s latest ‘solar project’:

    She’s facing some criticism for this, as it turns out she was once something of a solar head herself:


    Consequently, people are suggesting she’s only attacking solar farms now because Reform have decided it’s a winning wedge issue (that or because their fossil fuel donors want them to).

    Farm land for the farmers?

    Reform’s argument is pretty straight forward and easy to agree with at face value, which is that ‘farm land should be used for farming’. Does the argument hold up, however?

    In a fact sheet on solar farms and agricultural land, Solar Energy UK note the key consideration for any solar project is whether it’s nearby to a “viable grid connection”. While lower grade or brownfield is preferable, they note that most such plots are “small scale” and assigned to pre-existing projects. This means projects will often consider usable farmland.

    In a BBC article, farmers highlighted that they could make significant money by renting out their land to solar projects, and yet many choose not to. In the same article, Chris Hewett of Solar Energy UK said:

    We need less than half a percent of UK land, for a fully decarbonised energy grid.

    That is the amount of land we use for golf courses – and less than we use for airports.

    Others have made a similar point:

    In an article on the project Jenkyns highlighted – the largest such project in the UK – energy minister Michael Shanks said:

    Families across Lincolnshire and the rest of the country have seen their energy bills go through the roof as a result of our exposure to volatile gas prices.

    Solar is one of the cheapest and quickest power sources we can build, it is crucial in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower – giving us energy security, good jobs and growth across the country.

    While an increased capacity for renewable energy should bring down energy bills, it may be offset by the government allowing US tech companies to build AI data centres over here. On the plus side, it will mean we can generate worthless videos like the following at a slightly faster clip:


    Regardless of the finer points, many view Reform as being cynical on this issue, and it’s not hard to see why:


    Ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe was literally making money off solar farming:

    Jenkyns herself made herself the face of solar:

    It’s no wonder she can’t sleep at night; she’s no doubt been worried that the solar photo shoot would get out:

    A desire to keep these images hidden may be why she asked for a bigger mayoral team despite promising to cut costs before being elected, although that is of course speculation.

    Decisions

    With anything like this, there are pros and cons.

    If we can get cheaper electricity while drastically improving our air quality and carbon footprint, that seems like a pretty good deal if all we have to lose is as much land as we currently dedicate towards golf. We’re not immune to the arguments against losing farm land, however, which is why we’d like to suggest nationalising Britain’s golfing infrastructure to dedicate the land towards renewable energy.

    Now that would really wind up Reform’s wealthy donors.

    Featured image via X/Twitter

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In response to a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request, Reform-run Kent County Council has confirmed it’s on track to achieve Net Zero ‘cost neutrality’ by 2035. As there could be millions of years of civilisation in Kent after 2035, that’s a pretty good deal. This is especially true as national estimates predict Net Zero will be saving us £40bn per annum by 2050.

    With the cost of renewable energy and electric vehicles and machinery regularly dropping in price, the future is looking bright for those who want clean air and a living planet. Or it is if we can convince politicians not to torch the climate for the sake of fossil fuel billionaires anyway.

    Net Zero

    As noted, the cost of renewables keep dropping. At the same time, we’re once again investing in carbon-free nuclear energy, and there are other interesting ideas in development which could provide even more options:

    There are still issues, though, with two of the biggest being:

    1. Politicians like Donald Trump are dedicated to fossil fuel – either out of spite or because their donors want them to be.
    2. We keep finding ingenious new ways of wasting electricity, with the most recent being AI data centres – data centres which are primarily used to produce videos of SpongeBob SquarePants smoking weed (this may be an exaggeration, but still, you get the point).

    While Reform and other politicians on the right have tried to turn the push for Net Zero into a ‘cost saving issue’, the reality is that not switching will cost us far more in the long run. Another reality is that the national and local governments know this, because they’ve crunched the numbers.

    In response to a Freedom of Information request, Kent County Council told us:

    In 2024-25, KCC spent £7,976,501 on fuel and utilities.
    Moving to Net Zero does not entirely negate fuel and utility costs – in some instances
    utility costs decrease (in the instance of EV charging at certain locations compared to
    the purchase of petrol and diesel) in other instances costs increase slightly (in the case
    of using electricity for heat pumps compared to using gas boilers – while heat pumps
    consume three times less than gas in terms of kWh, electricity is three times more
    expensive than gas).
    Despite this, as a package of measures, counting all savings and revenue generated
    from projects within the Net Zero 2030 plan against expenditure, LASER Energy
    estimated reaching ‘cost neutral’ position in 2035.

    Despite the plan being on track, the Reform-run Council rescinded their climate emergency declaration in September. Council leader Linden Kemakaran said:

    For so many years the opposition have been able to shut down anybody who had an opposing point of view. They got so used to shouting across the chamber, ‘climate change deniers, lunatics’.

    Ironically, she then went on to make a statement which many would describe as ‘lunacy’:

    We’re not saying there’s no such thing as climate change, what we are saying is we need to adapt to the changing climate.

    Nature will do what nature does.

    So Kent Council are going to “adapt” to failing global crops; to massively increased migration, and to England’s temperatures dropping to Scandinavian levels after the Gulf Stream collapses?

    Adapt.

    These Reform councillors can’t even adapt to being in the council, never mind to a never ending global catastrophe:

    The Net Zero stuff isn’t a quirk of Kent County Council; it’s coming from the very top of Reform:

    The problem with all this is that it’s nonsense.

    Net Zero misinfo

    In a video titled You’ve been lied to about Net Zero, Simon Clark says that people create misinformation around Net Zero as follows:

    So these are the five steps of the anti-net zero playbook. Inflate the costs, ignore the cost of business as usual, ignore the operational savings, ignore the co- benefits, and most egregiously, ignore the costs of inaction. Not getting to net zero is going to cost the world much, much more

    Clark also highlights that when people target the ‘cost’ of switching to Net Zero, they ignore the costs of not switching:

    the second step often is is to pretend that we can just carry on with business as usual and it won’t cost us anything. Let’s say we’re talking about decarbonising transport. And then people say, “Oh, but you know, an EV that’s going to cost like £40,000. You know, that’s a huge investment. That’s expensive, right?” You know, and you add that up over all of the cars in the in the country and you suddenly get a big scary number.

