News Feeds

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

 

Concerned about Project Ranger?  Join State Emergency Response Commission Virtual Meeting on Thursday, October 22nd

Did you know that this week Tessa Snyder, the Hazardous Materials Coordinator, confirmed in writing that she recently met privately with Castelion Corporation about their Project Ranger, a 1,000-acre hypersonic missile motor manufacturing and static firing testing complex – the largest in the United States – on the West Mesa near Rio Rancho, New Mexico? https://www.castelion.com/project-ranger/

Snyder informed Castelion of the upcoming Thursday, October 22nd State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) meeting of the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. https://www.dhsem.nm.gov/preparedness/hazardous-materials-program/serc/ and https://www.dhsem.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/August-2026-SERC-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

She also reported that Castelion has attended the Sandoval County Local Emergency Planning Committee meetings, where members of the public can ask questions. But no notifications have been provided to the community members living near the weapons complex. https://www.sandovalcountynm.gov/departments/emergency-management/

These facts raise serious questions about agency transparency, hazardous materials oversight, and the public’s right to know. https://commongroundrising.org/castelions-project-ranger-solid-rocket-motor-plant/

 

Get all the details at nuclearactive.org

GAIA Statement | Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration | October 2026 · Leer en español

As communities across the world mobilize against waste incineration, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is raising the alarm about the waste-burning industry’s presence at COP31, the UN Climate Change Conference taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, this November.

At a time when the COP31 Presidency has made zero waste a priority, representatives of the incineration industry are expected to participate in discussions on circular cities, waste management, and climate finance.

These include CEWEP, the European waste-to-energy industry’s lobbying association, which actively promotes incineration as a climate and energy solution, and Kanadevia Inova, a major waste-to-energy technology provider, both listed in the COP31 official side events agenda. CEWEP has previously promoted incineration at UN climate conferences, including COP30. Meanwhile, Kanadevia Inova’s involvement in the proposed Smokey Mountain incineration project in Manila, alongside its local partner Philippine Ecology Systems Corp. (PhilEco), has raised serious concerns among human rights advocates, environmental organizations, and local residents, as documented in GAIA’s report, The Smokey Mountain Waste-to-Energy Project: Arrested Development and Environmental Justice in Urban Manila.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this participation: an industry whose business depends on burning waste is seeking to influence discussions about waste prevention, climate action, and the transition towards sustainable waste systems.

The global zero waste agenda must not become an opportunity to greenwash incineration, legitimize polluting infrastructure, or redirect climate finance away from real solutions that protect communities, support a just transition for waste workers, and deliver meaningful climate benefits.

Key findings

• Waste-to-energy incineration emits about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal-fired power.
• Europe’s existing incinerators could burn almost 65 million more tonnes of waste a year than they currently process.
• GAIA’s Clearing the Air research recorded fine particulate levels 5 to 8 times above WHO guidelines near sites in Indonesia, Nigeria and the Philippines.
• The proposed Smokey Mountain project in Manila: ₱26 billion, 100 MW, built to burn around 3,000 tonnes of waste a day.
• More than 550 municipalities worldwide are taking steps towards zero waste.

Burning waste fuels the climate crisis

Waste-to-energy is often marketed as clean or renewable energy. But burning waste does not make its carbon emissions disappear.

Waste-to-energy incineration produces approximately 1.7 times as much greenhouse gas pollution per unit of electricity as coal-fired power plants. Plastics, which are made primarily from fossil fuels, contribute significantly to these emissions.

Incineration also destroys materials that could otherwise be reused, recycled, or composted, creating additional emissions through the extraction and manufacture of replacement products.

Far from advancing a circular economy, incineration perpetuates a linear model of extraction, consumption and destruction.

An expensive industry that locks cities into burning waste

Incinerators are among the most capital-intensive waste management facilities. Their financial models frequently depend on long-term contracts, public subsidies, and guaranteed volumes of waste.

These arrangements can lock municipalities into decades of waste burning, even as they seek to reduce waste generation, expand recycling and introduce separate collection of organic waste.

The financial consequences are particularly serious for cities in the Global South, where scarce public resources are urgently needed for basic waste services, community infrastructure, and climate adaptation.

Meanwhile, Europe is already struggling with overcapacity. According to Zero Waste Europe’s latest update of its Enough is Enough report, existing incineration infrastructure has the capacity to burn almost 65 million tonnes more waste annually than it currently processes.

Yet incineration companies continue promoting and exporting the same infrastructure model internationally.

Why should countries facing urgent development and climate challenges invest in infrastructure that other regions have already built in excess?

Communities pay the price

Behind the industry’s promises of clean energy and modern infrastructure are communities facing pollution, financial burdens, and threats to their livelihoods.

GAIA’s Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances highlights how these concerns recur across countries and regions.

In Delhi, India, communities around the Timarpur-Okhla waste-to-energy plant have raised concerns about air pollution and the facility’s proximity to residential neighbourhoods.

In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the Reppie waste-to-energy facility illustrates the risks of prioritizing large, centralized waste-burning infrastructure in cities where recycling, organic waste recovery, and inclusive waste services require investment.

In Surabaya, Indonesia, community-led air quality monitoring near waste-burning operations has documented serious pollution concerns. GAIA’s Clearing the Air research, covering sites in Indonesia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, recorded fine particulate matter levels five to eight times higher than World Health Organization guidelines.

And in Manila, Philippines, the proposed Smokey Mountain waste-to-energy project offers a stark warning about the environmental justice implications of incineration expansion.

The proposed ₱26 billion, 100 MW project, designed to process approximately 3,000 tonnes of waste per day, threatens to transform an area with a long history of environmental injustice into a new site of industrial waste burning.

GAIA’s investigation into the Smokey Mountain project documents concerns over displacement, inadequate community consultation, environmental risks, and threats to waste-picker livelihoods. Kanadevia Inova has been identified as a technology partner in the project.

These examples expose a wider pattern: communities already bearing the burden of waste pollution are being asked to accept new infrastructure that may deepen existing inequalities, while the companies promoting these projects present themselves as providers of climate solutions.

Incineration also threatens the livelihoods of waste pickers, who play a vital role in recovering materials and sustaining local recycling economies. By burning valuable recyclables, incinerators can displace workers and undermine existing recovery systems. A just transition must recognize their contributions, protect their rights and livelihoods, and strengthen their role in building inclusive zero waste systems.

Climate finance must not subsidize false solutions

At COP31, the participation of CEWEP in an event addressing the Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund raises particularly serious concerns.

Methane reduction in the waste sector is urgently needed. But replacing methane emissions from organic waste with fossil carbon emissions from burning plastics is not a credible pathway to a zero waste future.

Climate finance should support prevention, separate collection, composting, anaerobic digestion where appropriate, recycling, and the inclusion of waste pickers.

It should not be used to finance infrastructure that burns recoverable materials, creates long-term financial liabilities, and competes with the very systems needed to achieve zero waste.

The presence of industry representatives in climate policy discussions also raises important questions about conflicts of interest, transparency, and whose expertise is prioritized.

The companies and associations that stand to profit from expanding incineration should not be given privileged influence over the policies and financing mechanisms intended to accelerate the transition away from polluting waste management.

Real solutions are already here

Around the world, GAIA members are working with municipalities, waste pickers, and communities to demonstrate practical alternatives to incineration.

More than 550 municipalities worldwide are taking steps towards zero waste, demonstrating that preventing waste, recovering materials, managing organics, and protecting livelihoods can form the foundation of effective local climate action.

