G1. Progressive Green

Landmark California bill that would track and disclose PFAS pesticide use heads to Newsom’s desk Monica Amarelo August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Groundbreaking legislation that would address the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce today passed the state Legislature. 

It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

If enacted, Assembly Bill 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would require the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies were not tracking the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops until the Environmental Working Group raised concerns.

More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to Golden State crops each year, contaminating produce sold in the state and throughout the U.S., in addition to soil and water. 

EWG research found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state, as well as in local waterways.

“As a father, I don’t want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz. 

“AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water,” he added. 

“We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so California can be a global leader in food safety,” Schultz said.

“The state cannot act on this newly revealed PFAS problem if it ignores the issue and pretends it doesn’t exist,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director. 

“Right now, the state has no comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed or in what quantities,” she added.

The bill would also establish a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California laws and regulations already addressing these chemicals. That definition matters: It ensures tracking and disclosure requirements can’t be sidestepped with chemical-by-chemical loopholes. 

The definition would also lay the groundwork for action that avoids “regrettable substitutions” – PFAS replacements that can also have health concerns.

Though thousands of PFAS are used today, comprehensive toxicity data is available about very few. But what is known is alarming: The health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, suppression of the immune system and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.

Other AB 1603 sponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Why tracking and monitoring matter

If enacted, AB 1603 will require the Department of Pesticide Regulation to begin systematically tracking and publicly disclosing PFAS pesticide use across the state, marking the first time California has required this level of visibility about where the chemicals are applied.

“Because of their chemical structures, all PFAS share the core characteristics of extreme environmental persistence and potential harm to immune and reproductive systems,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using PFAS pesticides on food crops.”

“We need to stop spraying our produce with toxic ‘forever chemicals.’ With this bill, we are telling it like it is, so farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use,” said Subramaniam. 

Collecting reliable, ongoing tracking data will end the long-running gap in data about PFAS pesticide use in the state. Access to this data will help build a foundation for action that could include use restrictions, farmer transition support, water monitoring and more.

“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is  being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops,” she said.

States leading on regulation

The federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. 

California operates its own approval system: Its Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it. That gives the state the authority to protect its residents – power it has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.

That authority matters more than ever because of what is happening at the federal level. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. 

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, California taking the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticides’ use, is necessary.

Banning PFAS pesticides

While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In the same year, Minnesota banned nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Other countries are also acting. The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

AB 1603, if enacted, will put California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, laying the groundwork for the nation’s salad bowl to once again be a public health leader. 

“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “But we’ve been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we are one of the biggest users.

“AB 1603 can begin to change that. This is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she added.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a diverse, statewide coalition of 200+ member groups working to strengthen pesticide policies in California to protect public health and the environment. Member groups include public and children’s health advocates, clean air and water groups, health practitioners, environmental justice groups, labor, education, farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates from across the state.

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California Transparency legislation would reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 26, 2026

This was an international webinar for the People's Climate Summit held in Antalya, Turkey, parallel to COP31 in November, featuring Max Wilbert (CELDF's Co-coordinator of the Community Resistance & Resilience Program and author of Biocentric) as the main speaker.

The post Greenwashing: The Central Strategy of Next-Generation Industrialism with Max Wilbert appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

California Legislature approves bill easing access to clean, affordable ‘balcony solar’ Anthony Lacey August 25, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauds the California Legislature for passing a bill that will help Californians invest in clean energy while also tackling sky-high energy bills by making it easier to install small, affordable “balcony solar” systems.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, would eliminate red tape that has kept these systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes. The legislation would also ensure the systems comply with strict safety standards.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network. SB 868 heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.

“This is the most exciting clean energy idea around,”  said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “With this bill, California is poised to fling its doors wide open to a real, tangible affordability solution for everyday consumers.

“Solar energy is a no-brainer for California and we applaud Sen. Wiener and his legislative colleagues for their hard work to put this critical clean energy solution on the governor’s desk,” she added. 

Balcony solar is thriving in Europe – in Germany more than 4 million systems have been installed. Efforts to ease their deployment are gathering steam in other countries.

But in the U.S., regulatory barriers keep this technology out of reach for many. If enacted, SB 868 would remove those barriers while ensuring the systems meet safety standards. 

Homeowners and renters could then buy portable balcony solar panels from retailers and plug them in without first having to get an interconnection agreement from their utility. The cost and time involved with getting that agreement has been a barrier to greater deployment of these systems. 