    Again, let’s say we just carry on with petrol cars. Petrol cars aren’t free, right? Okay, maybe you own a petrol car now, so you don’t have to buy a new one, but that won’t last forever. So, that’s step two is you basically pretend that the existing system, which we’ve already built and paid for, can just carry on forever and won’t ever need replacing.

    Power

    The longer Reform are in power, the more their politicians are realising that Farage’s ideas don’t work in practice. This is why they went in promising to make efficiency savings and lower the cost of living but they’re now asking for pay rises and pushing tax rises.

    Net Zero is another issue where Reform are talking nonsense, but it’s harder to make people see that than it is for something like failing local services or rising Council Tax. As such, if people don’t want to see the environment torched on the bonfire of Farage’s vanity, they need to speak up and get active.

    Featured image via Jordy Schaap (Wikimedia) / Heute / Steven Penton (Wikimedia)

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • This morning, in front of a railway platform packed with commuters, a group of women made a citizen’s arrest of Mark Thurston, CEO of Anglian Water. The group was part of the Citizen’s Arrest Network (CAN), an activist community that’s seeking to hold the UK’s biggest polluters to account.

    Taking matters into their own hands

    Just last week, a group from CAN approached eight water bosses, Thurston included, to hand them evidence dossiers. These outlined the damage and pollution that their companies have caused, and the effect it’s had on the public. CAN called on the police to arrest Mark Thurston, making it clear that his crimes were serious and ongoing. Of course, they failed to show up.

    So, just after 7am this morning, CAN members approached Thurston and surrounded him at Coulston South station, South London. Holding hands in a circle to prevent him from leaving, one member of the group read him the charges.

    CAN is accusing Thurston of three counts of public nuisance. His company, Anglian Water, has failed to maintain its equipment, leading to illegal sewage spills. This, in turn, has risked the public’s access to clean water and caused environmental damage. And finally, according to CAN’s evidence, Anglian has mismanaged funds following bill increases and Thurston’s bonus ban.

    Jacking up bills and paying off shareholders

    The arrest comes just days after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) granted Anglian permission to raise its prices above the limit set by Ofwat, the water regulator. This new increase will follow a 19% hike in water bills already this year, along with the biggest increase in sewage discharges in 2024.

    The CMA appointed an independent group of experts to review Ofwat’s December 2024 decisions. A government press release stated that:

    In its provisional decisions, the Group has balanced minimising the impact on people’s bills with the need for companies to have enough funding. This includes funding to meet their environmental and drinking water quality legal obligations, and for investor returns to reflect the risks involved – so companies can raise the money to deliver better outcomes for current and future customers.

    The Group has provisionally decided to allow 21% – an additional £556 million in revenue – of the total £2.7 billion the 5 firms requested. This extra funding is expected to result in an average increase of 3% in bills for customers of the disputing companies, which is in addition to the 24% increase for customers of these companies expected as part of Ofwat’s original determination.

    Since Thurston became CEO at Anglian Water, the company has received a fine of £62.8m for its repeated failures to fix its shoddy sewage infrastructure. In fact, Anglian is one of the very worst water suppliers in the country for sewage discharge. In the first two months of 2025 alone, 1,347 spills were reported.

    Meanwhile, Thurston paid out over £88m in dividends in 2024. Dividends are money that’s meant to come out of a company’s profits to go to its shareholders. And, of course, Thurston was paid nearly £700,000 for his trouble.

    So, to recap – we have a company whose infrastructure has decayed to the point that it regularly dumps sewage into the environment. It went to the CMA to beg to jack up water bills even higher than Ofwat allowed it to not one year ago. And yet it had £88m in ‘profit’ the pay out to its shareholders?

    But it gets even worse. Anglian Water is currently a whopping £7.72bn in debt. That’s a 10% increase on last year alone. The Guardian found that between 2019 and 2023, around 24% of the money from customers’ bills went straight towards paying off the company’s debt, in spite of the fat pay checks it was also writing for its executives and shareholders.

    Holding Thurston to account

    If none of that makes any fucking sense to you, don’t worry – you’re not the only one. Public resentment of private water suppliers is growing fast. According to polling from Survation released just last week, a massive 74% of the public back criminal charges for water company bosses. Moreover, 71% believe that water companies are causing environmental damage and climate change.

    Isobel Rock, who made the citizens arrest, said:

    I’m here to hold Mark Thurston to account for the crimes Anglian Water is committing everyday against our environment and pockets. These water companies are ignoring environmental protections and are focused on shareholder profit making over public safety or keeping bills affordable.

    Our water is being polluted by these companies every day and continues to be, despite public uproar. And now our bills are set to increase once again, passing the buck back on to customers. Meanwhile Anglian Water made a profit of nearly £5m last year, the CEO is set to make £700k in with his salary, despite the bonus ban, and pay shareholders millions. All while Anglian has a huge debt that we’re paying for. When are those responsible going to start paying for the damage they create to our environment? We are the victims of their continued failure and we want the police to take us seriously.

    Government bodies have spent years issuing fines to water companies for the sewage they dump into our environment, but little has changed. The companies beg to extract more money from customers to fix their infrastructure. And all the while, they siphon off the funds to pay themselves, their shareholders, and their debt-holders.

    The system clearly isn’t working. Somebody will pay for the crimes committed by private water companies – that much is certain. We face a stark and simple choice: will it be the public, and the environment we live in, or will it be CEOs like Thurston and his ilk?

    Featured image via Unsplash/Chillsession

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Pacific leaders believe climate experts are missing an opportunity to incorporate indigenous knowledge into adaptation measures.

    The call has been made as hundreds of scientists, global leaders, and climate adaptation experts around the globe gather at the Adaptation Futures Conference in Christchurch.

    At the conference’s opening session, Tuvalu’s Environment Minister Maina Talia explained how sea level rise was damaging agricultural land and fresh groundwater is becoming saline.

    “The figures are alarming, this is not just for Tuvalu and this is not a Tuvaluan problem, it’s not even a small island developing states problem, it’s a global economic bomb,” he said.

    Incorporating indigenous knowledge into climate adaptation has been a major focus of the event.

