Category: environment

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Environmentalists in the Cook Islands have criticised former Prime Minister and Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) head Henry Puna for joining the board of a deep sea mining company.

    Puna, who finished his term as PIF secretary-general in May last year, played a pivotal part in the creation of multi-use marine park, Marae Moana, in 2017.

    The marine protected area extends over the entire country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), covering an area roughly the size of Mexico.

    It prohibits large-scale commercial fishing and seabed mining within 50 nautical miles of each of the 15 islands.

    Puna has now joined the board of deep sea mining company Cobalt Seabed Resources (CSR) — a joint venture between the Cook Islands government and the Belgian company Global Sea Mineral Resources.

    CSR is currently undertaking exploration in the Cook Islands EEZ, along with two other companies. It also has an exploration licence in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located in the high seas in the central Pacific Ocean.

    Environmental advocates say Puna’s new role conflicts with his conservation work.

    Simultaneously pushing for Marae Moana
    The Te Ipukarea Society said Puna was interested in the deep sea mining industry while simultaneously pushing for the creation of Marae Moana during his time as Prime Minister.

    “It is something to be wary about with his new role and maybe how he will go about green washing how the deep sea mining company operates within our waters and their actions,” the environmental charity’s director Alana Smith said.

    While in Parliament, Puna was an MP for the Northern Group atoll Manihiki.

    Manihiki resident Jean-Marie Williams said Puna was a good man

    However, Williams believes the benefits of deep sea mining will not be seen on his island.

    “We could make money out of it,” he said. “But who’s going to make money out of it? Definitely not the people of Manihiki.

    “The corporat[ions] will make money out of it.”

    ‘First to know’
    However, William Numanga, who previously worked for Puna as a policy analyst, does not view it like that.

    “Remember, Henry lives on an atoll, up north, so if there is any effect on the environment, he would be first to know,” Numanga said.

    “I do not think he will be putting aside a lot of the environmental concerns or challenges. He will be making sure that those environmental concerns are factored into this development process,” he added.

    Henry Puna in Rarotonga. November 2023
    Henry Puna ended his term as the PIF secretary general in May 2024 . . . a “passion for environmental protection”. Image: RNZ Pacific/Eleisha Foon

    He believes Puna’s “passion for environmental protection”, coupled with his desire for economic development, makes him a good fit for the role.

    Auckland doctoral student Liam Koka’ua said the company, which has the aim of extracting valuable minerals from the seabed, went against the purpose of Marae Moana.

    “If you truly believe Marae Moana is a place that must be protected at all costs and protected for our sustained livelihood and future and be protected for generations to come, then I don’t think rushing into an experimental industry that could potentially have huge impacts is aligned with those intentions,” Koka’ua said.

    RNZ Pacific has made multiple attempts to reach Puna for comment, but has yet to receive a response.

    However, in a statement, he said CSR was “uniquely placed to make advances for the people of the Cook Islands”.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Effluent pipe from a pulp mill draining into the Willamette River. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    Humans can survive for a rather astounding one to three months without food and in one case, a stunning 382 days, which the Guiness Book of Records places as the longest known survivor.

    But without water, survival time drops to 3-7 days.  Clearly, if we don’t drink water, we quickly die from dehydration.  Given that the human body is 76% water, one might think as a society we would put the absolute highest priority on maintaining this most vitally necessary substance for our survival.

    Unfortunately, that is not the case on either the federal or state level as politicians pander to the never-ending demands to lower water quality standards to appease industries, municipalities, water utilities, and to muster support by claiming deregulation is “cutting red tape.”

    The average American would be shocked to know what’s in their water — as well as what passes through both fresh and wastewater treatment plants. Nor are the effects of the growing multitude of pollutants a mystery.  Scientists and doctors know certain substances are extremely deleterious to human health. Yet, bowing to the pressures of commerce or cost, the current direction is to allow more, not less of these substances in our water.

    The most recent egregious example is the move by Lee Zeldin, now the head of Trump’s mis-named Environmental Protection Agency, to roll back the limits on PFAS, that were first adopted by Biden’s administration just last year.

    PFAS are a group of widely-used substances which are known as “forever chemicals” because they are basically impossible to remove once they are in the human body or environment.  They are classified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as “carcinogenic to humans.”

    In March, only a month after being confirmed by the Senate, Zeldin claimed he was making “the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history” by redirecting the EPA to favor deregulation and energy production. He claims his rollback of PFAS standards in drinking water is introducing “common-sense flexibility” by kicking the compliance date out to 2031 and rescinding standards on three PFAS substances. But continuing to poison the population surely doesn’t make much common sense.

    While the deregulatory wrecking ball crashes into the federal water quality standards, Montana’s legislature and governor have similarly decided to turn our water quality regulations to a sort of mush by repealing “numerical standards” that measure the amount of pollutants actually in the water to “narrative standards.” 

    As reported, narrative standards are described by the Department of Environmental Quality as “more general statements of unacceptable conditions in and on the water.”  To put it mildly, this change does not portend cleaner water for Montanans and is now the subject of a lawsuit by the Upper Missouri Waterkeeper group challenging the agency’s use of narrative standards in its refusal to list the Big Hole River as impaired due to nutrient pollution.

    Despite being at the very headwaters of the nation’s mightiest rivers, studies in Montana’s major river valleys found an alarming number of chemical pollutants in our groundwater, domestic, and commercial wells.  The Helena Valley study, for instance, found “pharmaceutically active” compounds including antibiotics, hormones, and drugs as well as the herbicide atrazine in the groundwater/well samples…all of which affect both humans and aquatic life.

    Simply put, we’re heading in the wrong direction and fouling our own nest by moving to capitulate to commerce rather than regulating pollutants to protect the health of our citizens and environment.  We know the damage is being done.  And no amount of short-term profits can or ever will replace the most vitally necessary substance for life — good, clean water.

    The post The Battle for Clean Water: Regulate or Capitulate appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • A human rights research group has linked major mining companies to a surge in human rights abuses, environmental harm, and community conflict. In its latest annual analysis, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre has uncovered the staggering scale of these abuses that the global rush for transition minerals to power the clean energy transition is fanning.

    Transition minerals: linked to human rights abuses and environmental harms

    Notably, corporations including Glencore, Grupo México, Codelco, Georgian American Alloys, China MinMetals, Sinomine Resource Group, and South32 all crop up in numerous allegations.

    The Centre has recorded some 834 allegations since 2010. These involve environmental harm, water pollution, land grabs, unsafe working conditions, and attacks on Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

    It found a staggering 156 allegations of abuse connected with the mining of key minerals essential for electric vehicle batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines in 2024 alone. These included minerals like nickel, lithium and zinc.

    Despite the widespread allegations, less than half of companies involved have a human rights policy in place. It means they are missing the opportunity to create a just transition, rid their projects and supply chains of abuse, and build sustainable business models that are attractive to workers and investors alike.

    Mining giants meting out abuse in the Global South

    Key findings from the new research on transition minerals included:

    • The top three minerals it most frequently linked to abuses since 2010 were: copper (44% of cases); copper-cobalt (12%); zinc (10%)
    • The top three environmental impacts in 2024 were: impact on clean, healthy and sustainable environment; water pollution; violation of environmental standards.
    • Some 595 allegations caused at least 853 different impacts on local communities and their environment.
    • Just five firms – Georgian American Alloys, China Minmetals, Codelco, Grupo México, and Sinomine Resource Group – were linked to nearly a quarter of allegations.
    • South America was the region with the highest number of allegations (48) in 2024. Projects in Peru and Chile accounted for almost one in five allegations in 2024.
    • Europe and Central Asia’s emergence as a new hotspot for transition minerals extraction and supply coincides with a 50% rise in allegations in the region.
    • Hazardous working conditions led to 10 deaths in 2024.
    • Attacks on Human Rights Defenders in the mining sector accounted for just under 8% (12) of last year’s allegations and 20% since 2010.

    The Resource Centre calls on policymakers, business leaders, and investors to urgently embed human rights protections into the transition mineral supply chain. This would be in order to ensure they build an energy transition on a corporate duty of care for the rights of communities and workers. That means fair negotiations, and a commitment to shared prosperity.

    A transition built on exploitation is not just

    Head of just transition and natural resources at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre Caroline Avan said:

    The urgency of the energy transition is real. But it cannot be used to justify an unprincipled scramble for transition minerals. This is driving widespread human rights abuse, environmental destruction and growing community conflict which slows the transition.

    A transition built on exploitative supply chains of minerals is not simply unjust – it is unstable, unpredictable, and ultimately unsustainable – and this should deeply concern investors, governments and downstream users of minerals in the renewable energy space.

    If companies and States continue to pursue minerals recklessly, they risk undermining the very future they claim to support. We urgently need a reset. One that seeks to curb global demand through mineral recycling and delivers shared prosperity in the necessary mining. In doing so, this will embed human rights at the centre of the clean energy economy, builds trust and shared prosperity with affected communities and protects the environment on which we all depend. The path to net zero cannot be paved with more injustice and global inequity. A just transition will be one that is fast but also fair.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • America is targeting a hotter planet… Bring it on!

    That’s the only plausible explanation for the Trump administration’s gung-ho push for 100% fossil fuels and as much coal burning as possible while trashing mitigation of climate change, which is characterized as an expensive hoax, a farce, a threat to the U.S. economy, plus massive roll backs of environmental regulations that force American businesses to spend more to keep America’s environment clean. Based upon these cutbacks of environmental regulations, they’re clearly ignoring climate change.

    But the property/casualty insurance industry has no choice in the matter. They are forced to recognize the damage caused by climate change. And, Boy, Oh Boy! are they ever squealing!

    More to the point: Climate Change has Trapped the Unites States in a vicious Property Insurance Maelstrom that is negatively impacting homeownership, much more on this sensitive subject follows.

    It’s indisputable that the U.S. is intentionally turning up the thermostat at the same time as the world is trying to tone it down. The United States pulling out of the Paris ’15 climate accord is already influencing others to join the U.S., Libya, Iran, and Yemen as the only countries not party to Paris ’15.

    But pulling out of Paris ’15 is only part of the hotter climate equation: “Under the Trump administration, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions levels are estimated to rise up to 36 percent higher than current policy by 2035.” (“The Trump Administration’s Retreat from Global Climate Leadership,” Center for American Progress, Jan. 21, 2025). This certainly helps guarantee a hotter planet.

    In addition to withdrawing from Paris ’15, the U.S. has signaled its intent to go one step further and withdraw from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, est. 1992). This is the underlying framework, “the father of international cooperation on climate change” that led to meetings such as Paris ’15. Abandonment will freeze-out the U.S. from any future global climate change negotiations and set a dangerous precedent. This could trigger a domino effect among nations questioning climate obligations and destabilizing the global consensus the Paris Agreement represents.

    Already, Argentina’s President Javier Milei is reconsidering his country’s commitment to Paris ’15. Already, countries such as Germany are cutting back on mitigation commitments. Already, several brand-name corporate commitments to cut CO2 emissions by 2030 are out the window. Already, the fossil fuel industry is reneging on reduction of CO2 emissions promises.

    Yet, the more the U.S. abandons efforts on global warming, the more property insurance companies abandon insurance altogether or crank up moonshot rates, for example, according to Insurify (a website partnered with major insurance companies) 15 States Facing an Imminent Insurance Crisis, October 4, 2024.

    Moreover, the overall insurance industry is feeling the heat as explained in a message from a senior officer of Allianz SE, the world’s largest insurance company: “Climate, Risk, Insurance: The Future of Capitalism,” March 25, 2025).

    Unfortunately, the world, other than the property/casualty insurance business, is truly out of touch with the gravity of climate change. Yes, “global warming” is a universal catchall phrase that everybody knows, but “global warming” is too hackneyed to trigger a strong emotional response, and it fails miserably at describing the depths of the biggest challenge in human history. For starters, serious disruptive danger is brewing at both poles and spreading across the land. It’s the reason why 350 polar scientists called an emergency meeting (see below) to warn the world: “Antarctica is starting to come unglued.” This is the nightmare of nightmares.

    Already, according to Mau Lau Observatory, CO2 emissions, the primary cause of global warming, are flashing red at 430 ppm. According to an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report: “In 2016, a worldwide body of climate scientists said that a CO2 level of 430 ppm would push the world past its target for avoiding dangerous climate change.” (MIT Climate Portal).

    And, making matters worse yet, it was only a couple of months ago when the aforementioned 350 polar scientists held an urgent ad hoc session in Australia to declare an Antarctic emergency on course to catastrophically cascade because of global warming.  That emergency session of November 2024 sent a chilling message to the world: “The experts’ conclusion, published as a press statement, is a somber one: if we don’t act, and quickly, the melting of Antarctica ice could cause catastrophic sea levels rise around the globe.” (Source: “Emergency Meeting Reveals the Alarming Extent of Antarctica’s Ice Loss,” Earth.com, Nov. 24, 2024)

    “Runaway ice loss causing rapid and catastrophic sea-level rise is possible within our lifetimes,’ the team warned in their statement,” Ibid.

    Shortly after that spooky news item, another unnerving announcement: Immense methane leaks discovered for the first time in Antarctica. To say “this is troubling” is an understatement. Rapusia.org, March 14, 2025, “Massive Methane Leaks Detected in Antarctica,” Posing Serious Climate Risks: “A team aboard the Sarmiento de Gamboa research vessel observed large columns of gas escaping from the ocean floor, with some extending up to 700 meters (2,300 feet) long and 70 meters (230 feet) wide.” These leaks are whoppers. The methane (CH4) molecule is extremely proficient at blanketing atmospheric heat.

    Anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is indisputable. Global mean temperature has increased far-far beyond nature’s normal course. NASA claims: “The rate change since the mid 20th century is unprecedented over millennia… Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (Evidence, NASA)

    Climate change is frustrating; public interest is declining. Climate change/global warming is cast aside as no big deal by people in positions of authority, no worries, blah-blah-blah, whilst perpetrators lose interests in mitigation efforts, with governmental policies abandoning the issue, the reality of global warming falls onto the shoulders of the insurance industry, which is abandoning coverage in some regions and raising prices across the board because of ‘never-witnessed-before’ damage. The property insurance biz is experiencing a crisis. They’re the first ones to admit it

    Along the way, every homeowner is getting hosed by insurance rates because of climate change: “Even if you haven’t suffered direct damage, you’re paying for increasingly extreme weather.” (“Nobody’s Insurance Rates are Safe from Climate Change,” Yale Climate Connections, Jan. 14, 2025)

    How does this end? Does the world, out of necessity, become insurance-less? Here’s how Insurance Europe views the dilemma: “The statistics are alarming, as is the destruction happening across Europe and beyond, and this makes the urgency for action undeniable. Cutting greenhouse gases remains a priority.”

    Yet, confusion reigns supreme as the world’s largest economy, the U.S. at $30 trillion GDP, rejects the IPCC claim of human-caused climate change as a threat to society. This is completely rejected. But how can the White House ignore: “Homeowners Insurance Has Soared Over 50% in These States,” CNBC, May 9, 2025. In Florida, a homeowner with fair credit and $350,000 in dwelling coverage could expect to pay $9,462 a year, or $789 a month for insurance in 2024. Climate change is a costly protagonist.

    And more troubling yet: “South Florida Homes for Sale Quadruple as Residents Leave En Masse,” Newsweek, May 11, 2025. As of April 2025, 52,000 listings versus 12,000 a few years ago, hit the South Florida market like a ton of bricks. Are people running-scared?

    Confusion about U.S. climate change policy, and its consequences, is hitting American homeowners with a loud thud that reverberates from coast-to-coast as speculation about a RE-recession builds, in large part, fueled by climate change: “The Climate Crisis is Set to Erase $1.47 Trillion in US Home Values,” Business Insider, Feb. 4, 2025. According to the study, 40% of the losses will come from “climate abandonment communities.”

    When will the Trump administration address this ongoing threat to homeownership? It’s an issue that’s well beyond State’s Rights; it’s a national failure with fossil fuel CO2 emissions trapping heat, upending five-thousand years of a Goldilocks climate system. Exxon scientists saw this coming decades ago. Now, it’s become a national nightmare and an emergency in the face of diminishing guarantors.

    “How to end this madness?” is the question of the times.

    The post America’s Impact on the Global Thermostat first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed the Center for Biological Diversity’s Ashley Nunes about the selloff of public lands for the May 9, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

     

    Common Dreams: On This Earth Day, Get Out and Fight Against Trump’s Greed and Destruction

    Common Dreams (4/22/25)

    Janine Jackson: 

    From lease sales to expedited permitting processes, the committee’s proposal creates an unprecedented pathway for developing our vast natural resources on federal lands and waters for generations to come.

    That’s a response to a piece of the budget reconciliation bill making its way through Congress, and it comes from the American Petroleum Institute. So you can sense what’s up, and why our guest calls this piece of Republicans’ effort to fund Trump’s tax cuts for billionaires nothing more than opportunities for industry to plunder, profit and pollute.

    Ashley Nunes is a specialist in public lands policy at the Center for Biological Diversity. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Ashley Nunes.

    Ashley Nunes: Thank you, Janine. Good to be with you.

    Outdoor Alliance: Public Lands and Waters Deserve Better than Reconciliation Package

    Outdoor Alliance (5/6/25)

    JJ: Let’s timestamp ourselves. We’re recording on May 8, and this is about the House Natural Resources Committee, and their contribution to the Republican House Reconciliation Bill, that’s going to tell us how to offset the billionaire tax cuts that they want to push through. But it’s not a done deal yet, right?

    AN: Right.

    JJ: So it’s still in process. There are lots of implications, but what would this plan do, particularly with regard to–I could say public lands, but I really appreciate your phrase, “precious wild places.” What would this do?