These approaches reduce methane emissions, prevent pollution, conserve resources, and support a just transition by recognizing waste pickers, improving working conditions, and creating opportunities for decent livelihoods.

They are the solutions that deserve international recognition, technical support, and climate finance.

GAIA calls on the COP31 Presidency and climate finance institutions to:

1. Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking. Establish safeguards against conflicts of interest and prevent companies with vested interests in waste burning from shaping the zero waste agenda.
2. Reject incineration as a zero waste or climate solution. Ensure that COP31 commitments prioritize waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, recycling, and organic waste management.
3. Exclude incineration from climate finance. Establish explicit safeguards preventing the Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund and other climate finance mechanisms from supporting waste burning, including refuse-derived fuels and co-incineration.
4. Put communities, waste pickers and a just transition at the center. Guarantee meaningful participation, protect workers’ rights and livelihoods, and invest in inclusive zero waste systems that improve working conditions, provide social protection, and strengthen local economies.
5. Invest in proven, community-led solutions. Direct international climate finance towards zero waste systems that reduce emissions, improve public health, create dignified livelihoods, and support local governments, waste picker organizations, and communities.

As the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration brings together communities resisting waste burning across the world, their message to COP31 is clear:

The climate crisis cannot be solved by burning more waste.

Climate finance must not fuel incineration. Climate policy must not be shaped by the industries that profit from it. And a just transition must not leave behind the workers and communities who are already building the solutions we need.

Incinerators Out of COP31. Zero Waste In.

Frequently asked questions Why does GAIA want incinerators kept out of COP31?

Waste-burning industry groups, including CEWEP and Kanadevia Inova, are listed in COP31’s official side events on circular cities, waste and climate finance. GAIA argues that an industry that profits from burning waste shouldn’t shape the zero waste agenda.

Is waste-to-energy a clean or renewable energy source?

No. Burning waste releases its carbon, and waste-to-energy produces about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal. It also destroys materials that could be reused, recycled or composted.

Why shouldn’t climate finance pay for incinerators?

Incinerators rely on long contracts and guaranteed waste volumes that lock cities in for decades and compete with recycling and composting. Swapping methane from organic waste for fossil carbon from burning plastic isn’t a credible path to zero waste.

What is GAIA asking the COP31 Presidency to do?

Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking, reject incineration as a climate or zero waste solution, exclude it from climate finance, put communities and waste pickers at the center, and invest in proven, community-led zero waste solutions.

What are the alternatives to incineration?

Waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, composting, recycling and the inclusion of waste pickers. More than 550 municipalities worldwide are already moving towards zero waste.

Related resources

• Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration
• Waste-Burning 101: What Is Waste-to-Energy?
• The High Cost of Waste Incineration
• Lee esta declaración en español

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","inLanguage":"en","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"Why does GAIA want incinerators kept out of COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Waste-burning industry groups, including CEWEP and Kanadevia Inova, are listed in COP31's official side events on circular cities, waste and climate finance. GAIA argues that an industry that profits from burning waste shouldn't shape the zero waste agenda."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is waste-to-energy a clean or renewable energy source?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. Burning waste releases its carbon, and waste-to-energy produces about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal. It also destroys materials that could be reused, recycled or composted."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why shouldn't climate finance pay for incinerators?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Incinerators rely on long contracts and guaranteed waste volumes that lock cities in for decades and compete with recycling and composting. Swapping methane from organic waste for fossil carbon from burning plastic isn't a credible path to zero waste."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is GAIA asking the COP31 Presidency to do?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking, reject incineration as a climate or zero waste solution, exclude it from climate finance, put communities and waste pickers at the center, and invest in proven, community-led zero waste solutions."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are the alternatives to incineration?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, composting, recycling and the inclusion of waste pickers. More than 550 municipalities worldwide are already moving towards zero waste."}}]}

The post Incinerators Out of COP31: The Climate Crisis Cannot Be Solved by Burning Waste first appeared on GAIA.

Declaración de GAIA | Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración | Octubre de 2026 · Read in English

Mientras comunidades de todo el mundo se movilizan contra la incineración de residuos, la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA) alerta sobre la presencia de la industria de la incineración en la COP31, la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático que tendrá lugar este noviembre en Antalya, Turquía.

En un momento en que la Presidencia de la COP31 ha situado la basura cero entre sus prioridades, se espera que representantes de la industria de la incineración participen en debates sobre ciudades circulares, gestión de residuos y financiación climática.

Entre ellos se encuentran CEWEP, la asociación europea que representa los intereses de la industria de la valorización energética de residuos y que promueve activamente la incineración como solución climática y energética, y Kanadevia Inova, uno de los principales proveedores de tecnología de incineración con recuperación de energía. Ambas organizaciones figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31. CEWEP ya ha promovido anteriormente la incineración en conferencias climáticas de la ONU, incluida la COP30. Por su parte, la participación de Kanadevia Inova en el proyecto de incineración propuesto para Smokey Mountain, en Manila, junto con su socio local Philippine Ecology Systems Corp. (PhilEco), ha suscitado graves preocupaciones entre organizaciones de derechos humanos, organizaciones ambientales y residentes de la zona, como documenta el informe de GAIA The Smokey Mountain Waste-to-Energy Project: Arrested Development and Environmental Justice in Urban Manila.

Existe una contradicción fundamental en esta participación: una industria cuyo modelo de negocio depende de quemar residuos pretende influir en los debates sobre prevención de residuos, acción climática y transición hacia sistemas sostenibles de gestión de residuos.

La agenda mundial de basura cero no puede convertirse en una oportunidad para maquillar de verde la incineración, legitimar infraestructuras contaminantes o desviar la financiación climática de las verdaderas soluciones que protegen a las comunidades, apoyan una transición justa para las personas trabajadoras del sector de residuos y generan beneficios climáticos reales.

Datos clave

• La incineración con recuperación de energía emite unas 1,7 veces más gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que las centrales de carbón.
• Las incineradoras de Europa podrían quemar casi 65 millones de toneladas más de residuos al año de las que procesan actualmente.
• La investigación Clearing the Air de GAIA registró partículas finas entre 5 y 8 veces por encima de las guías de la OMS cerca de instalaciones en Indonesia, Nigeria y Filipinas.
• El proyecto propuesto en Smokey Mountain (Manila): 26.000 millones de pesos filipinos y 100 MW, para quemar unas 3.000 toneladas de residuos al día.
• Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo avanzan hacia la basura cero.

La quema de residuos agrava la crisis climática

La incineración con recuperación de energía suele presentarse como una fuente de energía limpia o renovable. Sin embargo, quemar residuos no hace desaparecer las emisiones de carbono.

La incineración de residuos con recuperación de energía genera aproximadamente 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad producida que las centrales eléctricas de carbón. Los plásticos, fabricados principalmente a partir de combustibles fósiles, contribuyen significativamente a estas emisiones.

La incineración también destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse, lo que genera emisiones adicionales asociadas a la extracción de materias primas y la fabricación de nuevos productos para sustituirlos.

Lejos de impulsar una economía circular, la incineración perpetúa un modelo lineal de extracción, consumo y destrucción.

Una industria costosa que condena a las ciudades a seguir quemando residuos

Las incineradoras se encuentran entre las instalaciones de gestión de residuos que requieren mayores inversiones de capital. Sus modelos financieros suelen depender de contratos a largo plazo, subvenciones públicas y volúmenes garantizados de residuos.