    Talia told RNZ Pacific he feels adaptation is generally presented in a Western lens.

    “We need to decolonise our mind, decolonise our soul, in order to integrate community-based adaptation measures.”

    Flagship adaptation projects
    The highest elevation in Tuvalu is only four and a half metres. A 2023 report from NASA found much of Tuvalu’s land would be below the average high tide by 2050.

    To combat rising seas the government has started reclaiming land, which is one of the island nation’s flagship adaptation projects.

    Talia said a “decolonisation approach” gave communities ownership of the work being done.

    “It’s all informed by our elders, informed by our youth, informed by our women in society, we cannot come with the idea that this is how your adaptation measures should look like.”

    Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) director-general Sefanaia Nawadra, on a similar line, said the “biggest difference” of incorporating indigenous-led solutions was giving people a sense of ownership.

    “It’s management by compliance rather than management by regulation, where you’re using a stick to say, ‘ok, if you don’t do this, you will be penalised’.”

    ‘Like a cheat code’
    Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change president Cynthia Houniuhi said those on the front line of the adverse effects of climate change are often indigenous people, which is almost always the case in the Pacific.

    “Who knows the place better than the ones that have lived there, so imagine that experience informs the solution, that’s the best way, it’s kind of like a cheat code.”

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) head of adaptation Youssef Nassef said it is not always clear how national adaptation plans included input from indigenous people.

    He also said climate knowledge is not always accessible to those who need it most.

    “We create knowledge, we put them in peer-reviewed publications but are the people who are actually needing it on the frontlines of climate change impacts really receiving that knowledge.”

    Pacific climate activists are coming off a high after a top UN court found failing to protect people from the adverse effects of climate change could violate international law.

    ICJ advisory opinion
    Houniuhi was one of the students who got the advisory opinion in July from the International Court of Justice.

    But she told those attending the conference it meant nothing if not acted upon.

    “We must continue this same energy, momentum and drive into the implementation of the ruling. As one of our mentors rightly said, ‘the law has now caught up to the science, what we now need is for policy to catch up to the law’.”

    Houniuhi said the advisory opinion provided “more weight to influence demands”. She expected the advisory opinion to be used as a negotiating tool by Pacific leaders at COP30 in Brazil next month.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • More To The Story: Bill McKibben isn’t known for his rosy outlook on climate change. Back in 1989, the environmentalist wrote The End of Nature, which is considered the first mainstream book warning of global warming’s potential effects on the planet. His writing on climate change has been described as “dark realism.” But McKibben has recently let a little light shine through thanks to the dramatic growth of renewable energy, particularly solar power. 

    In his new book, Here Comes the Sun: A Last Chance for the Climate and a Fresh Chance for Civilization, McKibben argues that the planet is experiencing the fastest energy transition in history from fossil fuels to solar and wind—and that transition could be the start of something big. On this week’s More To The Story, McKibben sits down with host Al Letson to examine the rise of solar power, how China is leapfrogging the United States in renewable energy use, and the real reason the Trump administration is trying to kill solar and wind projects around the country.

    Producer: Josh Sanburn | Editor: Kara McGuirk-Allison | Theme music: Fernando Arruda and Jim Briggs | Copy editor: Nikki Frick with help from Artis Curiskis | Deputy executive producer: Taki Telonidis | Executive producer: Brett Myers | Executive editor: James West | Host: Al Letson

    Listen: Will the National Parks Survive Trump? (Reveal)

    Read: Rooftop Solar Is a Miracle. Why Are We Killing It With Red Tape? (Mother Jones)

    Read: Here Comes the Sun: A Last Chance for the Climate and a Fresh Chance for Civilization (W.W. Norton & Company)

    Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • This Indigenous Peoples Day, the approximately 2,700 Ojibwe tribal members of the Bay Mills Indian Community in northern Michigan are marking the holiday amid fear that their region could face another environmental catastrophe like the one that occurred in 2010, when Enbridge’s Line 6B oil pipeline burst and spilled over a million gallons of tar sands crude oil, contaminating the Kalamazoo River and over 40 miles in its watershed.

    Today, the community is afraid that an even more potentially devastating event is looming: a future rupture of another Enbridge relic, the antiquated 72-year-old Line 5 pipeline, which originates and ends in Canada but travels across Wisconsin and Michigan, and crucially, through the Great Lakes under the Straits of Mackinac.

    The post Oil Pipeline Threatens Catastrophe For Tribes In Michigan – Again appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This Indigenous Peoples Day, the approximately 2,700 Ojibwe tribal members of the Bay Mills Indian Community in northern Michigan are marking the holiday amid fear that their region could face another environmental catastrophe like the one that occurred in 2010, when Enbridge’s Line 6B oil pipeline burst and spilled over a million gallons of tar sands crude oil, contaminating the Kalamazoo River and over 40 miles in its watershed.

    Today, the community is afraid that an even more potentially devastating event is looming: a future rupture of another Enbridge relic, the antiquated 72-year-old Line 5 pipeline, which originates and ends in Canada but travels across Wisconsin and Michigan, and crucially, through the Great Lakes under the Straits of Mackinac.

    The post Oil Pipeline Threatens Catastrophe For Tribes In Michigan – Again appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Mary Lawlor, UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders, accuses US, UK and other governments of paying lip service to climate goals while criminalizing activists

    Human rights defenders organizing to prevent climate catastrophe are facing a surge in reprisals, as governments around the world denigrate, delegitimize and criminalize activists in spite of worsening global heating, a top United Nations official has told the Guardian.

    Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders since 2020, has documented hundreds of cases where states have sought to smear and silence climate defenders engaged in peaceful protest, non-violent civil disobedience and litigation.

    Continue reading…

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

  • No More Deaths is about stopping the Sacrifice Zones of La Frontera

    A jaguar roams the 55,000-acre Northern Jaguar Reserve and surrounding Viviendo con Felinos ranches, 125 miles south of the U.S.-Mexico border.

    On my radio show, Nov. 20, 6 pm. An early gift for Paulo Kirk Subscribers. Pesos and gold teeth welcomed for this Substack!