    AN: So as someone who’s focused on public lands policy, I am most interested in the part of the reconciliation package that’s come out of the House Natural Resources Committee. The proposed Republican budget hands over power to private industries to destroy our public lands and offshore waters. The excessive and indiscriminate development of fossil fuels, minerals and timber will harm wildlife and communities. This reckless development would undermine environmental protections. It would simply make air and water quality worse. And, of course, that’s harmful for wildlife and communities. So this budget wouldn’t just give tax breaks to billionaires, but it would give polluters the green light to raise emissions, destroy wild places and harm endangered species.

    JJ: In particular, I know that you look at, for example, Alaska. We’re looking at oil leases in Alaska, we’re looking at Minnesota. There are very specific things, and I wonder if you could just lift up some examples for folks to know what we’re talking about.

    AN: Absolutely. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but I think I could do some highlights industry by industry.

    JJ: Please.

    NRDC: America’s Newly Discovered Whale Is Already in Trouble

    NRDC (4/4/25)

    AN: So let’s start with oil and gas on public lands. This bill would mandate dozens of lease sales every quarter, as you say, also sometimes in very sensitive locations, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There’s also at least 4 million acres on the coastal plains of Alaska for oil and gas, some of the most important bird breeding areas in the country, and really one of the last great wild places, not only in the Arctic, but in the world.

    Then if we go to offshore waters for oil and gas, this bill would mandate six lease sales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, and at least 30 lease sales in Gulf waters over the next 15 years. This offshore oil and gas development, when it pushes into sensitive ecosystems and deeper waters, it really risks another tragedy like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill that resulted in loss of human life and non-human life. The Gulf waters are home to the Rice’s whale, the world’s most endangered whale. So oil and gas here is really doing the most.

    The other fossil fuel we’re mentioning is coal. This bill would open at least 4 million acres for new coal leasing. Coal is a dying and downright dirty industry, but this bill would have taxpayers subsidizing to keep that industry alive.

    So across the board, there’s reduced royalty payments for these fossil fuel companies, for oil, gas and coal. And even though Republicans say that this is a bill intended to raise revenue, polluters get a really good deal here.

    NYT: Biden Shields Millions of Acres of Alaskan Wilderness From Drilling and Mining

    New York Times (4/19/24)

    So that’s just fossil fuels. And if I could say a bit more, as you said, there’s also mining and timber. These are other extractive industries in the bill. So, mining: The bill undoes protections put in place by the Biden administration, it pushes through contentious mining projects, one of which you mentioned. So reversing a ban on 225,000 acres adjacent to Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota, and then also a ban on a 211-mile mining road that would stretch across unspoiled wilderness in Alaska.

    And then for timber, there’s a mandated 25% increase in timber production on public lands. And I fear this puts a target on the biggest and oldest trees, because of their economic value for timber. A bigger tree would produce more timber, but these are also the most ecologically valuable trees for carbon sequestration, habitat protection and wildfire resilience. So this is a huge giveaway to extractive industry that would be hugely harmful for the places we love.

    JJ: And maybe to just pull it out a bit, this is opposing what communities want to do with their land, right? Land use is a local issue, and we hear hollering about states’ rights, but this is actually in opposition to what a number of places have said they want to do with their land.

    AN: That’s right, Janine, and this is wonky, but there are many provisions, across the bill, that would take away environmental review. And that’s the process that allows the public to have their say, to give their input. So if Congress rubberstamps projects, the public doesn’t have that opportunity.

    JJ: It’s so important. The fight to resist clean energy in this country is intense, and it’s also transparent. And those thumbprints are all over this as well. The fossil fuel companies, they’re following tobacco. They’re just going to hold onto it, to the very last penny. And that seems evident in this legislation.

    AN: You’re so right. There are provisions, as I said, to reduce royalties on fossil fuels, and that’s the status quo. But there’s also provisions to add rents for clean energy, renewable energy on public lands. So this is really a giveaway to polluters, and it’s to the detriment of that clean energy transition that we need.

    JJ: I’ll just ask you, finally: I think transparency is the least that reporters could demand from this process, that has such myriad implications. But what would you like to see from journalism on this set of issues? And maybe what would you like to see less of?

    Ashley Nunes, Center for Biodiversity

    Ashley Nunes: “This budget proposal is one of the worst attacks on the environment that we have seen in our lifetime.”

    AN: There’s just so much to say here, really. I think I would just say a couple of things.

    First of all, we were warned that this would happen. This budget bill is the Project 2025 and Agenda 47 playbooks in action. It’s not just “drill, baby, drill,” it’s also “mine, baby, mine” and “log, baby, log.” This proposal uses public resources to enrich private interests. It’s extreme. And if these provisions stay in the reconciliation package, and are enacted, this would be an obscene giveaway of our public resources to private industry, and it would put these places at serious risk. It’s heartbreaking. I think journalists, like you and others, can help people understand what’s at stake.

    So, secondly, I would just add that we are living through a climate crisis and an extinction crisis, and this budget proposal is one of the worst attacks on the environment that we have seen in our lifetime. It would not only cause harm to our cherished landscapes, coastal waters and wildlife, but also to our public health, and our ability to recreate on our public lands across the country. So people want to know what they can do, and ultimately, people need to call their congressional representatives and tell them to vote no, to stop.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with Ashley Nunes, public lands policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. They’re online at BiologicalDiversity.org. Thank you so much, Ashley Nunes, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    AN: Thanks, Janine.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Slim Pickens (Louis Burton Lindley Jr.) in “Doctor Strangelove.” Pickens was a San Joaquin Valley native, born in Kingsburg, 1919, died of a brain tumor in Modesto, 1983.

    I had just come back from a demonstration against a uranium mine near the rim of the Grand Canyon and talking to Native people from several tribes whose water, air and land would probably be polluted by the mine, the trucking, and the mill. Their struggle to protect their homes reminded me of my hometown, Modesto, only 50 miles from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and 35 miles from LLNL’s Site 300 High Explosives Testing Range.  

    None of us knew the dangers on the Colorado Plateau or in the north San Joaquin Valley or in the valleys around Livermore. In the 1950s, in the San Joaquin Valley we were using smudge pots to fight frost in the peaches and almonds. We had a bad polio epidemic in 1953 just before the Salk Vaccine came out and ended polio here. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring didn’t come out until 1962, and DDT was the best pesticide ever made: “It kills everything for 28 days,” the farmers said. Many of us got Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) and still have to explain the lung scar to physicians far from agricultural areas. Occasionally the newspaper would announce a new case of Bubonic Plague in the Sierra Foothills. And, from the middle of WWII until the 1990s, we had our own (conventional) arms-manufacturing and storage facility 5 miles east of Modesto called Norris-Thermador, which employed up to 3,500 people when in operation but was best known for its long layoffs. 

    We had no idea that during those years over on the Colorado Plateau Navajo miners were working in unventilated uranium mines during the great uranium boom of the 1950s and the Navajo Nation still suffers from radioactive mine litter, waste and dust.  

    We knew nuclear bombs were being tested in Nevada near Las Vegas and on islands far away in the Pacific Ocean. We had no idea in high school in the middle of the Cold War that the bombs were being designed and developed 50 miles away from us. LLNL was shrouded in secrecy in those years. But after Sputnik at the start of my sophomore year, a lot of us were subjected to the awkward attempts of our excellent chemistry teacher to teach us physics.  Nevertheless, we were nearly completely ignorant of the greatest environmental threat in our vicinity. But a few years later we learned an ominous new term describing several nearby locations: cancer clusters. 

    Analysis contained in an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act states that the effects of an accident at LLNL would spread 50 miles, as far north as Marin County, through San Francisco, the Peninsula, as far south as San Jose, and as far east as Tracy, Stockton, and Modesto. As many as 7 million people would be affected by plumes of either radioactive or chemically toxic particles. From an environmental safety standpoint it doesn’t make any sense for 90,000 people to live in Livermore, but many work at the lab, which has grown to completely fill its one square mile campus, and the Silicon Valley “high-tech/bio-tech engine for growth” employs many more.  Tens of thousands of other workers commute daily across the 10-lane Altamont Pass (I-580) from cities in the northern San Joaquin Valley to jobs in the lab and other high-tech industries. Median home price in Tracy, at the eastern foot of the Altamont was $680,000 last month; in Livermore, on the western side of the pass, median price is $1.1 million.  

    All the energy, ambition, and traffic generated by high tech and nuclear weapons remind me of lines from Mandeville’s “The Grumbling Hive,” 1705: 

    A Spacious Hive well stock’d with Bees,
    That lived in Luxury and Ease;
    And yet as fam’d for Laws and Arms,
    As yielding large and early Swarms;
    Was counted the great Nursery
    Of Sciences and Industry.  

    The National Nuclear Security Administration, a division of the Department of Energy, has stated that LLNL, because of special circumstances, cannot be made safe. One glaring special circumstance is that LLNL is only one square mile in size and surrounded by suburban housing. By contrast, Los Alamos National Laboratory is 40 square miles, Hanford Site is 586 square miles, the Savannah River Site is 310 square miles, and LLNL’s Site 300 is 11 square miles.  

    In the early 2000s, LLNL in collaboration with Russian nuclear scientists, created Livermorium, a highly radioactive element, Lv, 116 on the Periodic Table. The City of Livermore changed its seal so that the graphic of an atom erases large parts of a cowboy on a bronc and a vineyard. And it created Livermorium Plaza with a large round statue of Lv at its center.  

    I found the best way to begin to get an idea of what TriValleyCAREs is and does is to compare its mission statements with the statements of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: 

    For over 70 years, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has applied science and technology to make the world a safer place. 

    The Lab’s mission is to enable U.S. security and global stability and resilience by empowering multidisciplinary teams to pursue bold and innovative science and technology. 

    Mission Areas 

    Enhancing and expanding our mission in the broad national security space. 

    By splitting our broad and evolving mission into four areas relevant to the current and future stability of our world, we’re better able to address issues of nuclear deterrence, threat preparedness and response, climate and energy security and multi-domain deterrence. We count on our talented workforce to think bigger in all four areas of our central mission. With exceptional work in preeminent areas of science and operations, the Lab’s influence doesn’t stop at our country’s borders — our innovations make the world a better place to live…

    This statement brought to my mind former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall’s comment: 

    Although many disclosures did not surprise me, I concluded that the Cold War had been an incubator of deceitful practices and harmful illusions, and that if one was to gain a clear picture of this period of our history, it was essential to distinguish myths from truths.”

    – Stewart Udall, The Myths of August, p. 21, 1994. (Udall spent much of his post-government years trying to get justice for miners and down-wind residents from the harm to health and livelihood from uranium poisoning and nuclear tests on the Nevada desert.) 

    TVC’s mission statement struck me as a vision of peace more important for us to hear today than it was 40 years ago, when the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Doomsday Clock registered four minutes instead of this year’s prediction of 98 seconds: 

    Tri-Valley CAREs’ overarching mission is to promote peace, justice and a healthy environment by pursuing the following five interrelated goals: 

    1. Convert Livermore Lab from nuclear weapons development and testing to socially beneficial, environmentally sound research. 

    2. End all nuclear weapons development and testing in the United States. 

    3. Abolish nuclear weapons worldwide, and achieve an equitable, successful non-proliferation regime. 

    4. Promote forthright communication and democratic decision-making in public policy on nuclear weapons and related environmental issues, locally, nationally and globally. 

    5. Clean up the radioactive and toxic pollution emanating from the Livermore Lab and reduce the Lab’s environmental and health hazards… 

    Tri-Valley CAREs was founded in 1983 in Livermore, California by concerned neighbors living around the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of two locations where all US nuclear weapons are designed. Tri-Valley CAREs monitors nuclear weapons and environmental clean-up activities throughout the US nuclear weapons complex, with a special focus on Livermore Lab and the surrounding communities. 

    This statement has the clarity of Annie Jacobsen’s comment in her 2024 best-seller, Nuclear War: A Scenario: “It was the nuclear weapons that were the enemy of all of us. All along.” 

    And it is as simple as what Albert Camus wrote two days after the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima: 

    …mechanistic civilization has come to its final phase of savagery. A choice must be made, in the fairly near future, between collective suicide or the intelligent use of scientific conquests… (Combat, Aug. 8, 1945. )

    Sitting at the edge of Silicon Valley, the latest manifestation of “mechanistic civilization,” LLNL represents the apex of Western technology:  the design and development of nuclear weapons. Palo Alto based Hewlett-Packard’s “El Capitan,” the world’s most powerful computer, is lodged at LLNL, to advance nuclear weapon science. A private/public partnership of University of California, Bechtel, BWX Technologies, Amentum, and Battelle Memorial Institute affiliated with Texas A&M University, called Livermore National Security, LLC, manages LLNL. 

    Camus’s suicide comment is not an existential anachronism: according to the Union of Concerned Scientists we are closer than we have ever been to nuclear apocalypse.  

    Driving into Livermore Valley to meet TVCs staff,  I couldn’t help remembering one stormy day when I was 10 or 11 years old and across the freeway from LLNL was entirely green pasture and I saw several black and bay horses, manes and tails flying as they played in the wind. But we aren’t horses and neither science nor technology offer us guidance about what to do about nuclear weapons.  

    Scott Yundt, TVCs director, met me in the lobby of a plain, two-story office in downtown Livermore and took me up to a lovely office – lovely because it had no pretense or décor, just the slightly untidy air of a place where a lot of good work had been done for a long  time—some posters from past actions on the walls, computers on several desks, enough chairs and long tables for meeting purposes, racks for documents and cabinets along the walls.  And that was about as far as I ever got on my idea of doing a profile on TVC because Yundt immediately directed my attention to the Lab and kept me focused for the entire interview. He left to doubt that for him legal action was what to do about nuclear weapons. 

    “We are entering a new nuclear arms race,” he told me. “It’s visible in LLNL’s new 15-year plan, which calls for tearing down old buildings and replacing them with 70 new ones, mainly devoted to nuclear work,” he said. “And in the last two years, employees have increased from 7,000 to 9,500.” LLNL announced in 2015-16 a 10-fold increase in the number of test explosions. It was rushed through NEPA.  

    Yundt was working for an Oakland environmental law firm on TVC cases and decided to go full time with TVC in 2009  as its staff attorney drafting federal Freedom of Information and state Public Records Act requests, writing environmental statement comment letters, representing workers exposed to radiation considered “an externality of nuclear weapons program,” he said. The federal government has a program, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP), just for people employed at 115 Department of Energy sites: Hanford, Los Alamos, LLNL, Rocky Flats, plus little contractors. The programs are both for uranium radiation and toxic chemical exposure. More than LLNL 3,000 employees have made claims plus 81,000 nationwide, minus military personnel who have handled radioactive material. “The government has spent billions,” Yundt said. 

    The federal Environmental Protection Agency has found that LLNL is a toxic Superfund site, but Yundt said that EPA figures “it would take between 70 years and infinity,” for cleaning it up. Some of the pollution, he added,  was generated by a WWII U.S. Naval Air Station located on the LLNL site, which contaminated the area with jet fuel and solvents.  

    Since the 1960s, TVC has found through data searches that Livermore Lab has released 1 million curies of radiation into the environment, approximately equal to the amount of radiation deposited by the US bombing of Hiroshima. Approximately three-quarters of a million curies have been tritium, Yundt explained. 

    LLNL opened Site 300 in 1955 as a “high explosives testing area” on seasonal pastureland. It is located on Corral Hollow Road just beyond the western limits of the City of Tracy, in the San Joaquin Valley. LLNL tests its proprietary nuclear warhead triggers on the site. Instead of plutonium in the experimental warheads, LLNL uses depleted uranium in its tests of different mixtures of explosive triggers. This is an air-quality issue for the people and livestock in the northern San Joaquin Valley. This program adds PM 2.5 particulates to the San Joaquin Valley’s air pollution, but this particulate “is a real special dust,” Yundt said.  TVC went to state/fed air-quality-board hearings with 80 people. The local air pollution control district issued a letter instead of rubber stamping the LLNL program. But LLNL management never replied — one more example in this region of how “national security” equals local insecurity. 

    The Tracy city limits did not expand west of I-580 until persuaded by the developers of Tracy Hills, AKT Development, founded by Angelo Tsakopoulos and managed at the time by his daughter, now California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis. Yundt said Tracy Hills, now operated by partial owners, Lennar Homes, was planning a senior facility on the fence line between its property and LLNL’s Site 300. I thought that plan showed a remarkable capacity for denial, even for California developers.  

    LLNL is building up – new buildings, more employees, more explosive tests – because the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Department of Defense are funding design and development of two new warheads using plutonium pits, the terrestrial warhead called the W87-1 and a submarine warhead to be called the W93. 

    There is a Level 3 Biowarfare Laboratory at the LLNL main site in Livermore. A level 3 lab typically contains “microbes that are either indigenous or exotic and can cause serious or potentially lethal disease through inhalation” like Anthrax, COVID-19, Hantavirus, Malaria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Rift Valley fever, Rockey Mountain spotted fever, West Nile virus, and Yellow fever.   

    TVC sued the LLNL because the environmental impact statement included no analysis for terrorism. Yundt said that the LLNL reply was inadequate because it didn’t deal with intentional acts, replying only that the probability of a successful attack was low because LLNL was a “high security site.” 

    But the issues of management and “high security” at LLNL are closely connected and have had quite a history  in recent years, which will be treated at the top of the second installment on the history of the relationship of TVC and LLNL.  

     

     

    The post National Security is often Local Insecurity: TriValley CAREs and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory  appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • By Russel Norman

    The iconic Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will return to Aotearoa this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original campaign ship at Marsden Wharf in Auckland by French secret agents on 10 July 1985.