Estos acuerdos pueden comprometer a los municipios a seguir quemando residuos durante décadas, incluso cuando intentan reducir su generación, ampliar el reciclaje e introducir la recogida separada de residuos orgánicos.

Las consecuencias financieras son especialmente graves para las ciudades del Sur Global, donde los escasos recursos públicos se necesitan urgentemente para servicios básicos de gestión de residuos, infraestructuras comunitarias y adaptación al cambio climático.

Mientras tanto, Europa ya se enfrenta a un problema de sobrecapacidad. Según la última actualización del informe Enough is Enough de Zero Waste Europe, la infraestructura de incineración existente tiene capacidad para quemar casi 65 millones de toneladas adicionales de residuos al año respecto a los volúmenes que procesa actualmente.

A pesar de ello, las empresas incineradoras siguen promoviendo y exportando este mismo modelo de infraestructura a otros países.

¿Por qué deberían los países que afrontan desafíos urgentes de desarrollo y acción climática invertir en infraestructuras que otras regiones ya han construido en exceso?

Las comunidades pagan las consecuencias

Detrás de las promesas de energía limpia e infraestructuras modernas de la industria de la incineración hay comunidades que sufren contaminación, cargas financieras y amenazas a sus medios de vida.

La publicación de GAIA Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances muestra cómo estas preocupaciones se repiten en distintos países y regiones.

En Delhi, India, las comunidades que viven alrededor de la planta de incineración con recuperación de energía de Timarpur-Okhla han expresado su preocupación por la contaminación atmosférica y la proximidad de la instalación a zonas residenciales.

En Adís Abeba, Etiopía, la planta de incineración con recuperación de energía de Reppie ilustra los riesgos de priorizar grandes infraestructuras centralizadas de quema de residuos en ciudades donde el reciclaje, la recuperación de residuos orgánicos y los servicios inclusivos de gestión de residuos necesitan inversión.

En Surabaya, Indonesia, el monitoreo comunitario de la calidad del aire cerca de instalaciones de quema de residuos ha documentado graves problemas de contaminación. La investigación de GAIA Clearing the Air, que abarca instalaciones en Indonesia, Nigeria y Filipinas, registró niveles de partículas finas entre cinco y ocho veces superiores a los valores recomendados por la Organización Mundial de la Salud.

Y en Manila, Filipinas, el proyecto de incineración con recuperación de energía propuesto para Smokey Mountain constituye una clara advertencia sobre las implicaciones de la expansión de la incineración para la justicia ambiental.

El proyecto propuesto, valorado en 26.000 millones de pesos filipinos, con una capacidad de 100 MW y diseñado para procesar aproximadamente 3.000 toneladas de residuos al día, amenaza con transformar una zona marcada por una larga historia de injusticia ambiental en un nuevo emplazamiento de quema industrial de residuos.

La investigación de GAIA sobre el proyecto de Smokey Mountain documenta preocupaciones relacionadas con posibles desplazamientos de población, consultas comunitarias insuficientes, riesgos ambientales y amenazas a los medios de vida de las personas recicladoras de base. Kanadevia Inova ha sido identificada como socio tecnológico del proyecto.

Estos ejemplos ponen de manifiesto un patrón más amplio: se pide a comunidades que ya soportan las consecuencias de la contaminación por residuos que acepten nuevas infraestructuras que pueden profundizar las desigualdades existentes, mientras las empresas que promueven estos proyectos se presentan como proveedoras de soluciones climáticas.

La incineración también amenaza los medios de vida de las personas recicladoras de base, que desempeñan un papel fundamental en la recuperación de materiales y el sostenimiento de las economías locales del reciclaje. Al quemar materiales reciclables valiosos, las incineradoras pueden desplazar a estas personas trabajadoras y debilitar los sistemas de recuperación existentes. Una transición justa debe reconocer sus contribuciones, proteger sus derechos y medios de vida, y fortalecer su papel en la construcción de sistemas inclusivos de basura cero.

La financiación climática no debe subvencionar falsas soluciones

En la COP31, la participación de CEWEP en un evento dedicado al Fondo Mundial de Basura Cero y Metano (Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund) plantea preocupaciones especialmente graves.

Reducir las emisiones de metano del sector de residuos es una necesidad urgente. Pero sustituir las emisiones de metano procedentes de los residuos orgánicos por emisiones de carbono fósil derivadas de la quema de plásticos no constituye una vía creíble hacia un futuro de basura cero.

La financiación climática debe apoyar la prevención de residuos, la recogida separada, el compostaje, la digestión anaerobia cuando resulte apropiada, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base.

No debe utilizarse para financiar infraestructuras que queman materiales recuperables, generan obligaciones financieras a largo plazo y compiten con los mismos sistemas necesarios para alcanzar la basura cero.

La presencia de representantes de la industria en los debates sobre políticas climáticas también plantea cuestiones importantes sobre los conflictos de intereses, la transparencia y qué conocimientos y experiencias reciben prioridad.

Las empresas y asociaciones que se benefician económicamente de la expansión de la incineración no deben gozar de una influencia privilegiada sobre las políticas y los mecanismos de financiación destinados a acelerar la transición hacia sistemas de gestión de residuos no contaminantes.

Las verdaderas soluciones ya existen

En todo el mundo, las organizaciones miembro de GAIA trabajan con municipios, personas recicladoras de base y comunidades para demostrar que existen alternativas prácticas a la incineración.

Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo están avanzando hacia la basura cero, demostrando que la prevención de residuos, la recuperación de materiales, la gestión de residuos orgánicos y la protección de los medios de vida pueden constituir la base de una acción climática local eficaz.

Estos enfoques reducen las emisiones de metano, previenen la contaminación, conservan los recursos y apoyan una transición justa mediante el reconocimiento de las personas recicladoras de base, la mejora de las condiciones laborales y la creación de oportunidades de trabajo digno.

Estas son las soluciones que merecen reconocimiento internacional, apoyo técnico y financiación climática.

GAIA hace un llamamiento a la Presidencia de la COP31 y a las instituciones de financiación climática para que:

1. Mantengan a la industria de la incineración fuera de la formulación de políticas climáticas. Establezcan salvaguardas frente a los conflictos de intereses e impidan que las empresas con intereses económicos en la quema de residuos influyan en la agenda de basura cero.

2. Rechacen la incineración como solución climática o de basura cero. Garanticen que los compromisos de la COP31 den prioridad a la prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el reciclaje y la gestión de residuos orgánicos.

3. Excluyan la incineración de la financiación climática. Establezcan salvaguardas explícitas para impedir que el Fondo Mundial de Basura Cero y Metano y otros mecanismos de financiación climática apoyen la quema de residuos, incluidos los combustibles derivados de residuos y la coincineración.

4. Sitúen a las comunidades, las personas recicladoras de base y la transición justa en el centro de las decisiones. Garanticen una participación efectiva, protejan los derechos y los medios de vida de las personas trabajadoras e inviertan en sistemas inclusivos de basura cero que mejoren las condiciones laborales, proporcionen protección social y fortalezcan las economías locales.

5. Inviertan en soluciones probadas y lideradas por las comunidades. Orienten la financiación climática internacional hacia sistemas de basura cero que reduzcan las emisiones, mejoren la salud pública, generen medios de vida dignos y apoyen a los gobiernos locales, las organizaciones de personas recicladoras de base y las comunidades.

Mientras la Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración reúne a comunidades de todo el mundo que se oponen a la quema de residuos, su mensaje a la COP31 es claro:

La crisis climática no se resuelve quemando más residuos.