    Erick Meza, borderlands coordinator for the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, discovered that one of the sections slated for the upcoming border wall is southern Arizona’s San Rafael Valley, a critical wildlife corridor for endangered species, including jaguars.

    “It’s an ecological catastrophe,” he said of the proposed construction in the grassland valley. Meza spends much of his time traveling the borderlands documenting wildlife and the impacts of the border wall on an ecosystem under extreme stress from climate change and militarization.

    Erick is Mexican, grew up in Guaymas, and learned that working in the tourist industry in Mexico was not a pathway to change.

    You can turn blue in the face teaching turistas not to touch the coral heads with fins or knee pads, but alas, a turista is always the king of dollars, and some Mexican smart guy can’t tell a Yanqui what to do when he or she is paying big bucks for the cruise ship feces trip.

    Erick ended up in Panama, ended up working on permaculture projects with indigenous groups in Panama, growing the chocolate pods.

    Solar panels and sustainable living, and bio-intensive ag, all up his alley, since Erick as a Mexican national spent time in Olympia, WA, with former wife to learn everything about permaculture.

    Permaculture Systems Spiral

    Erick worked with Julie Hobbs, master permaculture expert:

    So, here we are, now, on the Arizona-Mexico border, and Erick wears many hats:

    [Jaguar mural by Kati Astraeir, in Tucson, Arizona]

    Jaguar mural by Kati Astraeir, in Tucson, Arizona

    Erick was born in the Sonoran Desert in Mexico in the border state of Sonora in Mexico. He worked for 8 years as a certified tour guide in different locations across the country, focusing on education and preservation of the natural resources.

    After working in the tourism industry decided to fully work on environmental education starting 2 different projects on experiential education, first in Bocas del Toro Panama and after in the Pacific coast of Southern Mexico.

    When he moved into the United States, in particular, to the Sonoran Desert, Erick continued his work in education, teaching sustainable farming practices for the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona for 5 years.

    Currently, Erick works as the Borderlands coordinator for the Sierra Club working directly with communities along the US/Mexico border to protect the environment and build connections between different conservation movements in both sides of the border.

    Erick also is a Permaculture educator with the Sonoran Permaculture Guild where he teaches and helps certify people as Permaculture practitioners to live more sustainable lives in the desert.

    Jaguars are reappearing in the Southwest. A border wall would put an end to that.

    [The Santa Rita male (a.k.a. El Jefe) in the Santa Rita Mountains, July 30, 2015.]

    LISTEN to my interview above, or wait until November 20, 6 PM, KYAQ.ORG.

    SICK Homo Consumopethicus: fences with metal, fences through Meta and AI and drones.

    The U.S.-Mexico border fence highlighted by Border Patrol headlights in Sasabe, Arizona.

    Amazing world Meza is fighting for:

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

    Nevada state regulators have accused Elon Musk’s Boring Co. of violating environmental regulations nearly 800 times in the last two years as it digs a sprawling tunnel network beneath Las Vegas for its Tesla-powered “people mover.” The company’s alleged violations include starting to dig without approval, releasing untreated water onto city streets and spilling muck from its trucks, according to a new document obtained by City Cast Las Vegas and ProPublica.

    The Sept. 22 cease-and-desist letter from the state Bureau of Water Pollution Control alleged repeated violations of a settlement agreement that the company had entered into after being fined five years ago for discharging groundwater into storm drains without a permit. That agreement, signed by a Boring executive in 2022, was intended to compel the company to comply with state water pollution laws.

    Instead, state inspectors documented nearly 100 alleged new violations of the agreement. The letter also accuses the company of failing to hire an independent environmental manager to regularly inspect its construction sites. State regulators counted 689 missed inspections.

    The Boring Co. is disputing the violation letter, a state spokesperson said.

    The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection could have fined the company more than $3 million under the 2022 agreement, which allowed for daily penalties to be assessed. But regulators knocked down the total penalty to $242,800. For example, the bulk of the total possible fine was linked to the alleged missed inspections, but the agency chose to levy just a $10,000 penalty for each of the company’s 11 permits.

    “Given the extraordinary number of violations, NDEP has decided to exercise its discretion to reduce the penalty to two $5,000 violations per permit, which it believes offers a reasonable penalty that will still serve to deter future non-compliance conduct,” regulators wrote in the letter.

    Payment of the penalty isn’t required until after the dispute resolution process is complete, a state spokesperson said. In the letter, the agency reminded the company that it “reserves the right to direct TBC to cease and desist construction activities” under the agreement.

    In the past, Musk has espoused paying penalties rather than waiting for approvals as a way of doing business.

    ​​“Environmental regulations are, in my view, largely terrible,” he said at an event with the libertarian Cato Institute last year. “You have to get permission in advance, as opposed to, say, paying a penalty if you do something wrong, which I think would be much more effective.”

    Neither Musk nor Boring responded to requests for comment for this story.

    The Sept. 22 letter documents the latest in a string of alleged violations of state and local regulations by The Boring Co. since it began construction in 2019 of the Loop project, which uses driver-operated Teslas to move people through the tunnels. The project, initially a 0.8-mile underground route connecting the sections of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority campus to each other, has grown to a planned 68 miles of tunnels and 104 stations across the Las Vegas Valley. It’s carried out in partnership with the LVCVA, the tourism board best known for the “What Happens Here, Stays Here” slogan.

    Boring uses a machine known as Prufrock to dig the 12-foot-diameter tunnels, applying chemical accelerants as part of the process. For each foot the company bores, it removes about 6 cubic yards of soil along with any groundwater, according to a company document prepared for state environmental officials.

    Because it is privately funded and receives no federal money, the project is exempt from many exhaustive governmental vetting and environmental analysis requirements. But it is required to obtain state permits to ensure the waste does not contaminate the environment or local water sources.

    A January story by ProPublica and City Cast Las Vegas documented how the company worked to escape county and state oversight requirements by arguing its project didn’t fit under existing regulations and promising to hold itself accountable through independent audits — all while being cited for permitting and water pollution violations in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023. Last year, the company successfully lobbied to be exempted from holding a county “amusement and transportation system” permit, arguing instead for an oversight plan that removed multiple layers of inspection.