    The return to Aotearoa comes at a pivotal moment — when the fight to protect our planet’s fragile life-support systems has never been as urgent, or more critical.

    Here in Aotearoa, the Luxon government is waging an all-out war on nature, and on a planetary scale, climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa's Dr Russel Norman
    Greenpeace Aotearoa’s Dr Russel Norman . . . “Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective.” Image: Greenpeace

    As we remember the bombing and the murder of our crew member, Fernando Pereira, it’s important to remember why the French government was compelled to commit such a cowardly act of violence.

    Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a very real threat to the French government’s military programme and colonial power.

    It’s also critical to remember that they failed to stop us. They failed to intimidate us, and they failed to silence us. Greenpeace only grew stronger and continued the successful campaign against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

    Forty years later, it’s the oil industry that’s trying to stop us. This time, not with bombs but with a legal attack that threatens the existence of Greenpeace in the US and beyond.

    We will not be intimidated
    But just like in 1985 when the French bombed our ship, now too in 2025, we will not be intimidated, we will not back down, and we will not be silenced.

    We cannot be silenced because we are a movement of people committed to peace and to protecting Earth’s ability to sustain life, protecting the blue oceans, the forests and the life we share this planet with,” says Norman.

    In the 40 years since, the Rainbow Warrior has sailed on the front lines of our campaigns around the world to protect nature and promote peace. In the fight to end oil exploration, turn the tide of plastic production, stop the destruction of ancient forests and protect the ocean, the Rainbow Warrior has been there to this day.

    Right now the Rainbow Warrior is preparing to sail through the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life, continuing a decades-long tradition of defending ocean health.

    This follows the Rainbow Warrior spending six weeks in the Marshall Islands where the original ship carried out Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace crew evacuated the people of Rongelap from their home island that had been made uninhabitable by nuclear weapons testing by the US government.

    In Auckland this year, several events will be held on and around the ship to mark the anniversary, including open days with tours of the ship for the public.

    Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Russel Norman

    The iconic Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will return to Aotearoa this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original campaign ship at Marsden Wharf in Auckland by French secret agents on 10 July 1985.

    The return to Aotearoa comes at a pivotal moment — when the fight to protect our planet’s fragile life-support systems has never been as urgent, or more critical.

    Here in Aotearoa, the Luxon government is waging an all-out war on nature, and on a planetary scale, climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa's Dr Russel Norman
    Greenpeace Aotearoa’s Dr Russel Norman . . . “Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective.” Image: Greenpeace

    As we remember the bombing and the murder of our crew member, Fernando Pereira, it’s important to remember why the French government was compelled to commit such a cowardly act of violence.

    Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a very real threat to the French government’s military programme and colonial power.

    It’s also critical to remember that they failed to stop us. They failed to intimidate us, and they failed to silence us. Greenpeace only grew stronger and continued the successful campaign against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

    Forty years later, it’s the oil industry that’s trying to stop us. This time, not with bombs but with a legal attack that threatens the existence of Greenpeace in the US and beyond.

    We will not be intimidated
    But just like in 1985 when the French bombed our ship, now too in 2025, we will not be intimidated, we will not back down, and we will not be silenced.

    We cannot be silenced because we are a movement of people committed to peace and to protecting Earth’s ability to sustain life, protecting the blue oceans, the forests and the life we share this planet with,” says Norman.

    In the 40 years since, the Rainbow Warrior has sailed on the front lines of our campaigns around the world to protect nature and promote peace. In the fight to end oil exploration, turn the tide of plastic production, stop the destruction of ancient forests and protect the ocean, the Rainbow Warrior has been there to this day.

    Right now the Rainbow Warrior is preparing to sail through the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life, continuing a decades-long tradition of defending ocean health.

    This follows the Rainbow Warrior spending six weeks in the Marshall Islands where the original ship carried out Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace crew evacuated the people of Rongelap from their home island that had been made uninhabitable by nuclear weapons testing by the US government.

    In Auckland this year, several events will be held on and around the ship to mark the anniversary, including open days with tours of the ship for the public.

    Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • BANGKOK – The Trump administration plan to allow mining of deep sea metals in the Pacific Ocean would unequivocally violate international law, experts said, making any attempt to sell the minerals – used in batteries, weapons and smartphones – open to challenge by other nations.

    President Donald Trump last month signed an executive order to speed development of the contentious deep sea mining industry, including in off-limits international waters governed by a treaty most nations are signatory to. The order said action is needed to “counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources.”

    Unilateral action on deep sea mining by the U.S., legal experts said, also has the potential to weaken its legitimacy in attempting to enforce international law generally, including freedom of navigation in flashpoint waters such as the South China Sea or in combating illegal fishing.

    “It is hazardous for the U.S. to throw out the rule book,” said Duncan Currie, an international lawyer, who advises conservation groups and testified to Congress last month on the risks of deep sea mining.

    Foreshadowing the executive order, Nasdaq-traded The Metals Company, or TMC, which has been at the forefront of ambitions to exploit the seabed, in March applied for exploration and mining permits under the U.S. umbrella for areas in the Pacific Ocean.

    It is attempting to bypass the International Seabed Authority, or ISA, a U.N. organization mandated to set rules by consensus for deep sea mining in international waters. Under ISA jurisdiction, TMC has worked with Tonga and Nauru to explore their allocated areas in a vast swath of the Pacific, but now says the ISA has failed by not agreeing rules after several decades of effort.

    The Metals Company CEO Gerard Barron (right) congratulates Leticia Carvalho on her election as International Seabed Authority secretary-general in Kingston, Jamaica, Aug. 2, 2024.
    The Metals Company CEO Gerard Barron (right) congratulates Leticia Carvalho on her election as International Seabed Authority secretary-general in Kingston, Jamaica, Aug. 2, 2024.
    (Stephen Wright/RFA)

    Critics of the nascent industry say the copper, cobalt, manganese and nickel found in the potato-sized nodules that carpet parts of the seafloor is already abundant on land. They warn that hoovering the nodules up from depths of several kilometers will cause irreparable damage to an ocean environment still poorly understood by science.

    Amid a general retreat by large corporations from commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deep sea mining companies have recently emphasized defense uses and security of mineral supply. Previously the nodules were touted as a source of metals needed for green technologies, such as electric vehicles, that would reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

    According to Currie’s congressional testimony, the arguments for deep sea mining rest on fallacies. China’s dominance in the cobalt and nickel markets is due to it processing those minerals imported from Congo and Indonesia and deep sea mining would not significantly change that equation. Also a growing proportion of batteries in electric vehicles no longer rely on cobalt and nickel

    “TMC promised the people of Nauru jobs and prosperity,” said Shiva Gounden, head of Greenpeace’s Pacific chapter. “But it has taken the first chance it got to turn its back on Nauru and it will do the same to any other Pacific country,” Gounden said in a statement.

    Gerard Barron, TMC‘s chief executive, said the company’s partnerships with Tonga and Nauru remain “rock solid.”

    “They too have been let down by the lack of performance at the ISA,” he told Radio Free Asia.

    The case made by Barron and the Trump administration is that deep sea mining is a legitimate freedom in waters beyond national jurisdiction – an idea that has become antiquated as international law evolved over decades.

    The U.S. has not ratified the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs international waters and also established the seabed authority, but in practice recognizes and attempts to enforce its principles.

    The U.S. in 1970 also formally recognized that a law of the sea treaty accepted by most countries would establish the rules even for states not a party to it.

    “For the last thirty years, the United States has engaged in acts that uphold the object and purpose” of the law of the sea treaty, said Coalter G. Lathrop, director of international law firm Sovereign Geographic, in a blog post this month for the European Journal of International Law.

    Even so, the Trump executive order appears to be a new lease on life for The Metals Company.

    At the end of March, it had only US$2.3 million cash in the bank and short-term debt of US$10 million. This week it announced a sale of shares in the company that will raise about US$37 million, according to a regulatory filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. TMC said the money would keep it afloat until it gets a U.S. license for commercial mining.

    Its U.S. application has been criticized by France, China and other countries. A coalition of Pacific island civil society organizations called for TMC to be blacklisted by the seabed authority and for Nauru and Tonga to end their agreements with the company.

    Deep sea mining is depicted in a mural at the International Seabed Authority office in Kingston, Jamaica, July 30, 2024.
    Deep sea mining is depicted in a mural at the International Seabed Authority office in Kingston, Jamaica, July 30, 2024.
    (Stephen Wright/RFA)

    Currie said the U.N. treaty presents numerous obstacles to TMC realizing its ambitions.

    “This casts doubt on whether any metals brought up by TMC under a unilateral permit could be sold,” he told Radio Free Asia.

    TMC is a Canadian company while Allseas, the company that owns the ship and mining equipment used by TMC, is Swiss. Both countries, Currie told RFA, have obligations under the U.N. treaty to ensure their nationals don’t participate in breaches of it.

    TMC also has an agreement for metals processing with a company based in another treaty signatory nation – Japan.

    TMC‘s prospectus for its share sale acknowledges the possibility of legal consequences if it gets a U.S.-issued mining permit.

    The ISA and many nations that are signatories to the law of the sea treaty “are likely to regard such a permit as a violation of international law,” it said.

    This could “affect international perceptions of the project and could have implications for logistics, processing and market access” including legal challenges in the court systems of treaty member nations.

    Attempting a unilateral route to mine the international seabed risks severe geopolitical repercussions “and it could be U.S. interests that get burnt,” said Greenpeace deep sea mining campaigner Louisa Casson.

    “Going against the Law of the Sea could trigger impacts far beyond deep sea mining – for maritime boundaries, freedom of navigation and other security interests,” she told RFA.

    Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Wildlife campaign group Protect the Wild has garnered enough signatures on a petition to secure a debate in parliament over the Labour Party government’s continued maintenance of the cruel badger cull.

    The petition calls for an immediate end to the badger cull. Alongside this, it demands the implementation of cow-focused measures to control bovine tuberculosis (bTB).

    The organisation is now urging the petitions committee to schedule a debate on this critical issue in haste. This is so that policymakers can discuss bringing this despised and ineffective policy to an abrupt end. The government had effectively promised this to the electorate in the last general election.

    Badger cull petition secures enough signatures for a parliamentary debate

    In the lead up to the last election, the Labour Party vowed to “end the ineffective badger cull”. Yet, since taking power, the Labour government has continued the cull. Incredibly, the government says that culling could continue right up to the end of this parliament.

    In November 2024, Protect the Wild sprung into action to challenge Labour’s continuation of the ineffective badger cull. It launched a new parliamentary petition. This calls for an end to the badger cull and demands the implementation of cow-focused measures to control bTB instead.

    The petition reads:

    The Government’s TB Eradication Strategy allows the continued killing of badgers, a protected species, until the end of this Parliament, despite the Labour manifesto calling the cull “ineffective.”

    We believe the badger cull is unjustified and must end.

    Some research has suggested culling results in a reduction in bovine TB (bTB) in cattle. However, there are concerns about the methodology used. Other research, which has been peer reviewed and published, shows no evidence that culling badgers reduces confirmed bTB in cattle. Over 230,000 badgers — many healthy — have been killed, disrupting ecosystems without solid scientific justification.

    We call for an immediate end to the cull and the implementation of cattle focused measures to control bTB, rather than what we see as scapegoating wildlife.

    Now, the petition has attracted the necessary number of signatures – 100,000 – for the it to be considered for a debate in parliament. This shows that the British public’s desire to see an end to the mass slaughter of the iconic badger is – as always – strong.

    Time for Labour to step up and end the state-sanctioned badger killing

    Protect the Wild argues that it is now incumbent on policymakers to act on voters’ demands.

    For years, politicians of different stripes have told the public that they intend to end the badger cull, only to turn around and do the opposite in practice. The public has had enough – and so has Protect the Wild.

    The group is calling out the current government and taking it to task over its perpetual excuses and empty words. Given the strength of public feeling, it argues that now is time for the government to put its money where its mouth is. It’s calling for Labour to end state-sanctioned badger killing with immediate effect.

    Protect the Wild founder Rob Pownall says:

    The government will no doubt claim it has a new TB eradication strategy in place – but the truth is, it’s complete rubbish. It’s just the same old scapegoating of badgers under a new name. The reality is this: badger culling is still set to continue until 2029. That’s another four years of state-sanctioned cruelty, flying in the face of science, public opinion, and even their own manifesto promises. It is a disgrace – and the British public knows it. This government has run out of excuses. It must end the cull now.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

  • In a statement last month on its first 100 days under President Donald Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency celebrated 100 achievements.

    EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency had taken “significant actions” to protect public health and the environment while working “to Power the Great American Comeback.” The agency said it was also working to fulfill Trump’s promises to revitalize the auto industry, “restore the rule of law,” and give decision-making power back to the states.

    The EPA, the bosses were claiming, was succeeding in its mission of protecting human health and the environment.

    In practice, the agency has done the opposite, several EPA staffers told The Intercept.

    Environmental advocates and experts have criticized the administration for an “all-out assault” on the environment. Now, EPA staffers are speaking out in the wake of staff cuts and the gutting of a spate of programs to remove lead from drinking water, support rural wastewater treatment, and address racial disparities in environmental pollution.

    “Americans are going to be less healthy. And frankly the EPA is going to be less efficient.”

    “The mission of the EPA has been shifted,” said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA.

    “Americans are going to be less healthy. And frankly the EPA is going to be less efficient,” Hertzberg said. “If you’re less efficient, you’re wasting money. It’s working at cross-purposes with their stated goals.”

    An EPA spokesperson disputed staffers’ characterization of its efforts to cut staff and weaken programs.

    “At EPA, we are doing our part to Power the Great American Comeback, and we are proud of our work to advance the agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment every day since January 20,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a statement to The Intercept.

    “Not Our Mission”

    Under Zeldin’s leadership, the EPA announced a set of new core priorities that includes making the U.S. the artificial intelligence capital of the world and revitalizing the auto industry.

    Staffers are concerned that instead of making communities healthier, under Trump the agency is now focused on serving industry, said Ellie Hagen, an environmental scientist at the EPA’s Environmental Justice, Community Health, and Environmental Review division.

    It’s not clear how the EPA is supposed to serve those goals, said Hagen said, whose job is being terminated in July and was speaking on behalf of her local union, American Federation of Government Employees Local 704.

    “They’re coming out with these pillars of serving the auto industry and bringing back auto industry jobs.”

    “A lot of us are really confused about what our new mission is, when they’re coming out with these pillars of serving the auto industry and bringing back auto industry jobs,” Hagen said. “I don’t know how we fit into that.”

    The EPA’s role is not to create jobs; it’s to regulate and protect people from pollution, she said.

    “Our mission is not to promote AI or energy dominance,” she said. “That’s not our mission.”

    Deep Cuts

    The EPA has said it is aiming to cut the agency’s budget by 65 percent and bring staffing levels to Reagan-era levels. As part of Trump’s efforts to gut the federal workforce under the auspices of government efficiency, the Office of Personnel Management sent the first round of deferred resignation offers to federal employees in January. More than 540 EPA staffers took those deferred resignations, which were open until early February.

    Nine more employees were subject to a reduction in force as of May 7, according to a statement to The Intercept from the EPA press office; 280 employees in diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice programs were notified last month that they were part of staffing cuts.

    Related

    Trump EPA’s Next Move: Making It Harder to Sue for Getting Cancer from Roundup

    As of last week, more than 1,500 staffers applied for deferred resignation and a “voluntary early retirement” program.

    The day the resignation offers were sent out, EPA staff also received notice of agency reforms including return to office and “enhanced standards of conduct,” including “loyalty.” The EPA reopened its deferred resignation program last month.

    Last week, the agency said it is planning to dissolve the Office of Research and Development, which does life-saving research on toxicity and developing sampling protocols, and helped in emergencies after the East Palestine train derailment in Ohio and the Covid-19 pandemic.

    As a result, more than 1,500 scientists will have to compete for 300 jobs, Hagen said.

    “It’s essentially like lobotomizing our agency. If we don’t have the brain — the research behind protecting the environment — we can’t do that effectively, and I think that’s exactly what they want,” she said. “They’re doing all this under the guise of efficiency, but what they really are doing is dismantling this agency from doing its job.”

    “They’re doing all this under the guise of efficiency, but what they really are doing is dismantling this agency from doing its job.”

    The EPA announced in March that it was ending its Environmental Justice Program and the agency’s “DEI Arms.” A few weeks later, the day before Earth Day, Hagen received notice that her tenured position was being terminated and that she would be removed no later than July 31.

    “They did it on the eve of Earth Day to send a message,” she said. “They’re showing that they don’t feel the environmental justice program staff are loyal to this administration. They think what we stand for is different than what this administration stands for. So they’re making an example out of us.”

    The agency said the term “environmental justice” had been used to advance left-wing politics.

    “As Administrator Zeldin has repeatedly stressed, ‘environmental justice’ has been used primarily as an excuse to fund left-wing activist groups instead of actually spending those dollars on directly remediating the specific environmental issues that need to be addressed,” the EPA press office said.

    The staffing cuts and resignation offers have had their intended effect, Hagen said: to scare career federal employees and push them out of the agency.

    “They’re creating such an intense culture of fear that I think they’re pushing a lot of people in that direction,” she said.

    Fewer people took deferred resignations in the first round because there was confusion around what direction the EPA was headed in. But Hagen expects many more to take the next round after leaders made clear they were completely shifting the agency’s agenda.

    “Based on the mood in the office and hearing from my colleagues, I never thought would leave the EPA,” she said, “I think a lot of people are going to take it just because of how scared and traumatized we all have been over the past 100 days.”