La financiación climática no debe alimentar la incineración. Las políticas climáticas no deben estar determinadas por las industrias que se benefician de ella. Y una transición justa no puede dejar atrás a las personas trabajadoras y las comunidades que ya están construyendo las soluciones que necesitamos.

¡Fuera las incineradoras de la COP31! ¡Sí a la basura cero!

Preguntas frecuentes ¿Por qué GAIA pide sacar a las incineradoras de la COP31?

Representantes de la industria, como CEWEP y Kanadevia Inova, figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31 sobre ciudades circulares, residuos y financiación climática. Una industria que se beneficia de quemar residuos no debería definir la agenda de basura cero.

¿La incineración con recuperación de energía es limpia o renovable?

No. Quemar residuos libera su carbono y genera unas 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que el carbón. Además, destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse.

¿Por qué la financiación climática no debe apoyar la incineración?

Las incineradoras dependen de contratos largos y volúmenes garantizados de residuos que atan a las ciudades durante décadas y compiten con el reciclaje y el compostaje. Sustituir el metano de los residuos orgánicos por carbono fósil de la quema de plásticos no es un camino creíble hacia la basura cero.

¿Qué le pide GAIA a la Presidencia de la COP31?

Mantener a la industria de la incineración fuera de las políticas climáticas, rechazarla como solución climática o de basura cero, excluirla de la financiación climática, poner a las comunidades y a las personas recicladoras de base en el centro, e invertir en soluciones de basura cero lideradas por las comunidades.

¿Qué alternativas hay a la incineración?

La prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el compostaje, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base. Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo ya avanzan hacia la basura cero.

Recursos relacionados

• Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración
• Incineración
• Clima
• Read this statement in English

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","inLanguage":"es","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Por qué GAIA pide sacar a las incineradoras de la COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Representantes de la industria, como CEWEP y Kanadevia Inova, figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31 sobre ciudades circulares, residuos y financiación climática. Una industria que se beneficia de quemar residuos no debería definir la agenda de basura cero."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿La incineración con recuperación de energía es limpia o renovable?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. Quemar residuos libera su carbono y genera unas 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que el carbón. Además, destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Por qué la financiación climática no debe apoyar la incineración?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Las incineradoras dependen de contratos largos y volúmenes garantizados de residuos que atan a las ciudades durante décadas y compiten con el reciclaje y el compostaje. Sustituir el metano de los residuos orgánicos por carbono fósil de la quema de plásticos no es un camino creíble hacia la basura cero."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Qué le pide GAIA a la Presidencia de la COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Mantener a la industria de la incineración fuera de las políticas climáticas, rechazarla como solución climática o de basura cero, excluirla de la financiación climática, poner a las comunidades y a las personas recicladoras de base en el centro, e invertir en soluciones de basura cero lideradas por las comunidades."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Qué alternativas hay a la incineración?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"La prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el compostaje, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base. Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo ya avanzan hacia la basura cero."}}]}

The post Fuera las incineradoras de la COP 31: la crisis climática no se resuelve quemando residuos first appeared on GAIA.

It’s the second-most used material on Earth, it’s an environmental disaster, and it’s falling apart all around us. Meet concrete, the subject of a new feature-length documentary by John Wilson, a filmmaker with a knack for finding laugh-out-loud absurdity in the mundane.

The History of Concrete stitches together quick cuts of handheld footage and deadpan narration in the same style as How To with John Wilson, the HBO show that made the filmmaker’s career. As in his episodes on “how to make small talk” and “how to put up scaffolding,” the titular subject of the film isn’t really the point. Instead, Wilson uses the theme of concrete as a kind of connective tissue, taking the viewer on a sprawling exploration of the overlooked corners of our world. Concrete’s pervasiveness allows this film to venture anywhere — a family-run mortuary that specializes in tattoo preservation, a patriotic brick-laying competition in Las Vegas, and a 3,100-mile spiritual race in which runners circle a single block in Queens for weeks on end.

It would be a stretch to call the documentary a climate film. (In fact, it’s explicitly styled like a Hallmark movie.) But with each turn of the lens, Wilson sheds light on an unfolding environmental disaster. After all, he points out, concrete is the third biggest contributor to global warming. And although concrete is an indispensable part of modern life, its short, crumbling lifespan makes it a hazard on an increasingly disaster-prone planet. (Reader beware, there are more grim facts about concrete — and spoilers —  ahead.)

Wilson’s fascination with concrete started when the basement of his apartment building in Queens began intermittently flooding. He tried to patch the repair himself with a store-bought concrete mix, but the leak kept coming back. His frustration is widely shared: As climate change intensifies storms and raises sea levels, New Yorkers are dealing with more extreme rainfall and coastal flooding than ever before. The abundance of concrete worsens flooding by preventing stormwater from seeping into the soil and, when it cracks, fails to block the water from filling subway stations and buildings for dozens of days a year.

More on concrete A new solution for flood-prone cities? Concrete made from shellfish waste. Ayurella Horn-Muller

Wilson goes on to discover our concrete-smothered world is full of hazards, owing to the material’s surprisingly short lifespan. Structures like the Brooklyn Promenade, which makes up the upper most deck of a four-layered expressway, aren’t supposed to last more than 40 years according to Sam Schwartz, a former New York City traffic commissioner who Wilson interviews. Today, the 1,800-foot-long artery is covered in patch jobs. Schwartz tells Wilson that a mass catastrophe could be just a few years away.

With these facts in mind, any city starts to look like a morass of potential disasters. It’s no wonder that Wilson spent at least a year filming the cracks around New York. Some places, such as a public swimming pool sanitation facility that is inundated with leaks, are given a few minutes of screentime. Others, including the architecturally famous Spring Street Salt Shed, which is patched with packing tape, and a 10-year-old skyscraper in midtown Manhattan that may already need to be demolished, are presented in a quick, jaw-dropping montage. As Wilson says, it feels as though “we’re all in danger somehow.”  

Perversely, climate change is making this problem even worse. Studies show that extreme weather hastens the deterioration of concrete structures around the world. And while Wilson doesn’t say this, it’s worth noting that even structurally sound concrete is a hazard as the planet warms. The material creates an “urban heat island” effect that can cause local air temperatures to rise as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit, turning the pavement into a scalding 140 degrees F griddle and killing hundreds of people in places like Arizona every year.

More on urban heat Report: 41 million Americans are simmering on urban heat islands Katie Myers

But, as a contractor tells Wilson, “We’d be up a creek without concrete. It is used for everything.” Places like New York require vast amounts of the material to build new housing and maintain urban areas. Unfortunately, sand — the key ingredient in concrete — is vanishing as coastlines erode and humans use up some 50 billion tons of the stuff per year. While most people remain blissfully unaware, Wilson says, experts have been trying to warn us of an impending global sand shortage. 

Near the end of the film, Wilson takes a peak at a concrete recycling plant, one of the few existing solutions to these problems. These facilities exist to stop debris from demolitions going to landfills, and, ideally, to make newly usable material with fewer emissions. But the one that Wilson found near Brooklyn’s marine terminal was also filling nearby neighborhoods with dangerous amounts of airborne dust, prompting protests and the plant’s eventual closure in 2025.

For now, our dependency on concrete seems as intractable as its pitfalls. “Once you’re used to something, it becomes hard to change your lifestyle without external pressure,” Wilson says.