The Assembly amended the bill with a provision sunsetting the interconnection exemption on Jan. 1, 2030 – language sought by the utilities – but SB 868 gives the market four years to take off and the Legislature has the opportunity to remove the sunset in the future. 

Solving an urgent public health problem 

EWG this month released a report showing that California is experiencing more frequent and dangerous heat days, with extreme heat events up 55% statewide threatening public health and safety without access to cooling. But soaring utility bills mean millions of people can’t afford the air conditioning that could keep them safe. 

Balcony solar is one solution, helping lower electricity costs and making it cheaper to run vital cooling. With 2027 shaping up to be the hottest year on record, it can’t come soon enough. 

That’s why EWG is calling on policy makers to prioritize solutions like customer-sited solar energy that can drastically lower or eliminate annual utility costs for air conditioning.  If it becomes law, SB 868 would help millions of families tackle air conditioning costs.

“These small, easy-to-use solar panels will give everyone, including renters, the relief they desperately need on our outrageous energy bills,” said Wiener. “Electricity costs have reached ridiculous levels here in California and the Plug and Play Solar Act provides a much-needed tool to provide relief. It’s time to put money back in the pockets of Californians.”

A single 400-watt balcony solar system can cover roughly 14% of the average apartment’s electricity usage, providing savings of about $250 per year. While the cost of balcony solar starts around $500 today, with broader adoption enabled by SB 868, EWG expects costs to fall, making solar even more accessible to renters and low-income households.

California electricity rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, leaving the state with the nation’s second-highest energy prices. SB 868 provides consumers with a straightforward way to take control of their energy bills.

And the systems are easy to use. “Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet,” said Del Chiaro. 

“At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool that also helps the state meet its clean energy goals,” she added.

SB 868 would also ensure these plug-and-play systems meet strict safety standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science company, or an equivalent national testing lab. To protect utility workers and prevent electrical hazards, systems must automatically shut off within seconds if the grid goes down. 

System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances such as fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers and AC units.

California is not the first state to remove barriers to balcony solar. Utah became the first in 2025, and so far, eight other states have enacted laws to do the same. 

With today’s vote, California joins New York as another state with a balcony solar bill sitting on the governor’s desk. Newsom has 30 days to take action on SB 868. The California Assembly and Senate both gave the bill strong bipartisan support, with over 90% approval in both chambers.

“California may not be the first out of the gates but we are the biggest prize,” said Del Chiaro. “If Gov. Newsom signs this bill into law, the size of our market will radically transform and accelerate the adoption of this brilliant new way to tackle both climate change and energy affordability.” 

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California SB 868 would end red tape blocking millions from utility bill savings Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 25, 2026

Germany is among the top three countries in Europe with the highest private jet flights per year1. The NGO ROBIN WOOD e.V. in Germany decided to do something about it. They’ve been working on a campaign for a ban of private jets at the airport in Hamburg. Private jets are one of the most climate-wrecking forms of transport2 and the number of flights increases every year. What exactly are the…

Source

ARGENTINA: Gatherings for Life and the Future 29th Seed Festival of Misiones Province Explore BePe's campaigns here

On Pachamama Day, organizations from Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay gathered in Aristóbulo del Valle, Misiones, one day after the 29th Provincial Seed Fair, to strengthen the political, organizational, and educational capacities of leaders and organizations in the Triple Frontier region committed to defending seeds as the heritage of the people.

The event was attended by more than 800 people from organizations in the three border countries.

YLNM member BePe participated in this political coordination meeting as an organization that is part of the MAELA Network, the Latin American and Caribbean Agroecology Movement. In addition to the indispensable exchange of experiences and contextual analyses, the meeting affirmed that agroecological practices and those of the social and solidarity economy are real alternatives for breaking free from the system of death generated by colonial, patriarchal, and extractivist capitalism. In this context, it is worth noting that the territories of Catamarca constitute “sacrifice zones” for big capital: we have endured nearly thirty years of mining exploitation disguised as a “productive and progress-generating” activity. The experience of participating in the process of creating alternatives constitutes a vital response to challenge the prevailing notions of progress, development, and authentic wealth for the people.

True wealth does not lie in money or in the financial system, which was invented as a fetish to distort the reality of life itself. True wealth lies in the alliance of peoples who have formed communities rooted in their territories, the true producers of life and the future. This alliance possesses the power and ancestral memory to bring us back to the reality of life: a marvelous emergence that springs from the relationships between the Cosmos, the Earth, and the human and non-human beings born of it.