    Related

    Trump’s EPA Kills Grant to Climate Nonprofit Over Its Support for Palestine

    Another EPA staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their livelihood said they feared for their future after being placed on administrative leave in February for their work in the Environmental Justice Program.

    “I’m a military spouse who worked to better protect all including those most vulnerable and least protected from harmful exposures to chemicals and pollution,” they said.

    “Our family is having to relocate from our home and community we love. We’ve both served our country and now are afraid for both our livelihoods,” they said. “This is our story and what we’ve been living through. So many of our friends are in similar situations here and across the country.”

    “Non-Political”?

    Much of the administration’s attack on the EPA is tied up in the politicization of principles that historically had bipartisan support — like environmental justice, which staffers pointed out was until recently not viewed as a political project.

    “Environmental justice is supposed to be non-political,” Hertzberg said. “It’s just about identifying the people most in danger of pollution so you can help them first.”

    President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, first created the Environmental Justice Program in 1992.

    “This is a program that has been standing for decades, has done life-saving work across both sides of the aisle, efficiently and effectively,” Hagen said.

    The agency is now cutting other programs that have bipartisan support, she added.

    “How can you say this program has bipartisan support or support from the administration when you’re intimidating people into taking this buyout?” she said. “I think a lot of EPA staff will be taking the second round of buyouts, and we have no idea how that’s going to gut these statutory — what they say is bipartisan — support programs.”

    In their attacks on “DEI” and “wokeness” — for example, efforts to ensure civil liberties and equal protection under the law for communities that have historically faced institutional discrimination — Trump and his allies have distorted the concept of environmental justice into a political weapon, Hertzberg said.

    Related

    Thousands of U.S. Public Housing Residents Live in the Country’s Most Polluted Places

    “Environmental justice communities are young children. They’re pregnant women, the elderly, those with medical conditions, those without access to proper services, which is often rural communities and those living closer to polluters,” Hertzberg said. “This is really supposed to be a non-political part of the EPA, and it’s castigated as though we all have this axe to grind and are suspect in some way.”

    Staffers said the government is now leaving communities they’ve built relationships with over the years vulnerable to life-threatening pollution and health hazards.

    “The people who are still in the office are feeling worried about their jobs and feeling frustrated and heartbroken about the communities that we’ve served who are not being served anymore,” Hertzberg said.

    EPA staff are now put in the position of betraying communities they’ve tried to build trust in, she said.

    “Now you just have to let them down,” she said. “It’s the heartbreak of watching these people who you promised you were going to help be let down again, to have your hands tied behind your back, and at the same time being accused of being poor stewards of taxpayer funds.”

    The post “Intense Culture of Fear”: Behind the Scenes as Trump Destroys the EPA From Within appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.






























































  • Image by Getty and Unsplash+.

    Aquatic plant eradication campaigns of poorly understood need, impacts, and risks have resulted in tens of tons of herbicides containing PFAS active ingredients applied to drinking water sources for millions of people in New York State.

    New Yorkers can count among their fortunes both their plentiful waters and the many organizations that protect lakes, rivers, and reservoirs from industrial pollution as well as pesticide and fertilizer runoff, among other stresses. Non-native and/or invasive species and our responses to them also exert complex effects on aquatic ecosystems and drinking water sources. In recent years, concerns about the non-native aquatic plant hydrilla have driven us to costly, extensive, and poorly understood chemical interventions that are likely harmful to the millions of people connected to the impacted waterbodies.

    A relatively recent arrival in New York State, hydrilla has a longer history in US regions ranging from Florida to Delaware to California and can thrive in shallow, nutrient-rich environments. Outreach efforts claim it to be “one of the world’s most invasive plants,” capable of dominating ecosystems at the expense of other species, and even of “hijacking the local economy.” These concerns have sometimes motivated massive, costly eradication campaigns, including in New York.

    Hydrilla’s actual menace to aquatic habitats is however not so clear. Concerns about the plant’s ability to impede water flow and recreation seem to originate from experiences in warmer environments with long growing seasons, e.g. in Florida, where its ability to grow to depths of about 20 feet enables expansion throughout shallow lakes and ponds. In larger, deeper waterbodies, it grows only at the periphery. Careful studies document no negative impacts of hydrilla on fish, aquatic insects, or water birds. One examination of 27 different Florida lakes finds no significant declines in diversity or abundance of other plant species due to hydrilla. In Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay, hydrilla accompanied and even supported proliferation of native species and is credited with benefitting the broader ecosystem, similar to other aquatic plants.

    After hydrilla was found in 2011 at the inlet and southern end of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca, New York, local and state agencies teamed up to eradicate it. The method of choice has been use of herbicides, predominantly Sonar® H4C, made by SePRO. H4C is a slow-release pellet formulation of the active ingredient fluridone, which comprises 3% of the product. At concentrations of a few parts per billion (ppb), fluridone inhibits the hormone abscisic acid, and thereby photosynthesis, non-selectively harming a broad array of plants. With approval from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and various local organizations, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has coordinated treatments in regions of the 800 sq. mile lake, which has a maximum depth of over 400 feet, every summer since 2012. According to publicly available reports, applications sum to about 23 tons over five summers between 2019 and 2023, less than half the eradication campaign’s duration.

    Though hydrilla has since spread to new shoreline locations of the lake, the program was held up as a success, even serving as a model for a similar effort in the New Croton Reservoir, responsible for about 10% of New York City’s drinking water. Quantities applied here are not publicly available. But permits and project reports provided in response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request indicate yet more aggressive applications. Though the reservoir spans one twentieth Cayuga Lake’s area and less than one hundredth the volume, over four summers (2021-2024), the NYSDEC authorized the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to apply up to 95 tons of Sonar® H4C and Sonar® One (a more concentrated pellet-form product with 5% active ingredient) in total, to target fluridone concentrations of 1-5 ppb. Over 35 tons were applied.

    Assessing risks associated with non-native and invasive species, and evidence for both harms and benefits of the often costly interventions taken against them, can be a complex matter. And chemical risks to ecosystems, particularly to drinking water sources, should only be taken in response to grave and pressing threats. Ecological threats posed by hydrilla have often been overstated, and we can find no evidence documenting its harm in deep, cold waterbodies like Cayuga Lake and the New Croton Reservoir. Worse, assessments of the herbicides’ impacts have been sorely lacking. While hydrilla has declined in treatment areas, so have other aquatic plants.

    The once thriving native plant populations in Cayuga Lake’s inlet, where hydrilla accounted for only a few percent in 2012, have nearly disappeared after years of repeated treatment. Publicly available monitoring reports suggest significant declines of many species between 2012 and 2019. Some, including the native Elodea, are almost eliminated in areas of the lake where originally abundant. ACE reports after 2019 simply do not report plant abundance, despite noting annual declines for all plants near treatment areas. This should be deeply alarming, as aquatic plants provide food and shelter for many species and help regulate water quality. No monitoring of treatments’ impacts on fish, birds or invertebrates were attempted, despite modern studies finding effects including signatures of endocrine disruption in fish even at low fluridone concentrations. Such harms may be long-lived; though fluridone can persist in sediments over multiple years even in much warmer climes, no monitoring for accumulation or its effects year after year in sediments of the lake or reservoir has been conducted.

    Beyond their ecological effects, herbicides applied to drinking water sources constitute a direct threat to human health. The European Drinking Water Directive limits total pesticide concentration from all runoff or unintentional addition to 0.5 ppb, below that intentionally targeted for a single active ingredient in the lake and reservoir. Fluridone is furthermore a PFAS compound according to the definition adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and multiple state laws. Chemicals of this class containing long-lived carbon-fluorine bonds have recently attracted increasing scrutiny for clear harms to human health that were poorly understood in the past. Recent EPA regulations limit concentrations of certain PFAS chemicals in drinking water to a few parts per trillion (ppt), over 100x lower than would have been permissible a decade ago. Intentional fluridone incorporation into food packaging, clothing, carpets, or turf in NYS would be prohibited, but it is nevertheless being deliberately added to drinking water sources for millions of people, at concentrations exceeding limits imposed on other PFAS chemicals by over 100x.

    The remaining 95-97% of the pellets is composed of so-called “inert” ingredients. As for all pesticides, these are not publicly disclosed and undergo limited testing for approval, though in many cases can be clearly harmful. While multiple if problematic studies have been published on fluridone’s effects on animal health, despite multiple inquiries to the ACE and the NYSDEC including by local watershed organizations, we have been unable to obtain information as to safety of these “inerts” in drinking water sources, nor their impacts on flora or fauna. Neither fluridone’s decay byproducts nor the fate of the unspecified “inert” ingredients have been monitored. Another summer of applications is being planned as of this writing.

    We are troubled by the risks inherent in the application of tens of tons of herbicides to drinking water sources, taken to eradicate a plant whose ecological harms were questionable in the first place, all at a cost of many millions of dollars to taxpayers. Hydrilla and the treatments persist, the collateral damage is unexamined, and the health impacts of these chemicals are unlikely to be salutary. The public is owed a much higher scientific standard for justification and evaluation of any such campaign, if undertaken. Without clearly demonstrated need for herbicide interventions, together with transparent accounting for their profound risks, New Yorkers should demand a firm stop to chemical contamination of ecosystems and critical drinking water sources.

    The post Poisoning New York Waters appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

  • Frontline community defenders from the global majority united in Luxembourg to challenge steelmakers ArcelorMittal and Ternium on Tuesday 6 May. They turned to disrupt the human rights violating companies’ AGMs, and to demand an end to a culture of corporate impunity.

    ArcelorMittal and Ternium: steel companies harming communities in the Global South

    The delegation is part of the Fair Steel Coalition, a global network of civil society organisations. It includes representatives of frontline communities and families of those forcibly disappeared. The day of action was part of a Europe-wide advocacy tour, as community defenders step up pressure on the steel giants, the banks that finance them, and key EU governments, to demand an end to decades of climate devastation, corporate impunity, and human rights abuse.

    Steel companies like ArcelorMittal and Ternium have forced local communities to live with the negative impacts of steel plants and mining. This of course includes increased rates of health issues like respiratory problems and heart complications, as documented in the Fair Steel Coalition’s The Real Cost of Steel report last year.

    The report highlighted the environmental racism underlying corporate impunity in steel companies, as the corporations have different standards for the global majority. These frontline communities have been constantly bringing their concerns about the lack of monitoring and need for remedies for health and livelihood issues, but have been met with constant failure to tackle these problems seriously.

    One year after the Fair Steel Coalition’s initial attempts to engage with ArcelorMittal and Ternium, both companies have failed to take responsibility. Ternium has refused to even meet with the group. ArcelorMittal has yet to resolve the serious human rights and climate concerns the Coalition brought to the company. Worse yet, in the past year, it has backtracked on its climate commitments.

    Solidarity walk of the defenders: ‘No more excuses, no more delays’

    On Tuesday 6 May, as Ternium began its AGM, representatives of the families of disappeared activists, environmental defenders, and community leaders from Brazil, Liberia, Mexico, South Africa and Bosnia & Herzegovina gathered in front of the company’s headquarters in Luxembourg:

    Protesters gather outside ArcelorMittal's headquarters with banners reading: "The real cost of steel", "ArcelorMittal - Backtracking on people and planet" and "Fair Steel Coalition".

    Outside Ternium’s headquarters, the group held banners and called for an end to years of corporate impunity:

    Protesters stand in a line with banners reading: "The real cost of steel: disappeared environmental defenders" and "Fair Steel Coalition".

    Ana Luisa Queiroz gave a powerful speech criticising Ternium’s practices in Brazil, calling for justice and urgent remedy, declaring:

    Profit ends up here in Luxembourg, meanwhile we’re left with literal dust in Brazil.

    Campaigners also distributed flyers to Ternium employees and passersby. This exposed Ternium’s role in over 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil:

    Flyer reading: Ternium is responsible for more than 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil".

    Complaint with the OECD over disappeared land defenders

    Global Rights Advocacy (GRA) and Seattle University International Human Rights Clinic have filed an OECD complaint against Ternium. This cites its failure to meaningfully engage with the families of Antonio Diaz Valencia and Ricardo Lagunes Gasca, two disappeared environmental defenders in Mexico. It also underscores the company’s failure to properly investigate its operations in the country.

    Director of GRA Alejandra Gonza said:

    It’s time that the company sits down with us, and we need Luxembourg authorities to make it happen.

    Following the announcement, the group walked to the Ministry of Economy to reiterate the call of 350 civil society organisations: to demand corporate accountability and stop the culture of impunity and disregard for local communities.

    There, community defenders urged Luxembourg ministers to save the CSDDD – an EU directive that would allow communities to hold companies like Ternium and ArcelorMittal accountable in court.

    Reaching their final destination outside ArcelorMittal’s headquarters, the group raised their voices against ArcelorMittal’s shameless backtracking over the last year.

    Performers demonstrated this ‘backtracking’ outside the company’s HQ, to the backdrop of the activists and their banners:

    Protesters dance in front of ArcelorMittal's HQ.

    Lists of community grievances still unanswered by ArcelorMittal

    Fair Steel Coalition members then attended the AGM, asked questions, and met with senior executives.

    Speaking afterwards, John Brownell from Green Advocates Liberia, said:

    I went to the AGM with pages of grievances from families across 3 counties. They answered my question by discussing their investment in jobs and hospitals, but did not address these harmful impacts. My next step is to send the full list of grievances from the lack of community consultation to the impacts on livelihoods. We now expect action and always free prior and informed consent.

    Eduardo Mosqueda said:

    I asked why ArcelorMittal has not engaged meaningfully with the coalition since we met last May. In response, a senior executive committed to even more formal communication links. True dialogue must happen, and must lead to an action plan that drives real change.

    Executive Director of SteelWatch Caroline Ashley added:

    Today confirmed that ArcelorMittal is in the back seat, not the driving seat of decarbonisation. AGM day should be the day to seek shareholder support for big strategic decisions. Serious action in line with the climate crisis and the climate footprint of the company needs a new strategy and serious investment. There was absolutely no sign of that today.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A group of Indigenous people who authorities evicted from their ancestral village in Nagarhole Tiger Reserve in south India 40 years ago, have returned to their former homes. The 52 Jenu Kuruba families faced down 130 police and forest guards to do so on Tuesday 6 May. And, on Wednesday, they declared they are there to stay permanently.

    The community has begun to build new houses to replace the ones they were forced to leave 40 years ago. A small group of police and forest guards remain at the site.

    Jenu Kuruba: Indigenous people return to their ancestral homes in Nagarhole

    Their return on Tuesday was an act of tremendous courage, as forest guards had previously shot some Jenu Kuruba. More than 50 Jenu Kuruba families took part in the long-planned operation. Some carried pictures of loved ones who had died since the community’s expulsion from the forest.

    Shivu, a young Jenu Kuruba leader, said:

    We have today returned to our homelands and forests. We will remain here. Our sacred spirits are with us.

    It’s believed to be the first time Indigenous people in India have asserted their rights in this way, to return en masse to their homes after they were evicted from a Protected Area.

    Shivu added:

    Historical injustice continues to happen over us by denying our rights on our lands, forests and access to sacred spaces. Tiger conservation is a scheme of the forest department and various wildlife NGOs to grab indigenous lands by forcefully moving us out.

    When Forest Department officials and police confronted the Jenu Kuruba and warned them against re-occupying their homes on Tuesday, the Indigenous people castigated them for delays in recognizing their forest rights – and then went ahead:

    Forest department officials warn the Jenu Kuruba against re-occupying their homes inside Nagarhole National Park. The Indigenous people castigated them for delaying recognition of their forest rights, and went ahead anyway.

    Some have begun to build houses, using their traditional materials and techniques:

    Jenu Kuruba families begin to construct a house for their ancestors, as they rebuild their old village inside Nagarhole National Park.

    Authorities in India have illegally evicted an estimated 20,000 Jenu Kuruba people from Nagarhole. Another 6,000 resisted and have managed to stay in the park.

    On Wednesday 7 May, police officers and forest guards stayed on the scene, and prevented journalists accessing the area.

    The Jenu Kuruba say they decided to return because their sacred spirits, who still dwell in the old village location, became angry at being abandoned when the community was forced from the forest.

    ‘We resist the current conservation model’: wildlife and humans can coexist

    The Jenu Kuruba of Nagarhole issued a statement:

    Enough is Enough. We can’t part from our lands anymore. We want our children and youth to live a life that our ancestors once lived.

    Tigers, elephants, peacocks, wild boar, wild dogs are our deities. We have been worshiping them as our ancestral spirits for generations. This deliberate attempt to separate us from our lands, forests and sacred spaces will not be tolerated. We resist the current conservation model based on the false idea that forests, wildlife and humans cannot coexist.

    For decades it has been official policy in India, as in many other countries around the world, to evict Indigenous people from ancestral lands in the name of conservation. In many instances, states turn their lands are into Protected Areas, a practice known as Fortress Conservation.

    The Jenu Kuruba’s belief system centers around their connection to the forest, its wildlife, and their gods. This  includes the tigers who live there. However, forest guards harass, threaten, and even shoot members of the community. Those beliefs underpin the community’s careful management of their environment and have ensured tiger survival. Indeed, the healthy tiger population found in their forest is what drove the Indian government to turn the area into a Tiger Reserve. It has one of the highest concentrations of tigers in all of India.

    Director of Survival International Caroline Pearce said:

    The Jenu Kuruba people’s re-occupation of their ancestral land is an inspirational act of repossession. They’re reclaiming what is theirs, in defiance of a hugely powerful conservation and tourism industry that has enriched itself at their expense.