I was already aware of the environmental costs of concrete when I first moved to New York City as an early-career climate reporter, but I wasn’t prepared for what it would feel like to be surrounded by so much of it. I found myself questioning the commonly cited statistic that urban lifestyles have a smaller carbon footprint than suburban ones. After all, these studies generally account for the energy and materials residents consume directly, while leaving out the emissions embodied in the buildings, sewers, and other parts of the built-up environment that make city life possible.

Although my own back-of-the-envelope calculations support the idea that living here is probably the greener choice, I still rush through my commutes to spend less time amid the chaos. But walking out of the Manhattan theater where I saw The History of Concrete, my gray surroundings came into sharper focus — almost like the film had never stopped. There’s a kind of poetry in Wilson’s work: the banal becomes beautiful, the bizarre becomes delightful, and the heartbreaks become unguardedly funny. His curiosity, bordering at times on voyeurism, is an invitation to join him in the simple act of paying attention.

And so I noticed the toddler lying on her belly outside of the gum-plastered entrance to the subway station. A dumpling food truck, seemingly stuck in a pothole. Groups of women in ballgowns rushing past, their long skirts dragging into puddles — all of it part of a concrete world worth noticing.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The world is crumbling in ‘The History of Concrete’ on Oct 19, 2026.

 As billions of birds embark on their southbound journeys to their non-breeding grounds, they will encounter numerous challenges along the way. After all, migration season is statistically the...

Plan to expand the big battery built at the site of what was once the country's most polluting coal plant go ahead after gaining key licence and reaching financial close.

The post Expansion of first coal country big battery reaches financial close as key licence awarded appeared first on Renew Economy.

Andrew Forrest's iron ore miner says a demo plant in Brisbane that strips arsenic from copper is doing so at a fraction of the energy used in other processes.

The post Fortescue claims technology breakthrough to unlock potential of copper key to green energy transition appeared first on Renew Economy.

Queensland LNP's first major energy tender in a long time - for fossil gas generators - attracts 10 bidders with four short-listed.

The post Queensland LNP gets excited as it shortlists companies competing in its first energy tender – for fossil gas appeared first on Renew Economy.

South Korea unveils a $A1.1 trillion energy transition strategy, aimed at expanding renewables and transforming the country’s heavy industry, and the opportunities for Australia are huge.

The post South Korea unveils trillion-dollar green energy transition plan, and the opportunities are huge for Australia appeared first on Renew Economy.

State to introduce bill allowing mine at centre of High Court ruling to continue with its planned expansion, increasing its annual production limit to 16.5 million tonnes.

The post Coal lobby applauds, Greens horrified as premier promises to protect mine from High Court ruling appeared first on Renew Economy.

Join Envision Energy and Renew Economy for a webinar exploring the technologies shaping Australia’s next-generation energy system.

The post Webinar: How integrated wind, storage and grid technologies are shaping Australia’s energy future appeared first on Renew Economy.

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, October 11, 2026 thru Sat, October 17, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Science and Research (6 items)

• Fingerprint Evidence for Human Effects on Climate: Advances After the 2009 Endangerment Finding Academic report finds obvious human effects on climate behavior and formally discredits a July 2025 report published by the US Department of Energy, Earth's Future, Benjamin Santer, Susan Solomon, David Thompson, Qiang Fu, Gabriele Hegerl, Sep 12, 2026.
• Fired Government Scientists Are Finding New Ways to Spread the Word on Climate Change Donald Trump’s administration fired scientists working on the next National Climate Assessment. They’re finding new ways to publish their research Rolling Stone, Thor Benson, Oct 12, 2026.
• Thousands of handwritten records reveal scale of warming in the Congo Congo Basin weather records have been poorly represented in climate assessments; to fill this gap scientists have digitized thousands of handwritten weather records, revealing significant warming in the region. Yale Environment 360, Yale Environment 360 staff, Oct 12, 2026.
• Big if True: New Paper Finds Doubling in Planet`s Rate of Warming A new paper suggests that the rate of warming of Earth's climate is higher than previously thought, but the final and best answer may depend on past El Niño effects. This is Not Cool, greenman3610, Oct 12, 2026.
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2026 Skeptical Science's latest weekly climate research survey. Skeptical Science, Doug Bostrom & Marc Kodack, Oct 15, 2026.
• Climate Overshoot Needs a New Generation of Researchers | Opinion Professor Yohe argues that dealing with the aftermath of climate overshoot will require a deep pool of scientific talent, and assembling that resource should begin now. Newsweek, Gary Yohe, Oct 15, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (5 items)

• SEC Issues Warning to Investment Firms That Challenged ExxonMobil The commission issued a rare “report of investigation” into the largest asset managers and state pension funds, part of a broader campaign to curb investor activism on climate risks. Inside Climate News, By Nicholas Kusnetz, Oct 09, 2026.
• Carbon Accounting May Be the Most Important Climate Fight You've Never Heard About Carbon accounting is a vital climate mitigation tool but the details are devilish. TIME, Justin Worland, Oct 09, 2026.
• IPCC is under pressure to delay publication of key global climate report AR7 report was scheduled for 2028 in time for Cop33 summit but some petro-states and major developing countries want to postpone it The Guardian, Fiona Harvey, Oct 13, 2026.
• Trump just effectively killed a popular solar energy program for rural America Solar panels can be an economic lifeline for farmers. Now they're going to be a lot harder to build. Grist, Frida Garza, Oct 16, 2026.
• Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas "where appropriate" The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel Climate Home News, Joe Lo, Oct 16, 2026.

Climate Change Impacts (4 items)

• How climate change worsened Hurricane Isaias Climate Central says climate-warmed Gulf waters made Isaias’s winds 7 mph stronger than than otherwise, resulting in over a doubling of the hurricane’s damages because of exponential rise in damage with winds. Yale Climate Connections, Jeff Masters, Oct 10, 2026.
• Thwaites Glacier could contribute twice as much sea-level rise as previously projected Phys.org, University of California, Irvine, Oct 13, 2026.
• What finance can tell us about the `twin crises` of climate change and biodiversity loss Yale SOM’s Stefano Giglio explains how the two environmental threats can amplify each other—and why understanding those interactions matters for the economy. Yale Insights, Ted O’Callahan, Oct 14, 2026.
• How the quirky puffin became a symbol of the climate crisis - and hope In an extract from his new book, the nature historian explains how technology could help the seabird survive The Guardian, Stephen Moss, Oct 17, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (3 items)

• Your Climate Shadow You can grow your climate shadow without guilt. Climate Trunk, John Lang, Oct 11, 2026.
• How AI chatbots may be talking people out of climate action Across 28,800 prompts, models were 7.5 times more likely to advise “stay the course” than “change,” even when the status quo is anti-climate. Anthropocene, Sarah DeWeerdt, Oct 13, 2026.
• US voters want more action on global heating. Why are Democrats and Republicans staying silent? Polls show that Democrats and Republicans in battleground states want to hear more from candidates about the climate crisis The Guardian, Oliver Milman, Oct 16, 2026.