Only by recognizing our origin can we build a future, one that is more than merely “sustainable,” but a future worth living. On this path, the gathering was also a timely opportunity to develop a plan for tri-national collaboration among seed-saving organizations and others dedicated to advancing agroecology and creating community-based, territorially rooted spaces.

We continue to walk in these footsteps, inherited from ancestral struggles. Furthermore, at BePe, we are committed to standing alongside the organizations from Catamarca and Santiago del Estero so that they may be part of the preparations for Brazil’s National Agroecology Meeting, to be held in Foz do Iguaçu in June 2027.

BePe: https://www.bepe.org.ar/conozcanos/

Other references:

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1515365267285488&id=100064360885231&rdid=lPNohWB43KIArtfM#

https://www.lavozdemisiones.com/provinciales/feria-de-semillas-tierra-corpus-y-yerba-viejas-luchas-reaparecen-en-misiones/

The post Argentina – Gatherings For Life and the Future appeared first on Yes to Life No to Mining.

Warriors Defending Our Mother Nature: The Ocean Is Our Home The Alliance of Solwara Warriors and the Fight Against Deep Sea Mining

 

 

Bismarck & Solomon Seas, Papua New Guinea

Women and men from Duke of York Islands and New Ireland Province at the Shark Calling Festival in the west coast of New Ireland Province. Credit: The Healthy Oceans Network and Piku Biodiversity Network Inc.

An emblematic case by the Alliance of Solwara Warriors with the support of the West Coast Development Foundation and the Deep Sea Mining Campaign

Along the Bismarck and Solomon Seas of Papua New Guinea, coastal communities have spent more than fifteen years standing between their ocean and the machines that would tear it open. They are Duke of York Islanders and West Coast Namatanai villagers, Milne Bay fisherfolk and Karkar Islanders, Manus seafarers and Nissan clanspeople. They are nited across six provinces, dozens of languages and a thousand kilometres of coastline as the Alliance of Solwara Warriors (ASW) – in Tok Pisin: Yumi Lukautim Solwara — we look after the sea

Their fight began against Solwara 1 deep sea mining project in the Bismarck Sea. This project is the world’s first commercial deep sea mine given an operating licence, until today the project has not started operating.

This is not only a case about resistance. It is a case about what the Solwara Warriors are saying YES to: a living ocean that is mother, garden, highway, law-giver and ancestor all at once. YES to a world of Locally Managed Marine Areas, coral farms, fisheries cooperatives and cultural revival that they are building in its place, on their own terms.

The Ocean Is Our Mother:
Life in the Bismarck and Solomon Seas "The ocean is not a resource. It is our ancestor, our provider, our home."

– Jonathan Mesulam, Alliance of Solwara Warriors Coordinator, New Ireland Province

For the coastal peoples of the Bismarck and Solomon Seas, the ocean is not scenery and it is not a commodity. It is family.

“The sea carries our ancestors’ voices and connects us to other clans across islands,” says Edderlink Sarwau of the Alliance of Solwara Warriors (ASW) Karkar, in Madang Province.

In Milne Bay Province, communities put it just as plainly: for a Milne Bayan, the sea is called mother, because it provides everything needed for life. While gardens on land supply yams and taro, it is the sea that supplies the protein, the trade, and the very sense of who people are.

That relationship is woven into economy and identity alike. The Kula ring — the centuries-old exchange of shell valuables that binds islands from the Trobriands to Woodlark — is carried across deep-sea trade routes that run over seamounts and trenches communities consider sacred.

Clan and family names carry the ocean inside them:

“My dad’s name is Michael Melebe. Melebe refers to shark. Lebe in the Madak language means shark. This is how sacred and special our culture is,” one ASW member explains. The root of the Shark Calling Culture that ASW works to protect.

Livelihoods flow directly from this bond.

Families fish reef fish, parrotfish, mullet and mackerel for daily protein; women and men dive by hand for trochus, beche-de-mer, clams and mud crabs to sell for school fees, church contributions and household goods; bamboo fish traps are set to catch only what a family needs, sized so the small fish swim free through the gaps.

“We fish with wisdom,” Milne Bay ASW members explain. “We take only what the family needs. Use hand lines, not dynamite or chemical fishing that kills little fish for the future.”