    If the Indian government really cares about tiger conservation, it will not only allow the Jenu Kuruba people to return, but encourage them to do so – because the science is clear that tigers thrive alongside the Indigenous people whose forests they live in.

    Images via Sartaz Ali Barkat/ Survival

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Image by Roger Peet.

    Ancient oak trees rise above gigantic boulders scattered across a high desert mesa in Arizona’s Tonto National Forest. This is Oak Flat (Chi’ chil Bildagoteel), a sacred site for Native Americans, including the Western and San Carlos Apache. And like many other lands across the West, it’s under grave threat from multinational mining interests, all in the name of climate mitigation, but most importantly, for the money.

    Oak Flat is as stunning as it is vast, and even though it’s only an hour’s drive from the concrete sprawl of Phoenix, when you’re there, you feel as if you’re on an entirely different planet. When I say that the place is sacred, if anything I may be underestimating its significance. To the Apache and others, Oak Flat is the birthplace of life on Earth, their spiritual Eden.

    “Here is the creation story of where a woman came to be, and where the holy ones came together,” Wendsler Nosie, tribal leader of the San Carlos Apache tribe, explains. “This is where we originated as people.”

    Beneath this biologically rich landscape, home to a variety of dry-land species including the endangered hedgehog cacti and the ocelot wildcat, lies a rich deposit of copper, the conductive metal vital for the technologies needed to power the world’s green-energy transition.

    The Apache and environmentalists have been fighting a legal battle over the future of Oak Flat, which the U.S. government promised to protect in the 1852 Treaty of Santa Fe. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Oak Flat has been shielded from mining for the last 60 years. However, that protective status came under attack in 2014 when Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake undermined the agreement by attaching a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act, handing over 2,400 acres of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a joint mining venture between Rio Tinto, the world’s second largest metals and mining corporation, and BHP, possibly the world’s largest mining company. It was a blatant and sinister land grab.

    The legislation, later signed into law by President Barack Obama, intentionally undermined the National Environmental Policy Act through a subtle maneuver that allowed the mine’s approval to proceed, regardless of any adverse environmental impact findings that might result, by shortening the approval process before a judicial review could take place. The Arizona senators had manipulated the process to benefit the mining conglomerates, no matter the damage it would cause, which, by any measure, would be insurmountable. The two senators didn’t come up with that backroom scheme on their own. Flake had spent time as a paid lobbyist for Rio Tinto and, in 2014, the late John McCain was the company’s top recipient of campaign contributions.

    The plan today, according to the mining juggernaut, is to gut Oak Flat using a novel process called “block cave mining,” which involves blasting the copper ore from below, causing the ground above it to collapse under its own weight. The results would be catastrophic, creating a 1.8-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep crater.

    Such impacts are apparently just the cost of doing business (and supposedly fighting climate change) these days. Resolution Copper estimates that mining Oak Flat could yield more than 40 billion tons of copper over 40 years, generating more than $140 billion in profits and providing enough copper to power 200 million electric vehicles (EVs). In addition to the massive hole that the mine would create, the toxic waste from the operation, expected in the end to be 50 stories high and cover an area three times larger than San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, would also bury an unknown number of historic and traditional cultural sites of the Apaches and other neighboring Indigenous nations.

    Ultimately, Oak Flat would simply be rendered unrecognizable.

    “You can’t tamper with these sacred places. We’re talking about deities; we’re talking about angels; we’re talking about where the beginning of time to the end of time will never be lost,” said Apache tribal leader Wendsler Nosie in a virtual press conference in 2021. “Is this the way we are now?” he asked. “Is this the way we believe — to allow these places that give the gift of life to be destroyed?”

    On January 15, 2021, not long after Donald Trump’s fanatics stormed the Capitol, the U.S. Forest Service released its final 400-page Environmental Impact Statement, which acknowledged that “Oak Flat is a sacred place to the Western Apache, Yavapai, O’odham, Hopi, and Zuni. It is a place where rituals are performed, and resources are gathered; its loss would be an indescribable hardship to those peoples.”

    The tribes and allies, under the banner of Apache Stronghold, a non-profit, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the land transfer, arguing that it violated their treaty rights and religious freedom. The group, however, would lose both that lawsuit and an appeal that reached the Ninth Circuit Court. Then, last September, after a two-month caravan across the states to Washington, D.C., Apache Stronghold formally presented its case to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort, hoping that the right-leaning court would at least be receptive to its religious freedom argument.

    Then came Trump. While SCOTUS has yet to take up the case, Trump’s administration has forged ahead, speeding up the mine’s approval process. It was part of its plan to quickly increase the domestic production of so-called critical minerals, primarily used in renewable energies. The news was not taken lightly. Apache Stronghold’s lawyers quickly filed an emergency stay motion in U.S. District Court in late April, hoping to pause Trump’s reckless acceleration. A hearing took place on May 7th in Phoenix and, on May 9th, the judge ruled in favor of Apache Stronghold, granting a stay that expires after SCOTUS either denies the petition or rules on the case.

    “The U.S. government is rushing to give away our spiritual home before the courts can even rule — just like it rushed to erase Native people for generations,” said Nosie of Apache Stronghold following the decision. “This is the same violent pattern we have seen for centuries.”

    While Trump’s antagonism toward Native sovereignty isn’t surprising, it may be puzzling why his administration is so concerned with the nation’s supply of critical minerals like Oak Flat’s copper. As he’s made clear, Trump believes climate change to be a hoax invented by China, and he’s done his best to impede the growth of the renewable energy sector. Yet, like many of Trump’s other bombastic policy proposals, the undercurrents here appear more driven by ego than by ideology.

    Trump’s Greed New Deal

    If Donald Trump has one defining trait, it’s his need to dominate in almost any imaginable situation. Illustrated by his falsehoods and refusal to acknowledge Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, he not only hates losing (and that’s putting it mildly!) but also refuses to concede defeat. And one thing is certain: the U.S. is losing control over the world’s mineral resources to China.

    When it comes to critical minerals, the Chinese not only control most of the mines but also maintain and operate the majority of the world’s processing facilities. No other country comes close in the race for critical minerals. China finances the majority of critical mineral projects worldwide, totaling $57 billion over the past 20 years. It holds 35% of the globe’s reserves, but is responsible for 70% of their extraction and 87% of their processing on this planet.

    In contrast, the U.S. relies entirely on China and other places for 12 of the 50 minerals on its “List of Critical Minerals” and is more than 50% dependent on imports for 28 more. Those minerals include metals like aluminum, cobalt, graphite, and lithium. And being “critical” doesn’t mean they are in short supply. For instance, believe it or not, the U.S. already has an excess supply of copper, which makes the proposed mine at Oak Flat all the more unnecessary and insidious. Adding to the absurdity, China’s Chinalco conglomerate holds almost 15% of Rio Tinto, so mining Oak Flat will, in the end, still benefit the Chinese.

    While Biden’s Department of Energy allocated $19.5 million to increase domestic production of such minerals, $43 million to enhance battery technologies for EVs, and another $150 million to build processing facilities, that amount pales in comparison to China’s $230 billion investment in its EV market from 2009 to 2023 alone. Unsurprisingly, China now accounts for 62% of the world’s EVs and 77% of the batteries that power them. And it’s not just about the green tech. All those minerals shipped from China (80% of the U.S. supply) are also used as components for Artificial Intelligence and in the work of carmakers, aerospace companies, the defense industry, and others.

    We know Trump doesn’t care about the climate or green energy policies, which he’s called a “scam.” Still, he understands that whoever commands those resources has the power to navigate the future of the global economy. Today, 30% of the world’s energy is produced by renewables (up 10% since 2010). Although fossil fuels still dominate, green energy is set to grow 90% by 2030. Nothing that Trump does can alter this trajectory — and now he evidently wants in.

    On April 24th, the Department of the Interior, after being prodded by Trump, announced that it would eliminate environmental reviews and fast-track the development of oil, gas, and critical minerals on public lands.

    “The United States cannot afford to wait,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “We are cutting through unnecessary delays to fast-track the development of American energy and critical minerals — resources that are essential to our economy, our military readiness, and our global competitiveness.”

    Burgum was sounding the alarm, even if there was no real bell to ring. After all, the U.S. already has more fossil fuels than it knows what to do with. Weeks earlier, amid Trump’s escalating tariff war, China had retaliated by threatening to end shipments of critical minerals to the United States, all but flatlining Trump’s hopes of reinvigorating the American manufacturing sector.

    There were, however, a couple of problems with Burgum’s edict (and Trump’s emergency energy decree that preceded it). First, it takes a significant amount of time to get a mine up and running (on average, 16 years), and it’s not always environmental reviews that are to blame. You need to find the resource, gather investors, and build out the necessary infrastructure, which may include roads and other facilities. None of this will happen quickly enough to offset China’s threat, even without environmental reviews. Second, although the U.S. does have a wealth of critical minerals in its backyard, it doesn’t maintain the processing facilities needed to handle them. Mining a bunch of new metals without refinement centers is an exercise in futility, akin to pumping millions of gallons of oil without the refineries to turn it all into gasoline.

    Even so, this reality hasn’t stopped the over-eager Trump, who worked to cut a deal with Ukraine for access to its mineral wealth and has his sights set on nabbing Greenland’s as well. No doubt, Elon Musk, who has long criticized the U.S. for lagging behind China when it comes to mineral dominance, has been advising Trump to get a move on, even if it’s too late.

    That MAGA Energy

    What such critical mineral mining means for the future of the climate remains uncertain. Yet, as Trump has made clear, his insistence that the U.S. should open public lands for exploration isn’t about reducing carbon emissions at all. In fact, he’s hellbent on increasing them. It’s about bolstering U.S. capitalism, enriching mining companies, and, well, Making America (and undoubtedly Donald Trump) Great Again.

    It matters little that America was never great for the Apache, who had their lands stolen, their treaty rights shredded, and now face yet another act of cultural annihilation at Oak Flat. Trump cares nothing about human rights, ecology, or the planet’s future (beyond him). He sees every issue as a competitive market transaction. Where there’s money to be made, nothing will stand in his way — surely not some nettlesome endangered species or an Indigenous holy site.

    In this sense, eerily enough, Trump is not unlike the line of presidents who came before him. George W. Bush, who was swept into power in 2000 by a wave of oil money, spurred the fracking boom. Barack Obama, regarded as the country’s first climate president, also increased fossil-fuel extraction by bolstering shale oil extraction (as did Joe Biden, despite his gestures toward dealing with climate change). U.S. oil production saw an 88% increase during Obama’s tenure.

    “You wouldn’t always know it, but [oil production] went up every year I was president,” Obama bragged to a group at Rice University’s Baker Institute in 2018. “Suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas, that was me, people.”

    In a similarly chest-thumping style, Trump is confident that America’s future will be driven by whatever resources he’s able to seize. But the stock markets (and polls) harbor doubts about his vision, fully aware that decades of market integration have set the stage in favor of Beijing. Trump’s appetite for fossil fuels and (no matter that he’s dismissed climate change) critical minerals, his erratic tariffs, and a few executive orders will make little difference. American capitalism is too deeply intertwined with foreign markets for the U.S. economy to go it alone.

    None of this changes the fact that sacred Apache lands are set to be ravaged in the name of “green” energy, economic independence, or whatever the White House proclaims to be its latest justification. In truth, Oak Flat is on the verge of being destroyed for profit, and profit alone — just one more colonial conquest of Native lands in the American West.

    “The holy places are rumbling at what is happening in the world and in the country,” writes Nosie. “But the prophecy [says] that one day it is not going to rumble anymore. When that day comes, that means we have destroyed everything.”

    Trump’s rampant mining and drilling could potentially be the ultimate act of destruction that the prophets have predicted. If we are to learn one lesson from our country’s history, in fact, it is that when destruction reigns, the pillager alone stands victorious, leaving everyone else defeated. It’s a twisted, genocidal ideology and a truly American one that has become all too familiar in these ever-darkening days.

    This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

    The post From Oak Flat to Ukraine: Trump’s Feverish Lust for Green Energy Resources appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Redwoods National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    The Earth is “on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster,” according to “The 2024 State of the Climate Report.” Sounding the alarm on the “emergency” we find ourselves in, the report warns that the situation can no longer be ignored as “the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled.”

    The scale of environmental degradation is no longer just a question of unsustainable practices; it is a direct violation of the Earth’s right to exist, regenerate, and thrive. What we are witnessing is ecocide—the extensive, systematic destruction of the natural environment.

    There is a critical need for a movement to recognize nature as a legal entity with rights. Just as human rights are enshrined in law to protect individuals, the rights of the natural world also need to be legally acknowledged.

    This is where the work of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) becomes so significant. CELDF has supported communities across the world in advancing the rights of nature, from local efforts to larger national and international movements.

    How Ecuador is Setting an Example for Upholding the Rights of Nature

    “Rights of Nature is about balancing what is good for human beings against what is good for other species, what is good for the planet as a world. It is the holistic recognition that all life, all ecosystems on our planet, are deeply intertwined. Rather than treating Nature as property under the law, Rights of Nature acknowledges that Nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles,” explains the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature.

    Among its many successes, in 2008, CELDF supported Ecuador in becoming the first country in the world to include the rights of nature in its constitution. This model was replicated by Italy, which included protection of the environment in its constitution in 2022.

    Pointing to how one step in the right direction can inspire other nations to do the same, CELDF stated, “Since CELDF assisted the people of Ecuador to amend their constitution to include rights of nature in 2008, the movement has seen hundreds of other laws passed in countries like Columbia, New Zealand, and Canada.”

    These rights have helped Ecuador protect its wildlife and forests. In December 2021, “the Constitutional Court applied the rights of nature to prohibit mining in the Los Cedros Protected Forest,” according to Earth.Org. And in 2022, Ecuador became the first country to recognize the legal rights of animals in a landmark ruling.

    These rights are especially important as “Ecuador is among the five most deforested countries in Latin America,” said Natalia Greene, Ecuadorian activist and environmental leader, in a 2023 Mongabay article.

    CELDF Helps Communities in the U.S.

    CELDF has also been instrumental in initiating similar efforts across the United States, such as in Pennsylvania, where communities have used local ordinances to assert nature’s rights and challenge corporate polluters.

    “For two decades, CELDF has worked alongside hundreds of communities to advance rights-based laws protecting communities from factory farming, land application of sewage sludge, fracking, and other harms, by recognizing democratic and environmental rights. In Pennsylvania, communities joined together to form the Pennsylvania Community Rights Network (PACRN) in 2010, which partnered with CELDF and others to draft language for the state amendment,” the organization’s website stated.

    These efforts led to Tamaqua Borough in Pennsylvania passing a rights of nature law in 2006, “the first time rights of nature were recognized in any western legal system,” according to CELDF.

    The fight to protect nature by local communities led to another win in March 2025. New York introduced the Great Lakes and State Waters Bill of Rights. If this law is passed, it “would be the first ever state-level ‘rights of nature’ law in the United States. It would recognize ‘unalienable and fundamental rights to exist, persist, flourish, naturally evolve, regenerate and be restored’ for the Great Lakes and other watersheds and ecosystems throughout the state,” stated the CELDF.

    Through their advocacy, education, and legal support, organizations like CELDF are leading the way in empowering communities to challenge the systems perpetuating environmental harm and to restore balance with the natural world.

    The growing movement to recognize the rights of nature represents not only a legal shift but a radical transformation in how we perceive our relationship with the planet.

    Why These Legal Protections Are Critical

    Despite the looming climate crisis that is already leading to massive destruction, the war economy continues with business as usual, driving record profits at the cost of catastrophic heatwaves, floods, and extreme weather that threaten the planet’s stability and global security. This exploitative system treats nature as a resource to be consumed and discarded, disproportionately harming the global poor. While markets attempt to appease eco-conscious consumers with greenwashed products that disguise their harmful impact, the underlying destructive processes remain unchanged.

    To change this status quo, a growing momentum is calling for ecocide to be recognized as an international crime, with the late environmental lawyer Polly Higgins playing a pivotal role in advocating for ecocide to be a fifth crime against peace alongside genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression.

    If we continue to treat nature as a commodity to be exploited, we are not just causing irreversible harm—we are committing an act of violence against the very life-support systems that sustain us. This is why the push to ensure the rights of nature is critical.

    Such a shift would radically transform our relationship with the planet, making the destruction of ecosystems as condemnable as the violation of human rights. We would recognize nature as a living, breathing entity that demands respect, protection, and preservation for future generations. This mindset is reflected in many Indigenous philosophies and Buddhist teachings, which view all living beings as interconnected. These worldviews hold that our survival depends on the health of the planet and that nature has intrinsic value beyond its utility to human beings.

    The movement for the legal recognition of nature’s rights is deeply rooted in the need to bring about a decolonial shift. Decolonialism seeks to undo the harm caused by colonial systems that commodify nature and subjugate Indigenous knowledge and practices.

    As pointed out by plant biologist and writer Robin Wall Kimmerer, who combines her academic background in botanical science and her background as an enrolled member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, this shift would restore the “grammar of animacy,” leading to nature being recognized and understood as kin, rather than as property, thus dismantling the Western ideology of individualism and hierarchy.

    The post CELDF and the Rights of Nature appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Over sixty organisations have written to UK government ministers ahead of a major meeting of the Council of Europe. They’re urging the Labour Party government to back proposals for an additional binding Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, it’s one that would finally recognise the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

    ECHR: the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment

    An Additional Protocol would strengthen the rights of all 675 million citizens living in Council of Europe member states. Recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment would harmonise standards in the region, provide legal certainty, strengthen domestic environmental legislation, protect vulnerable communities, and support environmental defenders.