Miscellaneous (3 items)

• From Bad to Better Bill McKibben reflects on our new ability to directly confront the climate problem we've created, at its roots. The Crucial Years, Bill McKibben, Oct 09, 2026.
• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, October 4, 2026 thru Sat, October 10, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler & Doug Bostrom, Oct 11, 2026.
• Just what damage can the emissions from a new fossil fuel facility cause? A new tool has estimates From crop failures to coral bleaching, a new tool developed by climate scientists aims to predict in detail the impacts of each megatonne of carbon emissions The Guardian, Nick Evershed, Oct 15, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Solutions (2 items)

• Fact brief - Does onshore wind power need subsidies to compete with fossil fuels? Recent inflation, rising interest rates, and trade barriers have increased costs across all energy generation technologies, but onshore wind is still cheaper than fossil fuel plants and does not require subsidization to operate. Skeptical Science, Sue Bin Park, Oct 13, 2026.
• Exxon scientist says the company knew its algae biofuel ads were BS In newly reported deposition testimony, a company scientist calls Exxon’s claims “patently false”—and says he warned them before they went public. Heated, Emily Atkin, Oct 14, 2026.

Climate Law and Justice (1 item)

• How climate and health science is turning international law into action Following a historic ICJ ruling, climate science and international law are converging to turn state duty into binding policy. The Independent, wellcome staff, Oct 13, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (1 item)

• Will AI be good or bad for the climate? Here`s what the latest evidence on energy use suggests The Conversation, Francesco Grillo, Oct 12, 2026.

Geoengineering (1 item)

• Why We Should(n't) Geoengineer Our Planet Adam Levy and Ella Gilbert discuss regional geoengineering. ClimateAdam on Youtube, Adam Levy, Oct 17, 2026.

Health Aspects of Climate Change (1 item)

• Climate Change Is Increasing Simultaneous Exposure to Heat Waves and Wildfire Smoke Heat and wildfire smoke are dangerous on their own. A new study says more people are facing both at once. Inside Climate News, Katie Surma, Oct 14, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Science (1 item)

• Five types of disinformation - and how to spot red flags that trigger climate inaction The Conversation, Mark Maslin, Oct 15, 2026.

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!

IT IS OFTEN said that hindsight is 20/20. Coroner’s inquests are, by their nature, exercises in hindsight. We look backwards after someone has died, reconstructing timelines and events, examining decisions and systems, hearing from families, eyewitnesses, and experts, ultimately asking what happened, and why? Coroner’s inquests are open to the public, live-streamed but never recorded. They cannot make any findings of blame, liability, or legal culpability. These measures are taken to encourage transparency and clarity, with a goal to fundamentally understand the root causes contributing to a death, so a jury of the public can make recommendations that may prevent another death of a similar nature.

Over the past several years, I have had the difficult privilege of serving as an expert witness in coroner’s inquests examining the deaths of Indigenous people in Ontario, including Don Mamakwa and Roland McKay who experienced medical emergencies while in the custody of the Thunder Bay Police; Luke Moore, Lorraine Shaganash, Lizzie Sutherland, Mark Ferris and Douglas Taylor – five members of Constance Lake First Nation, who died during a catastrophic outbreak of blastomycosis (a rare fungal infection); and, most recently, 24-year-old Heather Winterstein, from Six Nations, who died of septic shock after repeatedly seeking emergency medical care. 

Coroner’s inquests provide a window into how Indigenous people on Turtle Island access and receive healthcare. Each time we look backwards and are shocked by what we find. But increasingly, we must question whether hindsight is the right direction. What happens when we look forward instead?

If we know that a population has poorer access to healthcare, less adequate housing and infrastructure, structural poverty, greater exposure to systemic violence, less control over the socioeconomic and political systems affecting their lives, and persistently worse health outcomes – and we reproduce these conditions generation after generation – how useful can our hindsight really be?

Premeditation is as powerful as hindsight.

Premeditation does not mean that every health disparity we see today is deliberately engineered for harm by providers. It means that the discriminatory structures that created these conditions were deliberately designed for these outcomes, the consequences have been documented for generations, and their continuation makes the disparities they produce increasingly foreseeable.

The Malignant Narrative and Medical Violence

This year, 2026, the Indian Act turned 150 years old. For over 150 years, Indigenous health outcomes in Canada have been shaped not by accident or oversight, but by design. At the center of this design is what can be understood as “the Malignant Narrative”: a church-sanctioned dehumanization and devaluation of Indigenous people, legally enforced by colonial officials. This narrative framed Indigenous people not only as inferior to European settlers, but as non-human and therefore effectively non-existent, with no more claim to land, rights, or privilege than the animals that roamed the forests. 

The foundation of this narrative is legislative. The Indian Act consolidated extraordinary state control over First Nation identity, land, and governance. Residential schools, forced relocation, land dispossession, child apprehension, and jurisdictional fragmentation formed parts of the same colonial architecture. The Indian Act did not merely regulate Indigenous life, but it constructed a system of control that fundamentally altered the social determinants of health. It continues to structure how Indigenous people access, receive, and/or are denied healthcare today. 

At what point does a pattern of disparities become so persistent, so reproducible, and so well documented that we stop calling the outcome unexpected? The system isn’t broken; it was built this way.

The Malignant Narrative is the colonial story that precedes Indigenous people into every institution, from criminal justice to education to healthcare to employment. It positions Indigenous people as less credible, less deserving of compassion and care, less compliant. Indigenous people are simply stereotypes, reinforced by the narrative, told over and over through time. 

A Coroner’s inquest can be an investigation into this architecture that is now recognized as medical violence. Indigenous people have been subjected to neglect, abuse, experimentation, forced interventions, and systemic under-servicing. While contemporary discourse often frames these harms as historical, the underlying logic has not disappeared. We have seen this Malignant Narrative institutionalized in modern healthcare settings through predictable patterns of higher disease burden, inadequate access to care, dismissal, delayed diagnosis, inadequate pain management, and premature discharge. It influences who we believe, whose pain we take seriously, whose behaviour requires explanation, and tends to assign personal responsibility for structural challenges. Ultimately, it influences who receives the benefit of our clinical curiosity, and who we protect from the consequences of our unconscious bias and assumptions. 

One of the most dangerous features of the Malignant Narrative is that it is self-reinforcing. The system produces the conditions and then pathologizes Indigenous people for living within them. We see the normalization of disbelief whereby Indigenous patients’ reports of pain or illness are minimized. We see diagnostic hesitation where symptoms are attributed to stereotypes rather than investigated. We see triage decisions that systematically deprioritize Indigenous lives. We see a normalization of expected outcomes: Indigenous people are sicker and we are not shocked by increasing disparities in life expectancy. 

Poverty becomes irresponsibility. Difficulty accessing healthcare becomes “non-compliance”. Unmet needs become “frequent fliers”. Substance use becomes a diagnosis rather than a risk factor, and mistrust of institutions becomes “unwillingness to engage”. These are not isolated realities, they are patterned outcomes of a system that continues to operate within the Malignant Narrative. The consequences of colonialism become evidence for the stereotypes that colonialism created. 

Medical violence today rarely presents as overt abuse. It is more often expressed through structured neglect, a form of harm produced when systems consistently fail to respond appropriately to the needs of Indigenous patients. 

This system operates with a nearly insurmountable inertia.

The Constance Lake Blastomycosis Inquest

My work at the Constance Lake First Nation inquest made this painfully clear. I was retained by the Office of the Chief Coroner as an independent expert following the deaths of five community members during the 2021-22 blastomycosis outbreak. My mandate was not to determine whether individual physicians met the standard of care, nor to provide expertise on blastomycosis. I was asked to examine how stereotyping, unconscious bias and systemic racism can affect Indigenous peoples’ access to and receipt of healthcare, particularly during an infectious-disease outbreak.

What I encountered was not a simple story. The evidence showed many healthcare workers making extraordinary efforts in the midst of an unprecedented catastrophe. It also showed many community members repeatedly seeking medical attention as they became sicker, while others remained at home as they became increasingly ill before seeking help, reluctant to engage with a system that has harmed them. And, we saw the significant barrier to accessing higher levels of hospital care for critically ill patients. 