    Workers have complained of chemical burns from the waste material generated by the tunneling process, and firefighters must decontaminate their equipment after conducting rescues from the project sites. The company was fined more than $112,000 by Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late 2023 after workers complained of “ankle-deep” water in the tunnels, muck spills and burns. The Boring Co. has contested the violations. Just last month, a construction worker suffered a “crush injury” after being pinned between two 4,000-foot pipes, according to police records. Firefighters used a crane to extract him from the tunnel opening.

    After ProPublica and City Cast Las Vegas published their January story, both the CEO and the chairman of the LVCVA board criticized the reporting, arguing the project is well-regulated. As an example, LVCVA CEO Steve Hill cited the delayed opening of a Loop station by local officials who were concerned that fire safety requirements weren’t adequate. Board chair Jim Gibson, who is also a Clark County commissioner, agreed the project is appropriately regulated.

    “We wouldn’t have given approvals if we determined things weren’t the way they ought to be and what it needs to be for public safety reasons,” Gibson said, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal. “Our sense is we’ve done what we need to do to protect the public.”

    Asked for a response to the new proposed fines, an LVCVA spokesperson said, “We won’t be participating in this story.”

    The repeated allegations that the company is violating regulations — including the bespoke regulatory arrangement agreed to by the company — indicates that officials aren’t keeping the public safe, said Ben Leffel, an assistant public policy professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    “Not if they’re recommitting almost the exact violation,” Leffel said.

    Leffel questioned whether a $250,000 penalty would be significant enough to change operations at The Boring Co., which was valued at $7 billion in 2023. Studies show that fines that don’t put a significant dent in a company’s profit don’t deter companies from future violations, Leffel said.

    A state spokesperson disagreed that regulators aren’t keeping the public safe and said the agency believes its penalties will deter “future non-compliance.”

    “NDEP is actively monitoring and inspecting the projects,” the spokesperson said.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Amnesty International is asking the New Zealand government to create a new humanitarian visa for Pacific people impacted by climate change.

    Kiribati community leader Charles Kiata said life on Kiribati was becoming extremely hard as sea levels rose and the country was hit by more severe storms, higher temperatures and drought.

    “Every part of life, food, shelter, health, is being affected and what hurts the most is that our people feel trapped. They love their home, but their home is slowly disappearing,” Kiata said.

    Crops are dying and fresh drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce for the island nation.

    Kiata said in New Zealand, overstayers were anxious they would be sent back home.

    “Deporting them back to flooded lands or places with no clean water like Kiribati is not only cruel but it also goes against our shared Pacific values.”

    Amnesty International is also asking the government to stop deporting overstayers from Kiribati and Tuvalu, who would be returning to harsh conditions.

    Duty of care
    The organisation’s executive director, Jacqui Dillon said she wanted New Zealand to acknowledge its duty of care to Pacific communities.

    “We are asking the New Zealand government to create a new humanitarian visa, specifically for those impacted by climate change and disasters. Enabling people to migrate on their terms with dignity.”

    She said current Pacific visas New Zealand offered, such as the Recognised Seasonal Employers (RSE) and the Pacific Access Category (PAC), were insufficient.

    “Those pathways are in effect nothing short of a discriminatory lottery, so they don’t offer dignity, nor do they offer self-agency.”

    Dillon said current visa schemes were also discriminatory because people could only migrate if they had an acceptable standard of health.

    The organisation interviewed Alieta — not her real name — who has a visual impairment. She decided to remove her name from the family’s PAC application to enable her husband and six-year-old daughter to migrate to New Zealand in 2016.

    It has meant Alieta has only seen her daughter once in the past 11 years.

    “I would urge all of us to think about that and say, if our feet were in those shoes, would we think that that was right? I don’t think we would,” Dillon said.

    Tuvalu comparison
    Tuvaluan community leader Fala Haulangi, based in Aotearoa, wants the country to adopt something like the Falepili Union Treaty which the leaders of Tuvalu and Australia signed in 2023.

    It creates a pathway for up to 280 Tuvalu citizens to go to Australia each year to work, live, and study.

    This year over 80 percent of the population applied to move under the treaty.

    Haulangi said the PAC had too many restrictions.

    “PAC (Pacific Access Category Visa) still comes with conditions that are very, very strict on my people, so if [New Zealand has] the same terms and conditions that Australia has for the Falepili Treaty, to me that is really good.”

    In the past, Pacific governments have been worried about the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme causing a brain drain.

    Samoa paused scheme
    In 2023, Samoa paused the scheme, partially because of the loss of skilled labour, including police officers leaving to go fruit picking.

    Haulangi said it’s not up to her to tell people to stay if a new and more open visa is available to Pacific people.

    “Who am I to tell my people back home ‘don’t come, stay there’ because we need people back home.”

    Dillon said some people will stay.

    “All we’re simply saying is give people the opportunity and the dignity to have self-agency and be able to choose.”

    Charles Kiata from Kiribati said a visa established now would mean there would be a slow migration of people from the Pacific and not people being forced to leave as climate refugees.

    He said people from Kiribati had strengths they could be proud of and could partner with New Zealand.

    “It’s a win-win for both of us; our people come to New Zealand to contribute economically and to society.”

    RNZ Pacific has approached New Zealand’s Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford for comment.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Blue oak woodlands in California offer beauty and opportunities to sustain traditional knowledge and ecological resilience.
    Nina Fontana, CC BY-NC-ND

    It took decades, stacks of legal paperwork and countless phone calls, but, in the spring of 2025, a California Chuckchansi Native American woman and her daughter walked onto a 5-acre parcel of land, shaded by oaks and pines, for the first time.

    This land near the foothills of the Sierra National Forest is part of an unusual category of land that has been largely left alone for more than a century. The parcel, like roughly 400 other parcels across the state totaling 16,000 acres in area, is held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of specific Indigenous people – such as a family member of the woman visiting the land with her daughter.

    Largely inaccessible for more than a century, and therefore so far of little actual benefit to those it is meant for, this land provides an opportunity for Indigenous people to not only have recognized land rights but also to care for their land in traditional ways that could help reduce the threat of intensifying wildfires as part of a changing climate.

    In collaboration with families who have long been connected to this land, our research team at the University of California, Davis is working to clarify ownership records, document ecological conditions and share information to help allottees access and use their allotments.