    It would also reaffirm the European Court of Human Rights’ legitimacy in addressing matters related to environmental rights. This would enable it to build on its significant and growing environmental jurisprudence, and improve the protection of lives and livelihoods for current and future generations.

    Organisations including Friends of the Earth, Wildlife & Countryside Link, and the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) coordinated the letter. It follows an intervention from UN appointed experts on human rights and the environment, who added their voice to the growing calls for an Additional Protocol recognising the right.

    The UK government must back the right in the ECHR

    On 13 May, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Drafting Group on Human Rights and the Environment will decide whether to move forward in drafting an Additional Protocol. This would formally recognise the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the ECHR. Countries including Portugal, Slovenia, Iceland, Georgia, and France back the move. However, the UK has yet to make its position clear.

    The Council of Europe remains the only regional human rights system in the world that has not yet recognised this right. Though 42 of the 46 member states acknowledge it nationally or regionally, legal protection remains inconsistent across borders. This is despite the unanimous support expressed by Council of Europe Member States for the UN General Assembly’s 2022 resolution recognising the right to a healthy environment as a human right – and the collective commitment to strengthen the Council’s work on the human rights dimensions of environmental protection, reaffirmed at the 2023 Reykjavík Summit.

    ‘Environmental damage and human suffering are two sides of the same coin’

    Kierra Box, trade and environmental regulation campaigner at Friends of the Earth England, Wales & Northern Ireland, said:

    One look at the state of our sewage-filled rivers and seas will tell you just how critical a healthy environment is, not to mention the level of public outrage it’s caused. Yet companies who pollute with impunity, coupled with rising global temperatures, are threatening nature, undermining our human rights and putting people at risk. This is a chance for UK ministers to take a stand. Clean air, safe water and thriving wildlife are not luxuries, they are a human right and deserve legal recognition as such.

    Chief officer at the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) Shivali Fifield said:

    We face the triple planetary crisis of climate breakdown, biodiversity loss, and the widespread pollution of our air, land and water. Environmental damage and human suffering are two sides of the same coin and Europe should guarantee legal protections for communities exposed to environmental harm if we are to address the root causes and intersections of social, environmental and climate injustice. We urge the UK government to demonstrate their commitment to upholding our human and environmental rights by voting to recognise our universal human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

    Senior policy officer at Wildlife & Countryside Link Niall Watson said:

    Environmental inequality remains a major issue in the UK with millions of people living shorter, unhealthier lives because they are breathing polluted air, or don’t have access to greenspace which supports physical and mental health. Putting the right to a healthy environment in law would give local communities that are suffering from polluted air and rivers or losing access to local nature a greater ability to hold our leaders to account.

    The UK Government must raise the bar for nature and our communities. Now is the time for the Government to stop paying lip service to what is needed and give its backing to Europe-wide recognition of the peoples’ right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

  • Early this year, as snow froze into sheets of solid ice, covering the ground for weeks, almost 20% of St. Louis Public School students were unhoused. Meanwhile, in warm town halls, former city Mayor Tishaura Jones praised a proposed new hazardous chemical facility, displaying the city’s economic priorities. St. Louis’s northside has long been subjected to the environmental effects of militarization, from the radiation secretly sprayed on residents of Pruitt Igoe and Northside communities in the 1950s, to the dumped cancer-causing Manhattan Project radioactive waste that poisoned ColdWater Creek. A proposed new Israeli Chemical Limited (ICL) facility in north St. Louis would not only be another colonial imposition, but it also poses disastrous environmental risks for the entire state.

    A new ICL facility would further establish St. Louis as a hub of militarization and an exporter of global death and destruction. In St. Charles, Boeing has built more than 500,000 Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits, known as JDAMS. An Amnesty International report tied these to attacks on Palestinian civilian homes, families, and children, making our region complicit in war crimes. In addition to hosting the explosives weapons manufacturer Boeing, Missouri is home to Monsanto (now Bayer), which produced Agent Orange. What’s lesser known is that Monsanto is responsible for white phosphorus production in a supply chain trifecta with ICL and Pine Bluffs Arsenal. White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary weapon that heats up to 1400 degrees F, and international law bans its use against civilians. From 2020 to 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense ordered and paid ICL for over 180,000 lbs of white phosphorus, shipped from their South City Carondelet location to Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas. White phosphorus artillery shells with Pine Bluff Arsenal codes were identified in Lebanon and Gaza after the IDF unlawfully used them over residential homes and refugee camps, according to the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Another ICL facility, combined with the new National Geo Space Intelligence Agency that analyzes drone footage to direct US military attacks, would put North St. Louis squarely on the map for military retaliation from any country seeking to strike back against US global interventionism.

    Within a mile of the Carondelet ICL site, the EPA has identified unsafe levels of cancer-risking air toxins, hazardous waste, and wastewater discharge. The new facility would be built within 5 miles of intake towers and open-air sedimentation ponds that provide drinking water to St. Louis. An explosion or leak could destroy the city’s water supply and harm eastern Missouri towns along the Mississippi.  ICL has committed multiple Environmental and Workplace Safety violations, including violating the Clean Air Act at its South City facility. In 2023, they were declared the worst environmental offenders by Israel’s own Environmental Protection Ministry after the 2017 Ashalim Creek disaster, and were fined $33 million.

    ICL claims the new North City site is a safe and green facility for manufacturing lithium iron phosphate for electric vehicles; however, lithium manufacturing is hardly a green or safe process. Lithium and phosphorus mining require enormous amounts of freshwater – a protected resource – resulting in poisoned ecosystems and a limited water supply for residents and wildlife in the local communities where they are sourced.

    In October 2024, a lithium battery plant in Fredericktown, Missouri, burst into flames, forcing residents to evacuate and killing thousands of fish in nearby rivers. The company had claimed to have one of the most sophisticated automated fire suppression systems in the world, yet it still caused a fire whose aftermath continues to affect residents today, with comparisons being drawn to East Palestine, Ohio. Meanwhile, in January, over 1,000 people in California had to evacuate due to a massive fire at a lithium facility, the fourth fire there since 2019. Despite ICL claiming that the new site will use a ‘safer’ form of lithium processing, it’s clear that lithium facilities are not as safe as profit-driven corporations claim them to be.

    Missouri leaders repeatedly prioritize corporate profits over people via tax abatements. ICL is receiving 197 million dollars from the federal government. The city is forgiving a $500,000 loan to troubled investors Green Street to sell the land to ICL and is proposing a 90% tax abatement in personal property taxes for ICL, plus 15 years of real estate tax abatements. This is a troubling regional trend, considering that in 2023, St. Louis County approved $155 million in tax breaks to expand Boeing, also giving them a 50% cut in real estate and personal property taxes over 10 years. Corporate tax breaks in the city have cost minority students in St. Louis Public Schools 260 million dollars in a region where 30% of children are food insecure. Over 2000 people in St. Louis city are homeless.  Enough babies die each year in St Louis to fill 15 kindergarten classrooms. Black babies are 3 times more likely to die than white babies before their first birthday, and Black women are 2.4 times more likely to die during pregnancy. Spending public funds on corporate tax breaks instead of directing them toward food, housing, and life-saving medical care for black women and babies is inexcusable. Why does a foreign chemical company with almost 7 billion in earnings need so much funding from our local and federal government at the expense of our residents?

    Officials cite ‘job creation’ as a major reason to expand ICL. Still, the new facility is only expected to create 150 jobs, and there is no evidence that these jobs will be given to people in the community where it is being built. Investing in black and minority businesses would lead to actual self-sustaining economic development.

    Despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, local tax breaks, the backing of former Governor Mike Parsons, and approval from city committees, the facility’s opening is not a done deal. The St. Louis City Board of Alders could still intervene. Stopping a facility with this much federal and international backing would require massive pushback from Missourians. Residents deserve more information and input in this process, especially considering the city’s resistance to hearing public comments. Notably, when locals submitted a Sunshine request for the ICL permit in March, it was so heavily redacted that it was unreadable.

    This facility would turn local black neighborhoods into environmental and military sacrifice zones, and our response to city, state, and federal leaders should be a definitive and resounding No!

    CODEPINK Missouri has a petition to stop the building of the ICL facility in St. Louis.

    The post Missouri Puts Profits Over People’s Lives with New ICL Facility first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor

    The leader of the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) has reacted to the election of the new pope.

    Pope Leo XIV was elected by his fellow cardinals in the Conclave on Thursday evening, Rome time.

    Leo, 69, formerly Cardinal Robert Prevost, is originally from Chicago, and has spent most of his career as a missionary in Peru.

    He became a cardinal only in 2023 and has become the first-ever US pope.

    PCC general secretary Reverend James Bhagwan said he was not a Vatican insider, but there had been talk of cardinals feeling that the new pope should be a “middle-of-the-road person”.

    Reverend Bhagwan said there had been prayers for God’s wisdom to guide the decisions made at the Conclave.

    “I think if we look at where the decisions perhaps were made or based on, there had been a lot of talk that the cardinals going into Conclave had felt that a new pope would need to be someone who could take forward the legacy of Pope Francis, reaching out to those in the margins, but also be a sort of a middle-of-the-road person,” he said.

    Hopes for climate response
    Reverend Bhagwan said the Pacific hoped that Pope Leo carried on the late Pope Francis’s connection to the climate change response.

    He said Pope Francis released his “laudate deum” exhortation on the climate shortly before the United Nations climate summit in Dubai last year.

    “The focus on care for creation, the focus for ending fossil fuels and climate justice, the focus on people from the margins — I think that’s important for the Pacific people at this time.

    “I know that the Catholic Church in the Pacific has been focused on on its synodal process, and so he spoke about synodality as well.

    “I know that there were hopes for an Oceania synod, just as Pope Francis held a synod of the Amazon. And I think that is still something that’s in the hearts of many of our Catholic leaders and Catholic members.

    “We hope that this will be an opportunity to still bring that focus to the Pacific.”

    Picking up issues
    New Zealand’s Cardinal John Dew, who was in the Conclave, said the new pope would not hesitate to speak out about issues around the world.

    He said they were confident Pope Leo would pick up many of the issues Francis was well known for, like speaking up for climate change, human trafficking and the plight of refugees; and within the church, a different way of meeting and talking with one another — known as synodality — which is an ongoing process.

    “I think any pope needs to be able to challenge things that are happening around the world, especially if it is affecting the lives of people, where the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.”

    Pope Leo appeared to be a very calm person, he added.

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

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace

    We’ve visited Ground Zero. Not once, but three times. But for generations, before these locations were designated as such, they were the ancestral home to the people of the Marshall Islands.

    As part of a team of Greenpeace scientists and specialists from the Radiation Protection Advisers team, we have embarked on a six-week tour on board the Rainbow Warrior, sailing through one of the most disturbing chapters in human history: between 1946 and 1958, the United States detonated 67 nuclear bombs across the Marshall Islands — equivalent to 7200 Hiroshima explosions.

    During this period, testing nuclear weapons at the expense of wonderful ocean nations like the Marshall Islands was considered an acceptable practice, or as the US put it, “for the good of mankind”.

    Instead, the radioactive fallout left a deep and complex legacy — one that is both scientific and profoundly human, with communities displaced for generations.

    Rainbow Warrior ship entering port in Majuro, while being accompanied by three traditional Marshallese canoes. © Bianca Vitale / Greenpeace
    The Rainbow Warrior coming into port in Majuro, Marshall Islands. Between March and April 2025 it embarked on a six-week mission around the Pacific nation to elevate calls for nuclear and climate justice; and support independent scientific research into the impacts of decades-long nuclear weapons testing by the US government. Image: © Bianca Vitale/Greenpeace

    Between March and April, we travelled on the Greenpeace flagship vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, throughout the Marshall Islands, including to three northern atolls that bear the most severe scars of Cold War nuclear weapons testing:

    • Enewetak atoll, where, on Runit Island, stands a massive leaking concrete dome beneath which lies plutonium-contaminated waste, a result of a partial “clean-up” of some of the islands after the nuclear tests;
    • Bikini atoll, a place so beautiful, yet rendered uninhabitable by some of the most powerful nuclear detonations ever conducted; and
    • Rongelap atoll, where residents were exposed to radiation fallout and later convinced to return to contaminated land, part of what is now known as Project 4.1, a US medical experiment to test humans’  exposure to radiation.

    This isn’t fiction, nor the distant past. It’s a chapter of history still alive through the environment, the health of communities, and the data we’re collecting today.

    Each location we visit, each sample we take, adds to a clearer picture of some of the long-term impacts of nuclear testing—and highlights the importance of continuing to document, investigate, and attempt to understand and share these findings.

    These are our field notes from a journey through places that hold important lessons for science, justice, and global accountability.

    'Jimwe im Maron - Justice' Banner on Rainbow Warrior in Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    As part of the Marshall Islands ship tour, a group of Greenpeace scientists and independent radiation experts were in Rongelap to sample lagoon sediments and plants that could become food if people came back. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Our mission: why are we here?
    With the permission and support of the Marshallese government, a group of Greenpeace science and radiation experts, together with independent scientists, are in the island nation to assess, investigate, and document the long-term environmental and radiological consequences of nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands.

    Our mission is grounded in science. We’re conducting field sampling and radiological surveys to gather data on what radioactivity remains in the environment — isotopes such as caesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium-239/240. These substances are released during nuclear explosions and can linger in the environment for decades, posing serious health risks, such as increased risk of cancers in organs and bones.

    But this work is not only about radiation measurements, it is also about bearing witness.

    We are here in solidarity with Marshallese communities who continue to live with the consequences of decisions made decades ago, without their consent and far from the public eye.

    Stop 1: Enewetak Atoll — the dome that shouldn’t exist

    Rainbow Warrior alongside the Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    The Runit Dome with the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in the background. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    At the far western edge of the Marshall Islands is Enewetak. The name might not ring a bell for many, but this atoll was the site of 43 US nuclear detonations. Today, it houses what may be one of the most radioactive places in the world — the Runit Dome.

    Once a tropical paradise thick with coconut palms, Runit Island is capped by a massive concrete structure the size of a football field. Under this dome — cracked, weather-worn, and only 46 centimetres thick in some places — lies 85,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste. These substances are not only confined to the crater — they are also found across the island’s soil, rendering Runit Island uninhabitable for all time.

    The contrast between what it once was and what it has become is staggering. We took samples near the dome’s base, where rising sea levels now routinely flood the area.

    We collected coconut from the island, which will be processed and prepared in the Rainbow Warrior’s onboard laboratory. Crops such as coconut are a known vector for radioactive isotope transfer, and tracking levels in food sources is essential for understanding long-term environmental and health risks.

    The local consequences of this simple fact are deeply unjust. While some atolls in the Marshall Islands can harvest and sell coconut products, the people of Enewetak are prohibited from doing so because of radioactive contamination.

    They have lost not only their land and safety but also their ability to sustain themselves economically. The radioactive legacy has robbed them of income and opportunity.

    Test on Coconuts in Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    Measuring and collecting coconut samples. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    One of the most alarming details about this dome is that there is no lining beneath the structure — it is in direct contact with the environment, while containing some of the most hazardous long-lived substances ever to exist on planet Earth. It was never built to withstand flooding, sea level rise, and climate change.

    The scientific questions are urgent: how much of this material is already leaking into the lagoon? What are the exposure risks to marine ecosystems and local communities?

    We are here to help answer questions with new, independent data, but still, being in the craters and walking on this ground where nuclear Armageddon was unleashed is an emotional and surreal journey.

    Stop 2: Bikini — a nuclear catastrophe, labelled ‘for the good of mankind’

    Drone, Aerial shots above Bikini Atoll, showing what it looks like today, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    Aerial shot of Bikini atoll, Marshall Islands. The Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior can be seen in the upper left. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Unlike Chernobyl or Fukushima, where communities were devastated by catastrophic accidents, Bikini tells a different story. This was not an accident.

    The nuclear destruction of Bikini was deliberate, calculated, and executed with full knowledge that entire ways of life were going to be destroyed.

    Bikini Atoll is incredibly beautiful and would look idyllic on any postcard. But we know what lies beneath: the site of 23 nuclear detonations, including Castle Bravo, the largest ever nuclear weapons test conducted by the United States.

    Castle Bravo alone released more than 1000 times the explosive yield of the Hiroshima bomb. The radioactive fallout massively contaminated nearby islands and their populations, together with thousands of US military personnel.

    Bikini’s former residents were forcibly relocated in 1946 before nuclear testing began, with promises of a safe return. But the atoll is still uninhabited, and most of the new generations of Bikinians have never seen their home island.

    As we stood deep in the forest next to a massive concrete blast bunker, reality hit hard — behind its narrow lead-glass viewing window, US military personnel once watched the evaporation of Bikini lagoon.

    Bikini Islanders board a landing craft vehicle personnel (LCVP) as they depart from Bikini Atoll in March 1946. © United States Navy
    Bikini Islanders board a landing craft vehicle personnel (LCVP) as they depart from Bikini Atoll in March 1946. Image: © United States Navy

    On our visit, we noticed there’s a spectral quality to Bikini. The homes of the Bikini islanders are long gone. In its place now stand a scattering of buildings left by the US Department of Energy: rusting canteens, rotting offices, sleeping quarters with peeling walls, and traces of the scientific experiments conducted here after the bombs fell.

    On dusty desks, we found radiation reports, notes detailing crop trials, and a notebook meticulously tracking the application of potassium to test plots of corn, alfalfa, lime, and native foods like coconut, pandanus, and banana. The potassium was intended to block the uptake of caesium-137, a radioactive isotope, by plant roots.

    The logic was simple: if these crops could be decontaminated, perhaps one day Bikini could be repopulated.