This outbreak asked us to look at what happens inside a system whose very architecture is deeply inequitable – no matter how hard working or caring those working inside it are. This outbreak asked us why there are no hospitals on-reserve anywhere in Ontario? Why are the vast majority of healthcare resources hoarded in non-Indigenous communities? The inquest gave insight into how jurisdictional fragmentation further entrenches harm, and the division of responsibility between federal and provincial governments creates gaps in care that Indigenous patients are forced to navigate, often at great personal cost. 

Don Mamakwa, Roland McKay and Heather Winterstein

Unmet needs are not only an outcome of geography. Unmet needs continue to profoundly impact First Nation people off-reserve. Don Mamakwa, Roland McKay, and Heather Winterstein all passed away off-reserve, in urban settings where high-level hospital access existed. The availability of healthcare does not always translate into access to care, and we can understand this by understanding bias.

Bias arises from early and repeated exposure to cultural stereotypes. Bias shapes our patterns of thinking, functioning as mental short cuts that influence perception, judgement, and behaviour. Much of our biases are unconscious attitudes and associations that are activated automatically, without deliberate attention or awareness. Research shows that biases develop very early in life, including racial bias. Children as young as three years old recognize and internalize racial stereotypes through cultural conditioning. And unfortunately in Canada, stereotypes rooted in Anti-Indigenous racism are rampant, often involving substance use, mental health, intelligence, criminality, hygiene, and poor parenting. 

Although stereotypes are not rational nor evidence-based, they exert powerful effects on cognition, impacting how information is noticed, how it is interpreted, and how decisions are made. This is how the Malignant Narrative is manifest. It is a pattern where racist assumptions, beliefs, biases, and stereotypes take over how people perceive and interact with Indigenous people. 

Don Mamakwa and Roland McKay were both Oji-Cree men who were arrested by police on suspicion of public intoxication, three years apart in Thunder Bay. Each man was placed in a locked jail cell, where they would ultimately die from treatable medical illness that had been mis-attributed to intoxication. For Don, a bystander had called 911 to report a man “passed out” on the church steps. Police and EMS arrived on scene and quickly determined he was intoxicated, taking him to a locked jail cell. In reality, Don was suffering from Diabetic Ketoacidosis, sepsis, and alcohol use disorder, but the medical emergency was not recognized. One expert in the inquest stated that Don would have had a, “97% of surviving if he had been brought to the hospital rather than a jail cell”. 

Here, the Malignant Narrative was profoundly impactful. From the moment 911 was called to the heartwrenching deaths recorded on jail cell surveillance cameras, stereotypes and assumptions appeared to be deeply ingrained across so many interactions. They were both unable to access medical care because the door was literally locked. 

For Heather Winterstein, the door was not locked, but neither was it open. Heather was a 24 year old Cayuga woman who repeatedly sought care in hospital over a two day period before she collapsed and died in the waiting room of a St. Catharine’s Hospital Emergency Department. She asked for help, and as she progressively deteriorated in plain sight, help was not provided. She had been given a diagnosis of “social issues”. The Coroner’s jury found that Heather Winterstein died of septic shock, due to sepsis (infection) with delayed treatment. They classified the manner of death as Accidental, not natural. Her family’s lawyer, Rachel Gardiner said, “there is nothing natural about being ignored to death”. 

Bias does not require a clinician to consciously believe that an Indigenous life matters less. It can operate far more subtly. A stereotype consciously or unconsciously creates an attribution: “Don is drunk”, or, “Heather has social issues”. This attribution becomes an anchor which is then used as the lens through which we process all information. Confirmation bias reinforces the original interpretations and clinical curiosity narrows. Bias can change what we believe we are seeing. In practice it can directly influence triage acuity, the thoroughness of an examination, diagnostic reasoning, and the willingness to initiate investigation or treatment – resulting in delayed recognition of serious illness and preventable harm. 

Anti-Indigenous racism is a patient-safety issue.

This is where one of the most basic tools in medicine can become a powerful anti-bias intervention: the differential diagnosis. A risk factor is not a diagnosis, substance use does not explain diabetic ketoacidosis, mental illness does not explain sepsis. Using a clear differential diagnosis can protect a patient from the consequences of our assumptions, forcing us to ask “what does not fit” and “Why is this person getting worse?” A differential diagnosis provides a circuit breaker from the momentum of the Malignant Narrative. 

The Future of Ontario’s Coroner’s Inquest System

There is another lesson I have taken from this work. We cannot prevent what we refuse to examine. This makes the future of Ontario’s Coroner’s Inquest system deeply important. The purpose is fact finding, public accountability, and prevention. Ontario is now considering significant changes to that system in relation to correctional institutions, replacing mandatory inquests for non-natural deaths in police custody with coroner-led annual reviews. This would result in the loss of public hearings, examinations and cross-examinations of evidence, participation of families and organizations with relevant expertise, community juries, and the transparency that accompanies an open proceeding.

Those concerns extend beyond correctional institutions. For Indigenous people, public inquests have repeatedly provided something our healthcare and justice systems too often fail to provide elsewhere: a forum in which a death can be understood not only as an individual event, but within the systems surrounding it.

I have watched that process happen. I have seen inquests provide the platform for deaths of Indigenous people to be examined alongside healthcare infrastructure, jurisdiction, geography, racism, trust, and Indigenous governance. They create a public record, allowing evidence to be tested and families to hear what happened. They bring experts, institutions, and communities into the same room, and critically, they ask a jury of ordinary people not simply, “why did this person die?” but, “what should change so another person does not die this way?”

Inquests are imperfect. Their recommendations are not binding; the Office of the Chief Coroner itself notes that it cannot compel organizations to implement them. But the answer to recommendations that are insufficiently implemented cannot be less accountability, it must be more.

This brings me back to hindsight. Mamakwa and McKay, Luke Moore, Lorraine Shaganash, Lizzie Sutherland, Mark Ferris, and Douglas Taylor, and Heather Winterstein.These are different people, different communities, different medical circumstances, and different institutions.

All raised the questions: Who is to be believed? Whose knowledge carries authority? Whose behaviour is pathologized? Whose suffering generates urgency? And, who gets to decide what happens next?

Inquests allow us to look backward and see these patterns. The danger is that Canada has become extraordinarily practiced at looking backward and being surprised. We have documented Indigenous disparities exceptionally well, now the harder task is acting on what makes these disparities so predictable.

Citation:

Shoush, Suzanne. “The Malignant Narrative: Coroner’s Inquests and Clinical Harm” Yellowhead Institute. Oct 20 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/the-malignant-narrative-coroners-inquests-and-clinical-harm/

Beadwork by Jamaica Cass

 

The post The Malignant Narrative: Coroner’s Inquests and Clinical Harm appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

A new report from WWF highlights how we still have time to protect global biodiversity. While the decline in biodiversity worldwide shows no sign of slowing, according to a new WWF report, the organization believes that nature recovery is still within reach.

“Nature underpins our economies…It’s our life support system,” says Kirsten Schuijt, Director General of WWF International. But it “continues to be degraded at an alarming scale.”

The new Living Planet Report, which covers more than 35,000 populations and 5,700 species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians, shows that not all regions are affected evenly.