    California’s unique historical situation

    As European nations colonized the area that became the United States, they entered into treaties with Native nations. These treaties established tribal reservations and secured some Indigenous rights to resources and land.

    Just after California became a state in 1850, the federal government negotiated 18 treaties with 134 tribes, reserving about 7.5 million acres, roughly 7.5% of the state, for tribes’ exclusive use.

    However, land speculators and early state politicians considered the land too valuable to give away, so the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaties – while allowing the tribes to think they were valid and legally binding. As a result, most California Native Americans were left landless and subject to violent, state-sanctioned removals by incoming miners and settlers.

    Then, in 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which allowed Native people across the U.S. to be assigned or apply for land individually. Though it called the seized land – their former tribal homelands – the “public domain,” the Dawes Act presented a significant opportunity for the landless Native people in California to secure land rights that would be recognized by the government.

    These land parcels, called allotments, are not private land, public land or reservation land – rather, they are individual parcels held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of allottees and their descendants.

    A map of California showing different habitat regions and marking allotments with black dots, next to a chart showing how many acres of allotments are in each type of habitat.
    Allotments are in a wide range of ecosystems, though more are in blue oak woodlands than any other single type of habitat.
    Images created by James Thorne, Ryan Boynton, Allan Hollander and Dave Waetjan.

    Many of these allotments were remote – ecologically rich, yet hard to access. They were carved out of ancestral territories but often lacked access to infrastructure like roads, water or electricity. In some cases, allotments were separated from traditional village sites, ceremonial areas or vital water resources, cutting them off from broader ecosystems and community networks.

    Federal officials often drew rough or incorrect maps and even lost track of which parcels had been allotted and to whom, especially as original allottees passed away. As a result, many allotments were claimed and occupied by others, coming into private hands without the full knowledge or consent of the Native families they were held in trust for.

    There were once 2,522 public domain allotments in California totaling 336,409 acres. In 2025, approximately 400 of these allotments remain, encompassing just over 16,000 acres. They are some of the only remaining, legally recognized tracts of land where California Native American families can maintain ties to place, which make them uniquely significant for cultural survival, sovereignty and ecological stewardship.

    The allotments today

    Because of their remoteness, many of these lands remained relatively undisturbed by human activity and are home to diverse habitats, native plants and traditional gathering places. And because they are held in trust for Native people, they present an opportunity to exercise Indigenous practices of land and resource management, which have sustained people and ecosystems through millennia of climate shifts.

    We and our UC Davis research team partner with allottee families; legal advocates including California Indian Legal Services, a Native-led legal nonprofit; and California Public Domain Allottee Association, an allottee-led nonprofit that supports allottees to access and care for their lands. Together, we are studying various aspects of the remaining allotments, including seeking to understand how vulnerable they are to wildfire and drought, and identifying options for managing the land to reduce those vulnerabilities.

    A map of California showing different fire risk regions and marking allotments with black dots, alongside a chart showing how many acres of allotments are in different categories of fire risk.
    Allotments have a range of fire risk, though many are in very-high-risk areas. Images created by James Thorne, Ryan Boynton, Allan Hollander and Dave Waetjan.

    An opportunity for learning

    So far, our surveys of the vegetation on these lands suggest that they could serve as places that sustain both flora and fauna as the climate changes.

    Many of these parcels are located in remote, less-developed foothills or steep terrain where they have remained relatively intact, retaining more native species and diverse habitats than surrounding lands. Many of these parcels have elements like oak woodlands, meadows, brooks and rivers that create cooler, wetter areas that help plants and animals endure wildfires or periods of extreme heat or drought.

    Allotment lands also offer the potential for the return of stewardship methods that – before European colonization – sustained and improved these lands for generations. For example, Indigenous communities have long used fire to tend plants, reduce overgrowth, restore water tables and generally keep ecosystems healthy.

    Guided by Indigenous knowledge and rooted in the specific cultures and ecologies of place, this practice, often called cultural burning, reduces dry materials that could fuel future wildfires, making landscapes more fire-resilient and lowering both ecological and economic damage when wildfires occur. At the same time, it brings back plants for food, medicine, fiber and basketry for California Native communities.

    Challenges on allotments

    The Chuckchansi family who reached their land for the first time in the spring of 2025 would like to move onto the land. However, the parcel is surrounded by private property, and they need to seek permission from neighboring landowners to even walk onto their own parcel.

    In addition, a small number of employees at the Bureau of Indian Affairs are responsible for allotments, and they must also deal with issues on larger reservations and other tribal lands.

    Further, because the lands are held in federal trust, allottees’ ability to engage in traditional management practices like cultural burning often face more stringent federal permitting processes than state or private landowners – including restrictions under the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

    To our knowledge, no fire management plans have been approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on California Native American public domain allotments. Nonetheless, many families are interested in following traditional practices to manage their land. These efforts were a key topic at the most recent California Public Domain Allottees Conference, which included about 100 participants, including many allottee families.

    A group of people are assembled in a meeting room.
    People gather at the second annual California Public Domain Allottees Conference in May 2025. Nina Fontana, CC BY-NC-ND

    Why it matters

    As California searches for ideas to help its people adapt to climate change, the allotment lands offer what we believe is a meaningful opportunity to elevate Indigenous leadership in climate adaptation. Indigenous land stewardship strategies have shown they can reduce wildfire risk, restoring ecosystems and sustaining culturally important plants and foods. Though the parcels are small, the practices applied there – such as cultural burning, selective gathering and water stewardship – are often low-cost, community-based and potentially adaptable to larger parcels elsewhere around the state.

    One option could be to shift some of the regulatory authority from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the allottees themselves. Shifting authority to Indigenous peoples has improved forest health elsewhere, as found in a collaborative study between University of California Extension foresters and Hoopa Tribal Forestry. That research found that when the Hoopa Tribe gained control of forestry on their reservation along the Trinity River in northern California, tribal leaders moved toward more restorative forestry practices. They decreased allowable logging amounts, created buffers around streams and protected species that were culturally important, while still reducing the buildup of downed or dead wood that can fuel wildfires.