    We collected samples of coconuts and soil — key indicators of internal exposure risk if humans were to return. Bikini raises a stark question: What does “safe” mean, and who gets to decide?

    The US declared parts of Bikini habitable in 1970, only to evacuate people again eight years later after resettled families suffered from radiation exposure. The science is not abstract here. It is personal. It is human. It has real consequences.

    Stop 3: Rongelap — setting for Project 4.1

    Church and Community Centre of Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    The abandoned church on Rongelap atoll. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    The Rainbow Warrior arrived at the eastern side of Rongelap atoll, anchoring one mile from the centre of Rongelap Island, the church spire and roofs of “new” buildings reflecting the bright sun.

    n 1954, fallout from the Castle Bravo nuclear detonation on Bikini blanketed this atoll in radioactive ash — fine, white powder that children played in, thinking it was snow. The US government waited three days to evacuate residents, despite knowing the risks. The US government declared it safe to return to Rongelap in 1957 — but it was a severely contaminated environment. The very significant radiation exposure to the Rongelap population caused severe health impacts: thyroid cancers, birth defects such as “jellyfish babies”, miscarriages, and much more.

    In 1985, after a request to the US government to evacuate was dismissed, the Rongelap community asked Greenpeace to help relocate them from their ancestral lands. Using the first Rainbow Warrior, and over a period of 10 days and four trips, 350 residents collectively dismantled their homes, bringing everything with them — including livestock, and 100 metric tons of building material — where they resettled on the islands of Mejatto and Ebeye on Kwajalein atoll.

    It is a part of history that lives on in the minds of the Marshallese people we meet in this ship voyage — in the gratitude they still express, the pride in keeping the fight for justice, and in the pain of still not having a permanent, safe home.

    Community Gathering for 40th Anniversary of Operation Exodus in Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    Greenpeace representatives and displaced Rongelap community come together on Mejatto, Marshall Islands to commemorate the 40 years since the Rainbow Warrior evacuated the island’s entire population in May 1985 due to the impacts of US nuclear weapons testing. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Now, once again, we are standing on their island of Rongelap, walking past abandoned buildings and rusting equipment, some of it dating from the 1980s and 1990s — a period when the US Department of Energy launched a push to encourage resettlement declaring that the island was safe — a declaration that this time, the population welcomed with mistrust, not having access to independent scientific data and remembering the deceitful relocation of some decades before.

    Here, once again, we sample soil and fruits that could become food if people came back. It is essential to understand ongoing risks — especially for communities considering whether and how to return.

    This is not the end. It is just the beginning

    Team of Scientists and Rainbow Warrior in Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    The team of Greenpeace scientists and independent radiation experts on Rongelap atoll, Marshall Islands, with the Rainbow Warrior in the background. Shaun Burnie (author of the article) is first on the left. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Our scientific mission is to take measurements, collect samples, and document contamination. But that’s not all we’re bringing back.

    We carry with us the voices of the Marshallese who survived these tests and are still living with their consequences. We carry images of graves swallowed by tides near Runit Dome, stories of entire cultures displaced from their homelands, and measurements of radiation showing contamination still persists after many decades.

    There are 9700 nuclear warheads still held by military powers around the world – mostly in the United States and Russian arsenals. The Marshall Islands was one of the first nations to suffer the consequences of nuclear weapons — and the legacy persists today.

    We didn’t come to speak for the Marshallese. We came to listen, to bear witness, and to support their demand for justice. We plan to return next year, to follow up on our research and to make results available to the people of the Marshall Islands.

    And we will keep telling these stories — until justice is more than just a word.

    Kommol Tata (“thank you” in the beautiful Marshallese language) for following our journey.

    Shaun Burnie is a senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Ukraine and was part of the Rainbow Warrior team in the Marshall Islands. This article was first published by Greenpeace Aotearoa and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Honolulu, HI – This Friday, May 9, at 8:00 AM, community members, cultural practitioners, and environmental advocates from across the paeʻāina will gather outside the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) ahead of the 9:00 am Board meeting at the Kalanimoku Building (1151 Punchbowl St., Honolulu) to demand the rejection of the U.S. Army’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA). The Army’s proposed retention of 23,000 acres of public, “ceded” lands on Hawaiʻi Island has generated widespread opposition. Community advocates say the FEIS is inadequate, failing to address decades of documented environmental destruction, cultural desecration, and health risks associated with military use—including the confirmed presence of depleted uranium, over 1,000 wildfires, and unremediated contamination.

    The post Rally Against Army’s Environmental Impact Statement For Pohakuloa appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  •  

    Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).

     

    Marketing Trump's $Trump meme coin: Donald Trump; Fight Fight Fight; Join Trump's Special Community

    $Trump marketing website.

    This week on CounterSpin: They say ignorance is bliss, but I know that, for myself and others, our lack of knowledge of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency will only hurt us in our response to the effects that the dealings around that stuff are having on our lives. Bartlett Naylor breaks it down for us; he works at Public Citizen, as a financial policy advocate at their project Congress Watch.

     

    Landscape of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (photo: Judith Slein)

    Also on the show: Billionaires don’t need tax cuts; they already have a system designed to appease them. But it’s not enough! Part of the budget bill to give more to those who have everything is an effort to sell off public land for exploitation for fossil fuel companies, who are determined to die taking the last penny from our fingers. Pulling up the covers and waiting for better times isn’t the way; if we stay focused, we can save critical elements of, in this case, unspoiled wild places in this country. Ashley Nunes is public lands policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. We hear from her this week about that.

     

    Plus Janine Jackson looks back on an interview with the late Robert McChesney.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Auckland film maker Paula Whetu Jones has spent nearly two decades working pro bono on a feature film about the Auckland cardiac surgeon Alan Kerr, which is finally now in cinemas.

    She is best known for co-writing and directing Whina, the feature film about Dame Whina Cooper.

    She filmed Dr Kerr and his wife Hazel in 2007, when he led a Kiwi team to Gaza and the West Bank to operate on children with heart disease.

    What started as a two-week visit became a 20 year commitment, involving 40 medical missions to Gaza and the West Bank and hundreds of operations.

    Paula Whetu Jones self-funded six trips to document the work and the result is the feature film The Doctor’s Wife, now being screened free in communities around the country.

    20 years of inspirational work in Palestine

    Pacific Media Watch reports that Paula Whetu Jones writes on her film’s website:

    I met Alan and Hazel Kerr in 2006 and became inspired by their selflessness and dedication. I wanted to learn more about them and shine a light on their achievements.

    I’ve been trying to highlight social issues through documentary film making for 25 years. I have always struggled to obtain funding and this project was no different. We provided most of the funding but it wouldn’t have been possible to complete it without the generosity of a small number of donors.

    Others gave of their time and expertise.

    Film maker Paula Whetu Jones
    Film maker Paula Whetu Jones . . . “Our documentary shows the humanity of everyday Palestinians, pre 2022, as told through the eyes of a retired NZ heart surgeon, his wife and two committed female film makers.” Image: NZ On Film

    Our initial intention was to follow Dr Alan in his work in the West Bank and Gaza but we also developed a very special relationship with Hazel.

    While Dr Alan was operating, Hazel took herself all over the West Bank and Gaza, volunteering to help in refugee camps, schools and community centres. We tagged along and realised that Dr Alan and his work was the heart of the film but Hazel was the soul. Hence, the title became The Doctor’s Wife.

    I was due to return to Palestine in 2010 when on the eve of my departure I was struck down by a rare auto immune condition which left me paralysed. It wasn’t until 2012 that I was able to return to Palestine.

    Wheelchair made things hard
    However, being in a wheelchair made everything near on impossible, not to mention my mental state which was not conducive to being creative. In 2013, tragedy struck again when my 22-year-old son died, and I shut down for a year.

    Again, the project seemed so far away, destined for the shelf. Which is where it sat for the next few years while I tried to figure out how to live in a wheelchair and support myself and my daughter.

    The project was re-energised when I made two arts documentaries in Palestine, making sure we filmed Alan while we were there and connecting with a NZ trauma nurse who was also filming.

    By 2022, we knew we needed to complete the doco. We started sorting through many years of footage in different formats, getting the interviews transcribed and edited. The last big push was in 2023. We raised funds and got a few people to help with the logistics.

    I spent six months with three editors and then we used the rough cut to do one last fundraiser that helped us over the line, finally finishing it in March of 2025.

    Our documentary shows the humanity of everyday Palestinians, pre-2022, as told through the eyes of a retired NZ heart surgeon, his wife and two committed female film makers who were told in 2006 that no one cares about old people, sick Palestinian children or Palestine.

    They were wrong. We cared and maybe you do, too.

    What is happening in 2025 means it’s even more important now for people to see the ordinary people of Palestine

    Dr Alan and his wife, Hazel are now 90 and 85 years old respectively. They are the most wonderfully humble humans. Their work over 20 years is nothing short of inspiring.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Atmospheric River flooding on the Oregon Coast. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    Every summer brings the familiar joys of sunny weather, family barbecues, and beach vacations. But for Americans on the Gulf or Atlantic coasts, the daily weather forecast always comes with a constant thrum of worry — any small disturbance in the Atlantic has the potential to evolve into a major storm.

    And as hurricane season gets underway, the palace intrigue, staffing cuts, and general upheaval of the Trump administration could have dire effects for people on these coasts.

    We know hurricanes all too well. I was still in elementary school when we had to evacuate for Ivan and fret over Dennis in my small northwest Florida hometown. And I was in middle school in 2006, when refugees from Katrina were still pouring into my school district to enroll in my class — since their schools no longer existed.

    I was in college at Louisiana State University when torrential rains flooded Baton Rouge in 2016. And just one year later, Hurricane Harvey stalled over southwest Louisiana, causing catastrophic flooding in that corner of the state.

    I’m no stranger to natural disasters, and that’s exactly why I felt called to spend my career at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — one of many federal agencies that work together to both predict hurricanes and repair the damage when one strikes.

    Each hurricane can feel like an act of God. Why this storm? Why now? Why my town, and why me? The longer I worked at NOAA, the more I came to appreciate how many experts work together to predict these storms and respond to them.

    I wasn’t a storm chaser or a hurricane expert. I managed the budget for a major coastal wetland restoration program called the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.

    CWPPRA is a piece of legislation spearheaded back in 1990 by Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. Five federal agencies work together to implement CWPPRA projects that build back land along Louisiana’s coastline, and NOAA alone has already restored 14,000 acres of coastal land since the law was passed 35 years ago.

    Some of NOAA’s restoration projects protect the shrimp fisheries that are vital to Louisiana’s economy. Others restore habitats for migratory birds as they pass through Louisiana on their long journeys north or south. Some reinforce levees to protect crucial hurricane evacuation routes. And others still restore land that was lost in Hurricane Katrina.

    It’s hard to overstate what a great investment coastal restoration is. Dozens of other government employees and I worked hard every day to design effective projects and get money out the door so that local Louisiana businesses could build land on what used to be open water.

    At first glance, it might seem like my program has nothing to do with hurricane preparedness. But as any Southerner knows about hurricanes, the further inland you are, the safer you are.

    That land protects every Louisianan, especially the poorest residents who are least likely to evacuate when a storm makes landfall, and most likely to suffer the consequences. And when Louisiana is protected from storm damage, that’s money FEMA doesn’t have to spend to rebuild destroyed schools, homes, and highways.

    But unfortunately, NOAA — and the CWPPRA program specifically — is among the victims of this administration’s slash-and-burn tactics. And I’m one of thousands of NOAA employees who’ve lost their jobs since the president took office in January.

    Without my financial expertise, money isn’t getting out the door to rebuild South Louisiana. Cuts to FEMA loom on the horizon. And soon, hurricane season will ramp up ferociously. I worry about my hometown in Florida, the people of South Louisiana, and everyone in states affected by hurricanes.

    It’s not too late to protect the federal workers who remain in their roles working on hurricane preparedness. Much of the damage from hurricanes this summer can be restored, but you can’t bring back the dead.

    The post NOAA Cuts Put Coastal Communities at Risk appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Vaux’s swifts during spring migration, Oregon City, Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    During their spring migration, billions of birds fly from their southern wintering habitats. After the spring breeding season ends and as fall and winter approach in the northern latitudes, they begin the journey to warmer areas—unless they’re hardy, resident birds like cardinals or blue jays. With migration occurring twice a year, birds in urban and suburban regions consistently face multiple threats, including being attacked by cats, collisions with windows, and habitat loss. A deeper understanding of the dangers birds face at various stages of their development can help us protect them.

    Hatchlings and Nestlings

    During spring migration, birds search for suitable nesting areas, attract and bond with mates, and lay eggs that eventually hatch into young birds. Those first few weeks of weaning and learning to live are critical for baby birds.

    During the hatchling stage, which lasts up to three days, parents constantly care for them, ensuring they are fed and kept warm. Hatchlings typically have bald, pink bodies and can quickly perish without adequate warmth.

    As nestlings, they are slightly older and still under their parents’ care, but they start to show more defined features. This stage usually lasts between 3 and 13 days. Their beaks and legs become more pronounced, and feathers begin to grow in, usually as soft, downy feathers that can be yellow or white in color.

    In either stage, if you find a bird on the ground, it may have fallen from its nest. Try to locate the nest and return the bird to it as quickly as possible. (Touching the bird with your hands will not cause the mother to reject it; that’s just a myth.)

    Different bird species nest in various ways. While some build traditional cup-shaped nests, others, such as starlings, use openings or cavities for their nests. Depending on the species, it’s a good idea to also check for openings above you, such as a wall vent, while returning a baby bird to its nest.

    I’ve rescued starling nestlings that had fallen from a nest, made in an outdoor apartment building vent, after their mother had not returned, likely because she was killed. I’ve also helped trapped starling juveniles escape from an obstructed, coverless electrical box on a utility pole—both ideal nesting sites for starlings because of their cavity-like structure. In any case, in these types of situations, it’s best to consult your local wildlife rehabilitators for expert advice on locating the nest of a fallen baby bird.

    If the nest is too high, an alternative is to create a makeshift nest using materials like plastic containers or baskets with vents. Fill the makeshift nest with natural materials, such as dead leaves, twigs, and grass, and place it as close as possible to the original nest. Avoid using materials like construction paper, cardboard boxes, or anything that absorbs water. Also, secure the nest to prevent it from falling—for example, by using a string—and add twigs or branches extending outside the nest to help the bird exit as it grows.

    If the nest is inaccessible or you can’t create a makeshift one, consult a wildlife rehabilitation center or a licensed wildlife rehabilitator for advice. If they instruct you to bring the bird in, do so immediately. In case immediate relocation isn’t possible, remember that hatchlings need supplemental heat.

    You can use a heat warmer or a warmed sock of rice (heated in the microwave) by placing a couple of paper towels or sheets on top as a barrier to prevent overheating or burns. Then, lay the bird securely in a sealed, well-ventilated box that is clearly marked, in a location free from disturbances. (More information on how to properly contain a bird is provided below.)

    This is only a temporary measure until the bird can be safely relocated. In almost all cases, do not provide food or water to an injured bird, as there is a risk of aspiration and further complications if handled without proper expertise. This caution is especially important for young birds, and similar care should also be taken with adult birds.

    Fledglings

    Fledgling birds (around 13-14 days old or older) are still under their parents’ care but are becoming semi-independent. They are usually mobile, hopping around and attempting to fly, although they may only flutter at first.

    At this stage, they have more feathers but not enough for full flight. In almost every case, their parents are nearby, watching from a distance as the fledglings learn to navigate their surroundings.

    Here, the biggest threat to fledglings emerges—cats. In North America, cats are among the top human-related causes of death for wild birds, and fledglings are the easiest targets because they cannot escape quickly. “It’s estimated that cats kill 1.3-4 billion birds each year in the U.S. alone,” according to Cornell Lab of Ornithology. In fact, cats are responsible for “one-third of the 800 U.S. native bird species to be endangered or in significant decline,” stated CBS News in 2023.

    If you love feeding birds, watching them, and listening to their sounds, please consider providing your cat with an enriched indoor lifestyle that discourages outdoor wandering. If your cat must go outside, attach a bell to its collar so birds can hear and avoid it. Cats pose a threat to birds at every stage of a bird’s life.

    Sometimes, well-intentioned people may accidentally “rescue” a fledgling, mistakenly thinking they are injured due to a lack of flight or being stuck in a precarious location. If you come across a bird and are unsure whether it needs help, consider the time of year. In the spring, for instance, the bird may simply be a grounded fledgling rather than an injured adult. Also, note the location: unless the bird is isolated in an area devoid of structures or vegetation, it likely does not need intervention. Record its condition; If the bird is mobile, hopping, and apprehensive when approached, it’s best to leave it alone.

    Remember that the parents are likely nearby, allowing the fledgling to learn how to navigate its environment, avoiding predators, all while stepping in as needed to feed and nurture it. The best way to ensure a wild baby bird reaches its full potential is to leave it with its parents. You can confirm that a fledgling is being cared for by stepping back and monitoring it for a while. The parents will eventually swoop down to attend to the bird and then fly off again.

    However, if there are imminent dangers nearby—such as cats, heavy foot traffic, car traffic, or harsh weather—it is acceptable to move the bird to a nearby bush or small tree. If you’re uncertain about the situation, call a wildlife rehabilitation center.

    Juveniles

    At this stage, juvenile birds in most species are essentially on their own. They’ve learned where to forage and fly and are aware of nearby threats. They still retain a youthful appearance, characterized by large, bright eyes and the occasional remnant of baby feathers. In the case of juvenile pigeons, however, they may remain nest-bound until they eventually take flight on their own. Once birds are capable of flight, they face a new danger from reflective and transparent windows and glass, which can confuse and injure them.