Biodiversity decline is highest in Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by the African continent. But Andrew Terry, the Chief Conservation Officer for the Zoological Society of London, is careful to note that the results don’t mean regions like North America and Europe haven’t seen significant population decline. Rather, the biggest drop-off took place before 1970, when scientists established a baseline to measure against.

WWF points to food and agriculture systems as the largest cause of habitat loss and degradation. They’re also a major contributor to the climate crisis and the overexploitation of species. Together, these make the sector the leading driver of biodiversity decline.

“Habitat loss driven by agriculture is a threat to over 80 percent of all threatened terrestrial bird and mammal species,” Rebecca Shaw, Lead Author of the report and WWF’s Chief Scientist, tells Food Tank. “Overfishing is the leading cause of biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems and water extraction for agriculture.” She also adds that polluted runoff is responsible for 50 percent of all freshwater biodiversity loss.

But WWF still finds reason to remain hopeful. “Nature can rebound especially when we work together,” Schuijt says.

The report highlights the green sea turtle—they became the first marine turtle to ever be downgraded on a conservation list. After 50 years of collaborative efforts spanning 80 countries, it has been recategorized, moving from an Endangered species to one of Least Concern.

Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna are another example. Decades of overfishing brought populations to the brink of collapse. But concerted efforts to protect and replenish stocks mean that neither is considered threatened today.

“Targeted conservation action works, and it works really well, but it can’t overcome the threats to nature alone,” says Shaw. She argues that lessons from these projects can be taken and applied to address the root causes of biodiversity loss and drive systems change.

To reach a positive tipping point in food and agriculture systems, WWF argues that change is needed in three major areas. They call for the wide-scale adoption of nature-positive farming practices, a shift to healthy and sustainable diets, and a reduction in food loss and waste.

These changes “could have a dramatic impact on decreasing biodiversity loss,” Shaw tells Food Tank. “At the same time, it would also have extraordinary human health and economic benefits. The potential is huge.”

The transition to renewable energy sources must also continue to accelerate, the report states. Meanwhile funding must flow away from systems that harm ecosystems and toward those that regenerate them.

To make this transformation possible, WWF believes it is essential to uplift bright spots that prove efforts pay off.

“Hope is not an abstract thing. It’s based in science,” Schuijt says. And as long as people believe change is possible, she is adamant people will be willing to act —an attitude that is particularly important for the next generation. “Young people need to feel they can still contribute to a better future.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Shelley Pauls, Unsplash

The post WWF Shows Turning the Tide on Biodiversity Loss Is Still Possible appeared first on Food Tank.

When one of the nation’s biggest investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric, wanted to replace Merrian Borgeson’s aging gas service line in Berkeley, California, she asked the company not to do it.

Borgeson, who is the California policy director for climate and energy at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, explained that the repair wasn’t necessary: She was in the process of fully electrifying her home and would be replacing her stove — the only gas appliance left in the house — with an induction version during an upcoming kitchen remodel. At that point, she planned to request that the gas line be shut off.

But PG&E told her it couldn’t wait. That week, the utility dug up her yard and swapped in a new pipe to send gas from the distribution main line to her home.

Borgeson wasn’t charged for the service — at least not directly. The upgrade, which in PG&E’s service area typically costs $20,000 to $30,000, plus interest and operation and maintenance costs, gets paid for by all gas customers over the life of the infrastructure.

A few years later, the new pipe sits unused in the ground.

Courtesy of RMI

“Now, I have no gas in my house,” Borgeson said. ​“But the customers all around me are paying for that pipeline for the next 50 years.”

Soon, Californians will have the choice that Borgeson did not.

A new law, the Home Energy Choice Act (Assembly Bill 2313), will require utilities to give households scheduled for a service line replacement the option of getting the new line or taking a financial incentive potentially worth several thousand dollars to get off gas instead. Crucially, the incentive to switch to all-electric equipment, such as a heat pump, induction range, and heat-pump water heater, will be less than the cost to replace the line, resulting in savings that will be shared among all gas customers.

The law ​“sends a very clear message that California is no longer going to invest millions of dollars in gas infrastructure without considering the future,” said Borgeson, who advocated for the bill. ​“It’s this huge signal of where the state is headed.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council has calculated that PG&E’s gas customers could save a total of $20 million if the utility gave 1,000 households a $17,500 incentive apiece rather than replacing their service lines. For context, PG&E replaces about 15,000 service lines annually.

Read Next The Northeast’s reliance on heating oil is turning into a crisis Tik Root

If similar programs were instituted across the country, the savings could rival Biden-era investments in home electrification. Utilities spend upward of $7 billion per year on service line replacements, according to clean energy nonprofit RMI. 

The policy will help push the state closer to its goal of a carbon-neutral economy by 2045; however, the version that passed was less ambitious than what was introduced, according to Brandon García, California director at industry association Advanced Energy United. Revisions included programs being capped at 1% of a utility’s customers and the law expiring Jan. 1, 2035, though it could be renewed before then.

“AB 2313 was a very difficult bill to get through the Legislature, so I’m very excited that it will soon give Californians the opportunity to decide what energy is powering their home and provide financial support if they choose to transition away from natural gas,” Assemblymember Marc Berman, who authored the bill, said by email. ​“When homeowners opt to electrify, the utility avoids additional investments in fossil fuel infrastructure that will eventually become a stranded asset, and this saves all ratepayers money long-term.”

Utilities San Diego Gas and Electric and SoCalGas opposed the bill, arguing that it would result in an unfair cost shift: As some customers stop using gas, those remaining could be left bearing outsized costs to maintain the system. While that is an issue writ large for the transition off of fossil fuels, and one the state needs to address, this law ​“is instead about trying to encourage people to leave at the exact time when they are saving money for everyone else by leaving,” said Kiki Velez, equitable gas transition lead at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

With the new legislation, California becomes the third jurisdiction to authorize the pipeline replacement alternative approach — and the first to do so statewide. In 2024, New York utility Con Edison launched its initiative, the Energy Exchange Program, which offers eligible households up to $20,000 to electrify. Other New York utilities are following suit, Velez said. And in July, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission authorized Xcel Energy to create a similar program, which she expects could launch within a few months.

Read Next A new report just busted another myth about heat pumps Matt Simon

In California, the next step is for the Public Utilities Commission to create a detailed framework for utilities to follow, including incentive levels, with larger amounts for customers in disadvantaged communities. Then utilities will have until January 1, 2028, for their individual proposed programs to be approved.

One yet-to-be-determined detail is how much notice utilities will give residents whose pipes they want to replace. ​“I think the worst case is you don’t hear about [the incentive] until the last minute,” Borgeson said. RMI recommends utilities alert residents one to five years ahead — at the point when it is scheduling the service line replacements.

Other states are looking to emulate California with bills of their own, Velez said, pointing to Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. ​“Folks are already reaching out a lot about how they can bring it to their state,” she said.

In California, the bigger electrification incentives for disadvantaged communities will provide a much-needed boost to clean energy equity, García noted. ​“As someone who grew up in those kinds of neighborhoods as a low-income person, I want to make sure that everyone has access to [all-electric] technology.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A new gas line or cash to electrify? California lets households choose. on Oct 18, 2026.

Updated: South Australia unveils project proposals totalling 13 GW of new wind and solar which it says can underpin the next phase of green industry development.

The post Almost 13 gigawatts of new wind and solar projects flagged to propel state way beyond 100 pct net renewables appeared first on Renew Economy.

The nation’s largest union of registered nurses issued the following statement, in response to the federal government’s raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home, confiscating her possessions, and reports of attempting to strip her of her citizenship.