    At a time when California faces record-breaking wildfires and intensifying climate extremes, allotments offer rare pockets of intact habitat with the potential to be managed with cultural knowledge and ecological care. They show that adapting to change is not just about infrastructure or technology, but also about relationships – between people and place, culture and ecology, past and future.

    Kristin Ruppel from Montana State University, author of “Unearthing Indian Land, and Jay Petersen from California Indian Legal Services also contributed to the drafting of this article.The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    The post What Native-held Lands in California Can Teach About Resilience and the Future of Wildfire appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Minneapolis, MN – Climate Justice Committee and community members gathered for a family-friendly walk through Mayor Jacob Frey’s Northeast Minneapolis neighborhood on Saturday, October 4. The walk was called to raise awareness for the Roof Depot fight and urge Mayor Frey to give the East Philips neighborhood a fair deal for the site. Participants put up hundreds of posters, handed out flyers, and had conversations with community members.

    The walk was called by the Climate Justice Committee (CJC), a local activist group focused on fighting urban pollution and environmental racism in the Twin Cities. They have been active in the East Phillips neighborhood’s campaign to turn the old Roof Depot into an urban farm and community center.

    The post Minneapolis Brings The Fight For Roof Depot To Mayor Frey’s Neighborhood appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with Oregon Public Broadcasting. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week.

    Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek has ordered state agencies to take “any and all steps necessary” to fast-track solar and wind permits that must break ground by next year or likely miss out on a federal tax credit Congress is ending.

    The move follows reporting by Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica about the role that the state’s lengthy permitting process plays, according to renewables advocates, in Oregon having one of the slowest growth rates in the country for green energy. At the time, Kotek’s office said that she was “carefully considering opportunities to streamline Oregon’s energy siting processes.”

    The Democratic governor’s order does not change existing state law, and at least one leading green energy advocate voiced skepticism about its impact because it fails to address another obstacle to construction: the federal government’s sluggish pace of adding transmission capacity to handle new wind and solar.

    Kotek’s office, when announcing the order on Monday, couched it as the state’s attempt to reduce the risk “shovel-ready” projects lose out on federal tax benefits that make them more affordable.

    “With the elimination of promised incentives by the Trump Administration, states must step up as the last line of defense against climate catastrophe. We have to get renewable energy infrastructure built, and quickly,” Kotek said in a statement. “We cannot afford to lose this critical window.”

    Oregon needs to build more renewable energy projects like wind and solar to meet its renewable energy goals. In addition, the state has experienced rising electricity costs amid soaring demand. Yet as OPB and ProPublica have reported, Oregon lawmakers have paid little heed to the region’s inadequate transmission system. In addition, they have rejected or watered down legislation designed to make it easier for developers to get their wind, solar and transmission projects through the state’s approval process.

    Then, this year, President Donald Trump signed legislation dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It set a schedule for ending the federal investment tax credit and the production tax credit, which can fund 30% to 50% of most solar and wind projects. The credits were modified and extended during the administration of President Joe Biden as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

    The legislation signed by Trump says projects can still qualify for the credits if they meet a July 4, 2026, deadline for breaking ground and are completed by 2030. But projects that don’t start construction by July 4 must be up and running by Dec. 31, 2027, to qualify. That’s considered a tough time frame to meet.

    One analysis estimated the loss of credits could cost Oregon about 4 gigawatts of planned wind and solar energy, which is roughly enough electricity to power 1 million homes. According to Atlas Public Policy, a data and policy firm based in Washington, D.C., Oregon has 11 wind and solar projects now at risk of not qualifying for the tax credit.

    Nicole Hughes, executive director of the advocacy group Renewable Northwest, said Oregon may not get all of those projects or even a handful of them done in time to get the tax credits, in spite of Kotek’s order.

    Hughes said that’s because “even projects that already have made it through the permitting process are being held back by massive transmission queue backlogs and some of the transmission upgrades that these projects were waiting for.”

    Separate from state permitting, energy developers have to wait for the federal Bonneville Power Administration to allow projects to connect to its transmission lines. Bonneville owns about 75% of the Northwest’s transmission lines, and its lines are largely full with no capacity for new sources of electricity. It can take years before Bonneville determines whether a proposed project can plug into its grid.

    “I don’t think it’s right to be just looking at this July 2026 deadline,” Hughes said. “Our energy issues are going to extend far beyond that date, and we need to be thinking more long-term about how we move projects quicker through both the permitting and transmission process.”

    She nonetheless described Kotek’s order as a good first step, saying it put state agencies on notice that moving renewable projects forward is a priority.

    Kotek’s office declined to comment on concerns raised about the executive order’s limitations.

    A spokesperson for Bonneville stated that it has modified the interconnection process to move on a “first-ready, first-served” process that the agency says will improve current backlogs. The spokesperson said the federal agency expects to add about 2 gigawatts of new energy projects by the end of 2028 and complete the first phase of an interconnection study in January that could add more.

    The executive order directs the Oregon Department of Energy and the state Energy Facility Siting Council to identify and prioritize siting approval for projects that must begin construction by July 4. The highest priority would be given to projects with secured contracts between a developer and a utility and that can demonstrate anticipated benefits to Oregon ratepayers.

    The governor’s order also says the Oregon Public Utility Commission should consider using an outside contractor to study how solar and wind power projects connect to the electrical grid in the future.

    “Congress and the Trump administration have launched an all-out assault on affordable clean energy and our safe climate future,” Climate Solutions Oregon Director Nora Apter said in the statement issued by the governor’s office. “By moving swiftly to get as many wind and solar projects across the finish line as possible before the loss of federal tax credits, Governor Kotek is defending Oregon families, family-wage jobs, and energy resilience.”

    Oregon joins a handful of states that have already moved to more rapidly approve qualifying projects, like Colorado, Maine and California, due to the expiring federal tax credits.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • President Donald Trump approved on Monday the construction of a 211-mile road right through the Brooks Range Foothills and across the Northwestern Alaskan Arctic, including 26 miles of Gates of the Arctic National Park. The administration justified its decision to allow a mining company to carve through the arctic foothills with a simple explanation: Building the road will benefit the American artificial intelligence industry.