    Adults

    Migratory adult birds travel hundreds of thousands of miles during migration and breeding season to seek rest and resources for themselves and their young. Many of these birds are migratory, visiting our cities as they search for potential breeding resources while passing through, and are unfamiliar with these places. Meanwhile, native birds, more familiar with the terrain, also migrate and come and go. These birds brave all types of weather and threats and play a critical role in global biodiversity. Without birds, the rest of the world would suffer.

    The chirping of birds is music to our ears, but they play a far more crucial role in maintaining balance in nature and are essential to the survival of many species, including humans. Listing out the numerous “ecosystem services” they provide, the National Audubon Society stated, “Birds keep farmers in business. They protect our drinking water by preventing erosion. They slow the spread of disease. They keep the furniture industry supplied with timber. They provide critical environmental data. The list continues ad infinitum.”

    Audubon’s warbler, fall migration, French Prairie, Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    How Windows Are a Threat to Birds

    Despite the services provided by birds, humans and their indiscriminate anthropogenic activities pose a significant threat to bird survival, especially with windows due to their reflective and transparent surfaces. Surprisingly, it is residential areas, not commercial ones, that account for most of these collisions. When confronted with glass, birds often fail to realize that a solid barrier separates them from their intended destination.

    Reflective glass specifically will showcase the landscape behind the bird—a blue sky, trees, or another inviting scene. When birds see these mirages of accessible space, whether it exists ahead of them or behind, they fly toward the glass at full speed. In a collision, their beaks strike the glass, often resulting in immediate injury and, many times, death. Internal bleeding may occur due to damage to internal structures in the skull, and concussions are virtually inevitable.

    Depending on the bird’s size and speed, other body parts, such as its wings, may also be injured, causing it to fall. Unfortunately, this fall can be fatal, especially if the collision itself is severe or if the bird lands on a hard surface. On the ground, the bird is more vulnerable than ever to threats like being stepped on, run over, or preyed on.

    A 2014 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Smithsonian Institution on the number of bird deaths due to glass collision revealed that such accidents “likely kill between 365 million and 1 billion birds annually in the United States, with a median estimate of 599 million,” stated the American Bird Conservancy.

    Most of the time, a bird hits a window and bounces off it with no significant injuries. However, since the bird has been flying at 15 to 20 miles per hour, it will likely have more than just a headache.

    “Birds [who] are stunned by window collisions often are in treatment for at least a day before dying, demonstrating the gradual lethality of window collisions. Unseen injuries such as bruising, eye ulcers, and fractures prevent them from continuing their annual migratory journeys,” according to a 2024 American Bird Conservancy article.

    Migration seasons are when we see the most window strikes. If you come across an injured adult bird on the ground, assume it is wounded and quickly place it in a box (brown paper bags work well for quick transport to a rehabilitation center). Ensure that the box is sealed (to prevent escape), ventilated (to allow breathing), and clearly marked (to avoid it being mistaken for trash). Leaving the bird in an unprotected box outside makes it vulnerable to further threats like weather exposure, predation, and accidental abuse.

    Bring the bird inside your workplace or home and keep it in a warm, dark, and quiet location—away from disturbances such as children, pets, and loud noises. This minimizes bright light exposure that could aggravate concussion symptoms, conserves its energy by keeping its metabolism low, and reduces stress (which can be fatal for both wild and domestic birds). It’s essential not to offer food or water, as an injured bird might aspirate them, which can complicate its condition and treatment.

    After securing the bird, call your local wildlife rehabilitation center. Resources like Animal Help Now and the Ohio Wildlife Rehabilitators Association can help you locate one nearby.

    Another excellent resource for information on protecting birds from collisions at home is the consumer guide produced by the Ornithology Center, the outreach arm of the Acopian Center for Ornithology at Muhlenberg College.

    When contacting a rehabilitation organization or individual, explain precisely what happened, describe the bird, and detail what you have done so far. If the incident occurs during the fall migration season, the rehab center might recognize it as a typical window collision injury. In the spring, however, they may need to ensure the bird is not a fledgling mistakenly “kidnapped” from its nesting area before advising you on further steps.

    It is essential never to re-release a bird that has suffered a window collision until a certified expert has treated it. Even if it seems fine or starts flapping about in the box, untreated injuries such as internal bleeding or concussions can become life-threatening once the bird is released.

    But reality is harsh. Even if all the correct steps are taken in bringing this bird inside and to a rehab, a large percentage of injured birds brought into expert care simply cannot be saved, no matter how compassionate and effective the staff is. The old saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” holds in these cases.

    How You Can Help Birds

    “The most likely reason that you may have found a stunned bird is that it has hit a window, either in a home or in some other type of building. Many people think that pesticides or vehicle collisions are the most significant risks that birds face; that is not the case. The greatest dangers to birds are bird window collisions and uncontrolled cats. Each causes 1 to 2 billion bird deaths per year,” says Jim Cubie, consultant to the Muhlenberg College Center for Ornithology, where he advises on bird safety and native plants. According to him, at least 70 percent of birds who hit a window die, even if they are brought to a rehabilitation center.

    Preventing window collisions is the key. Using effective deterrents and products can break up the reflective surface of glass, alerting birds to the barrier. Applying decals or dots in a 2-inch by 2-inch grid outside windows can be very effective.

    “Scientifically validated bird window collision systems are 95 percent effective, affordable, and easy to install. Putting a bell on cats can cut avian mortality by about 50 percent. There are all sorts of things out there claiming that they can prevent bird window collisions, and many of them are just flat misleading advertising. Don’t listen to a friend who says they have installed decals and haven’t had a bird strike. Unless decals are correctly installed, they are ineffective,” Cubie added.

    Just as important is mitigating the effects of lights during migration season. Turning off lights as early as possible, especially during this time of the year, is essential. Lights can confuse migrating birds and disrupt their migration paths, causing them to land too early, crash into glass, or become disoriented, which prevents them from reaching their breeding destinations successfully. More information on how to help birds is available on the American Bird Conservancy website.

    Cats and windows are deadly for birds, but habitat destruction is the biggest threat to wild birds globally. The never-ending urbanization of natural areas and the expansion of suburban sprawl are especially problematic in the United States. Additionally, society’s focus on manicured lawns and bird feeders rather than naturalized areas with native, bird-friendly forbs and grasses deprives birds of vital food and shelter.

    Do your part to prevent biodiversity loss by incorporating native vegetation that sustains your local wild bird population. Consider leaving leaves on the ground in the fall, and be mindful of where you trim in the spring. Bird-proof your windows and keep your cats entertained indoors.

    Join local conservation groups and initiatives. For example, you might participate in your local environmental advisory council to promote bird-safe ventures and practices in your community, especially with support from organizations like Bird Town Pennsylvania, if you live in the state. You can also help monitor and transport window collision victims with groups like Bird Safe Philly, or lend a hand remotely with organizations like the NYC Bird Alliance.

    If you’re using feeders and baths, refresh them daily and clean them weekly to minimize the spread of bacteria among birds. Read up on bird behavior, their challenges, and the latest conservation science to better understand what more you can do to help.

    An earlier version of this article was published by OneBeautifulPlanet.org. This adaptation was produced for the Observatory by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

    The post How to Help Wild Birds During Their Spring and Fall Migrations appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • More than two dozen United States Geological Service (USGS) centers that monitor the country’s waters for flooding and drought, as well as manage water supply levels to make sure communities don’t run out, have had their leases terminated by the Trump administration.

    The 25 centers being targeted are part of a network that tracks the quality and levels of surface and ground water, reported The Guardian. The data the centers’ employees and equipment provide plays a crucial role in protecting human life and property while maintaining water supplies and helping to clean up oil and chemical spills.

    In the aftermath of a chemical or oil spill, USGS data tracks plumes with real-time monitoring in some locations to protect drinking water, Inside Climate News reported.

    The post Trump Shuts Down 25 USGS Centers That Monitor Drought And Flooding appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    The author of the book Eyes of Fire, one of the countless publications on the Rainbow Warrior bombing almost 40 years ago but the only one by somebody actually on board the bombed ship, says he was under no illusions that France was behind the attack.

    Journalist David Robie was speaking last month at a Greenpeace Aotearoa workship at Mātauri Bay for environmental activists and revealed that he has a forthcoming new book to mark the anniversary of the bombing.

    “I don’t think I had any illusions at the time. For me, I knew it was the French immediately the bombing happened,” he said.

    Eyes of Fire
    Eyes of Fire . . . the earlier 30th anniversary edition in 2015. Image: Little Island Press/DR

    “You know with the horrible things they were doing at the time with their colonial policies in Kanaky New Caledonia, assassinating independence leaders and so on, and they had a heavy military presence.

    “A sort of clamp down in New Caledonia, so it just fitted in with the pattern — an absolute disregard for the Pacific.”

    He said it was ironic that four decades on, France had trashed the goodwill that had been evolving with the 1988 Matignon and 1998 Nouméa accords towards independence with harsh new policies that led to the riots in May last year.

    Dr Robie’s series of books on the Rainbow Warrior focus on the impact of nuclear testing by both the Americans and the French, in particular, on Pacific peoples and especially the humanitarian voyages to relocate the Rongelap Islanders in the Marshall Islands barely two months before the bombing at Marsden wharf in Auckland on 10 July 1985.

    Detained by French military
    He was detained by the French military while on assignment in New Caledonia a year after Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior was first published in New Zealand.

    His reporting won the NZ Media Peace Prize in 1985.


    David Robie’s 2025 talk on the Rainbow Warrior.     Video: Greenpeace Aotearoa

    Dr Robie confirmed that Little island Press was publishing a new book this year with a focus on the legacy of the Rainbow Warrior.

    Plantu's cartoon on the Rainbow Warrior bombers
    Plantu’s cartoon on the Rainbow Warrior bombers from the slideshow. Image: David Robie/Plantu

    “This edition is the most comprehensive work on the sinking of the first Rainbow Warrior, but also speaks to the first humanitarian mission undertaken by Greenpeace,” said publisher Tony Murrow.

    “It’s an important work that shows us how we can act in the world and how we must continue to support all life on this unusual planet that is our only home.”

    Little Island Press produced an educational microsite as a resource to accompany Eyes of Fire with print, image and video resources.

    The book will be launched in association with a nuclear-free Pacific exhibition at Ellen Melville Centre in mid-July.

    Find out more at the Eyes of Fire microsite
    Find out more at the microsite: eyes-of-fire.littleisland.co.nz

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Red Tail Hawk (Dark Morph), Deschutes National Forest. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    Using the fear of wildfires, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are spending billions of taxpayer dollars to intentionally burn millions of acres of National Forests and BLM lands. Their plans are to continue to do so for the next 20-30 years.

    The smoke from burning mostly green and often wet trees and brush heavily and frequently fills Western valleys, impacting sizable populations in nearby cities and towns and is particularly dangerous for those with existing respiratory illnesses.

    Using dubious loopholes such as “categorical exclusions,” which allows agencies to skip environmental analysis such as the human impacts from breathing smoke for hours or days, they completely ignore the grim reality that baby birds die from the smoke.

    Yet the government provides no estimates whatsoever of how many birds will die, including goshawks, the largest and most scarce of forest raptors.

    Birds are even more sensitive to air pollution than are humans.  Wildfire smoke can directly kill birds or reduce their fitness due to smoke toxicity. According to Dr. Olivia Sanderfoot, birds’ respiratory systems are incredibly efficient at producing the oxygen required to fly.  But they are also more vulnerable to the effects of smoke due to their higher metabolism and oxygen extraction combined with a lack of mechanisms to clear particles from their airways. Carbon monoxide poisoning is a common cause of death in birds exposed to smoke, and other compounds in smoke can cause respiratory issues like pneumonia.

    Slashing and burning forests, aspen stands, pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush with fires occurs year-round in the southwest and every season except the winter in the north. But despite burning millions of acres, these agencies refuse to consider how burning up so much wildlife habitat will affect the wildlife they’re supposed to be maintaining and recovering.

    A prime example is burning sagebrush, which both kills sage grouse and destroys their habitat. There were 16 million Greater Sage Grouse before Europeans arrived and began the destruction of the “sagebrush sea” of the Great Plains. The iconic birds were down to 400,000 in 2015 when Obama’s Secretary of Interior, Sally Jewell, rejected listing them for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Today there are only 200,000 left — an astounding loss of half the remaining birds in a decade.

    Even though pinyon jays have lost 85% of their population in the last 50 years, the Forest Service  and the BLM want to log, masticate and burn millions of acres of their pinyon-juniper woodland habitat. This despite the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued a decision that the pinyon jays may be warranted to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act — mainly because of loss of habitat.

    The problem with intentionally burning an area to prevent a wildfire is the odds of a wildfire burning in these areas is less than 1%. Forests in the western U.S. have evolved with high intensity wildfires for thousands of years and wildfire scientists say the government should focus on helping people protect their homes from wildfire by using non-flammable building materials, clearing nearby vegetation and trimming low branches from trees up to 100 feet out from a home.

    Not only are birds rapidly vanishing from North America, but humans also need clean air. Simply put, government agencies burning millions of acres of public lands throughout the year is continually poisoning the air in much of the West.

    Please join us in opposing plans to burn our public lands, polluting our clean air, and killing millions of the already-declining birds that live there.  Please also consider donating to Counterpunch for the Spring Fundraiser.

    The post Government Burning of Public lands is Harming Humans and Killing Millions of Birds appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

  • By Losirene Lacanivalu, of the Cook Islands News

    A leading Cook Islands environmental lobby group is hoping that the Cook Islands government will speak out against the recent executive order from US President Donald Trump aimed at fast-tracking seabed mining.

    Te Ipukarea Society (TIS) says the arrogance of US president Trump to think that he could break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters was “astounding”, and an action of a “bully”.

    Trump signed the America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources order late last month, directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to allow deep sea mining permits.

    The order states: “It is the policy of the US to advance United States leadership in seabed mineral development.”

    NOAA has been directed to, within 60 days, “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.”

    It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in the US and international waters.

    In addition, a Canadian mining company — The Metals Company — has indicated that they have applied for a permit from Trump’s administration to start commercially mining in international waters.

    The mining company had been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

    ‘Arrogance of Trump’
    Te Ipukarea Society’s technical director Kelvin Passfield told Cook Islands News: “The arrogance of Donald Trump to think that he can break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters is astounding.

    “The United States cannot pick and choose which aspects of the United Nations Law of the Sea it will follow, and which ones it will ignore. This is the action of a bully,” he said.

    “It is reckless and completely dismissive of the international rule of law. At the moment we have 169 countries, plus the European Union, all recognising international law under the International Seabed Authority.

    “For one country to start making new international rules for themselves is a dangerous notion, especially if it leads to other States thinking they too can also breach international law with no consequences,” he said.

    TIS president June Hosking said the fact that a part of the Pacific (CCZ) was carved up and shared between nations all over the world was yet another example of “blatantly disregarding or overriding indigenous rights”.

    “I can understand why something had to be done to protect the high seas from rogues having a ‘free for all’, but it should have been Pacific indigenous and first nations groups, within and bordering the Pacific, who decided what happened to the high seas.

    “That’s the first nations groups, not for example, the USA as it is today.”

    South American countries worried
    Hosking highlighted that at the March International Seabed Authority (ISA) assembly she attended it was obvious that South American countries were worried.

    “Many have called for a moratorium. Portugal rightly pointed out that we were all there, at great cost, just for a commercial activity. The delegate said, ‘We must ask ourselves how does this really benefit all of humankind?’

    Looking at The Metals Company’s interests to commercially mine in international waters, Hosking said, “I couldn’t help being annoyed that all this talk assumes mining will happen.

    “ISA was formed at a time when things were assumed about the deep sea e.g. it’s just a desert down there, nothing was known for sure, we didn’t speak of climate crisis, waste crisis and other crises now evident.

    “The ISA mandate is ‘to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects that may arise from deep seabed related activities.

    “We know much more (but still not enough) to consider that effective protection of the marine environment may require it to be declared a ‘no go zone’, to be left untouched for the good of humankind,” she added.

    Meanwhile, technical director Passfield also added, “The audacity of The Metals Company (TMC) to think they can flaunt international law in order to get an illegal mining licence from the United States to start seabed mining in international waters is a sad reflection of the morality of Gerard Barron and others in charge of TMC.

    ‘What stops other countries?’
    “If the USA is allowed to authorise mining in international waters under a domestic US law, what is stopping any other country in the world from enacting legislation and doing the same?”

    He said that while the Metals Company may be frustrated at the amount of time that the International Seabed Authority is taking to finalise mining rules for deep seabed mining, “we are sure they fully understand that this is for good reason. The potentially disastrous impacts of mining our deep ocean seabed need to be better understood, and this takes time.”

    He said that technology and infrastructure to mine is not in place yet.

    “We need to take as much time as we need to ensure that if mining proceeds, it does not cause serious damage to our ocean. Their attempts to rush the process are selfish, greedy, and driven purely by a desire to profit at any cost to the environment.

    “We hope that the Cook Islands Government speaks out against this abuse of international law by the United States.” Cook Islands News has reached out to the Office of the Prime Minister and Seabed Minerals Authority (SBMA) for comment.

    Republished from the Cook Islands News with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Doug Paulley and Kevin Jordan say their lives being ruined, and lack of effective strategy infringes their human rights

    Two men who say they are being failed by the UK’s flawed response to climate breakdown are taking their case to Europe’s top human rights court.

    Doug Paulley and Kevin Jordan say their lives have been ruined by the rising temperatures and extreme weather caused by the climate crisis, and that the government’s response fails to respect their human rights.

    Continue reading…

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