    Trump’s approval of the Ambler Road Project is a reversal for the federal government. Only last year, the Bureau of Land Management released its Record of Decision selecting “No Action” on Ambler Road, in cooperation with Alaska tribal councils, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and many others.

    In the document, the impact on fish habitat, water and air quality, disruption of groundwater flow, hazardous materials from spills, and the negative impact on the Western Arctic caribou herd, which has been steadily declining since 2017, were all cited as reasons for denial. The Record of Decision also stated that the Ambler Road Project would forever alter the culture and traditional practices of Alaska Native communities, who have lived and thrived in the region for centuries.

    Thanks to the BLM’s findings, the Biden administration denied the Ambler Road Project on June 28, 2024. The project resurfaced after the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority filed a direct appeal to Trump over his predecessor’s denial of transportation permits.

    Trump’s decision to approve the Ambler Road Project comes months after his administration announced plans to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, opening 45 million acres of national forest land to logging and road construction. While the Ambler Road Project is not directly tied to the “roadless rule,” it’s one of a growing list of examples of the U.S. government prioritizing corporate interests over the natural world.

    Ambler Road will begin at milepost 161 on the Dalton Highway, near the towns of Wiseman and Coldfoot, before crossing over 3,000 streams and multiple rivers. It will require up to 50 various bridge projects, as well as aid stations, airstrips, turnouts, and culverts, before ending at the proposed mining site near the town of Ambler.

    On Monday, Trump sat in the Oval Office with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright and made it clear that he was approving the project to stay ahead in what he considers an AI race against China.

    “Ambler Mining District, at the end of [the 211-mile road] has some of the richest mining deposits in all of America,” Burgum said, while gesturing at a map of Alaska behind the Resolute desk. “These are minerals that are absolutely essential to defense, to industry. … Just take copper alone. This is one of the richest copper locations in the country.”

    The haul at the end of the 211-mile road is presumed to be a copper deposit worth more than $7 billion. Copper has many uses, among them being the primary component to efficiently help power and cool the massive data centers that run AI applications. As a result, and as AI advances, copper is in massively high demand. According to the 2025 Global Critical Minerals Outlook, copper supplies will fall 30 percent short of the required demand by 2035.

    “China controls 85 to 100 percent of all the mining and refining of all the top 20 critical minerals,” Burgum said. “And in this mine area up here, we got copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, gallium, germanium — rich in all of the minerals that we need to win the AI arms race against China.”

    Burgum said that the U.S. has “gotten out of the energy and mining area,” and that when Trump said, “Drill, baby, drill,” he also meant “Mine, baby, mine.”

    Trump emphasized that the copper was needed to power AI data centers — but also immediately contradicted himself on whether it’s needed to surpass China, or rather to maintain what he described as America’s undisputed lead in AI.

    “We get a road done, and with that, we unleash billions and billions of dollars in wealth,” Trump said to the press on Monday. “It’s pretty amazing when you think of it. And it’s wealth that we need if we’re going to be the number one country. We’re number one now with AI, you’ve probably read. We’re beating everybody with AI at levels that nobody ever thought even possible.”

    But Trump said the U.S. currently lacks the power to support its tech companies, so he has greenlit them to “build their own power.”

    Related

    OpenAI’s Pitch to Trump: Rank the World on U.S. Tech Interests

    Immediately after taking office, Trump announced a $500 billion investment in artificial intelligence — led by OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank — called the Stargate Project, aiming to create a nationwide network of AI data centers. The first opened in Abilene, Texas, in September, after which five more were immediately announced.

    Also in September, Trump hosted a roundtable of AI giants to discuss AI innovation and investments into its future. Included in the guest list were OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Each of whom, coincidentally, donated exactly $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

    AI data centers significantly impact the environment due to their immense electricity consumption, high water usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and demand from local power grids.

    But along with the AI craze, a modern copper rush has begun, and it’s moving quickly. What was originally proposed as a three to four-year timeline for the Ambler Road Project appears to have been significantly sped up. Burgum said that construction will begin next spring with “planning throughout the winter.”

    “We’ll get it done in less than a year,” Trump added.

    Following the announcement of the approval for the Ambler Road Project, Burgum stated that the Department of War and the U.S. government will take a 10 percent stake in Trilogy Metals, a Canadian mining company with claims in the area.

    “America was a mining powerhouse for a long, long time, and our mining industry got squelched,” Burgum said. “Now we’re seeing it come back to life.”

     

    In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order to take immediate measures to increase American mineral production. The order states: “It is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent.”

    Related

    Biden Moves Forward With Mining Project That Will Obliterate a Sacred Apache Religious Site

    In April, the Trump administration fast-tracked a controversial transfer of ownership of Oak Flat, Arizona, from the U.S. Forest Service to Resolution Copper. The Apache Stronghold, who have sacred and ceremonial ties to the land, have been in lengthy legal battles to try to halt the transfer. Resolution Copper, a conglomerate owned by British and Australian mining companies, plans to blast a hole 2 miles wide and 1,000 feet deep, decimating the sacred Apache site to gain access to the deep copper reserve.

    In August, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge put a temporary injunction on the land transfer, and Trump released a scathing post on Truth Social in which he called the 9th Circuit “radical left” and the Apache Stronghold “anti-American.”

    On October 6, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Apache Stronghold case.

    The proposed destruction of public land — held sacred by Native Americans at Oak Flat and the Northwestern Arctic of Alaska — and numerous other sites, every year across America, in the name of progress, is merely one more example of a continued and very pointed genocide of Native American culture.

    The proposed destruction of public land in the name of progress is merely one more example of a continued and very pointed genocide of Native American culture.

    In response to Trump’s approval of the Ambler Road Project, environmental advocacy groups blasted the decision, saying it’s another example of Trump protecting business interests over the planet.

    “As with every other shortsighted, self-serving decision by this administration, this move is silencing the people who will be impacted the most,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. “Trump is sidestepping the views of Native Alaskans and short circuiting the federal government’s obligation to hear from them.”

    “We build a road that’s over 200 miles long through a very beautiful area of the world,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “It’s incredible when you look at it. But a rough area from the standpoint of building.”

    The post Trump Sacrifices Alaska Wilderness to Help AI Companies appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.