Elders read the ocean like a text, including frigate birds diving that signal baitfish running, clouds that warn of storms, moons that tell which nights the fish are spawning and should be left alone.

"The ocean is Earth's life force — regulating climate, sustaining biodiversity, and nourishing communities."

— Edderlink Sarwau, ASW Karkar, Madang Province

Climate change is already unsettling this inheritance. “The old signs are less reliable,” ASW members report; mangroves that once buffered villages from storm surge now struggle against rising seas and stronger cyclones, gardens are lost to inland flooding, and coral that should be vivid with colour is bleaching white. Into this already-stressed ocean, the mining industry now proposes to bring machines to the seafloor itself.

Two boys preparing their fishing nets with the ocean behind them in Mioko, Duke of York Islands in the Bismarck Sea of Papua New Guinean. Credit: Nat Lowrey, Deep Sea Mining Campaign

Solwara 1 Deep Sea Mining project:
A World-First Experiment the Sea Never Consented To

In 2011, the Canadian company Nautilus Minerals secured a mining lease from the Papua New Guinea government for Solwara 1, a project that would have become the world’s first commercial deep sea mine — tearing into hydrothermal vent fields roughly 1,500 to 1,600 metres beneath the Bismarck Sea, some 25 kilometres offshore, to extract copper and gold.

“The Solwara 1 site sits at a very crucial location where the impact of this project will affect coastal communities along the Bismarck Sea,” an Alliance of Solwara Warriors (ASW) member notes. “For people along the Duke of York Islands and West Coast Namatanai communities, this project threatens our daily survival.”

No comparable project had ever been attempted anywhere on Earth.

“The life in the oceans has taken millions of years,” Jonathan Mesulam, Alliance of Solwara Warriors Coordinator and Founder and Director of the West Coast Development Foundation, has said, “to be what it is today” — and “no one knows what the environmental impact will be.”

Communities who had fished, dived and navigated these waters for generations were never meaningfully asked.

“The information and knowledge of seabed mining is very limited,” an ASW member explains. “Locals have been convinced of the monetary benefits the project will bring, without really understanding the potential negative impact.”

Consultations, where they happened at all, arrived as technical documents in languages people did not speak, decisions communities were told about rather than asked into.

“Our people felt decisions were made elsewhere, not in our villages,” as ASW Karkar members put it.

This is the pattern the global Yes to Life No to Mining network calls the colonial extractive development model: a resource frontier opened without the free, prior and informed consent of the people who will carry its risks, dressed in the language of jobs and progress.

In Papua New Guinea, ASW is explicit about who now stands in the way of the people’s right to say no.

“The challenge has shifted from local communities and landowners making the critical decision, to political leadership,” the Alliance of Solwara Warriors (ASW) notes. “Political leaders are our main enemy.”

"Developed nations have banned seabed mining… experts and scientists have stated that the unknowns are too great."

— Governor Gary Juffa, Oro Province

Above all, ASW has refused to let the risk be reduced to economics.

“If we allow seabed mining, then we may just call for the end of humanity,” Jonathan Mesulam has warned, describing an ecosystem, and a food chain, too complex and too poorly understood to gamble with. “The sea has no boundaries,” he adds: whatever is unleashed on the Bismarck Sea floor will not stay there.

Ancestors of the Deep:
The Sacred Law of Kastom

Mioko in the Duke of York Islands in the Bismarck Sea of Papua New Guinea. The Solwara 1 deep sea mining project sits 25km from Duke of York Islands. Credit: Nat Lowrey, Deep Sea Mining Campaign.

Long before any environmental impact statement, the peoples of the Bismarck and Solomon Seas had their own law governing the deep, ‘kastom’. Kastom is carried orally through elders, chiefs and clan leaders, and enforced not by regulators but by consequence.

Across Milne Bay Province alone, community members shared names, stories and spiritual figures tied to specific seamounts, trenches and channels, each one a boundary on what may be taken and how.

East of Kiriwina in the Trobriand Islands lies Tewala, a reef wall dropping into deep water called bwaibwai, home to a powerful masalai. Only men with clean hearts may dive there; anyone who boasts or takes too much risks being taken by the current, never to return. Ancestral law ‘gumagabu’ reserves the fish of the deepest channels for chiefs and feast days alone; ordinary people fish the shallows.

Along the Kula route to Dobu and Woodlark, spirits are said to ride the currents over the seamounts, and to sink the canoes of anyone who fights, spills blood (or mines and extracts) along the way.

On Goodenough Island, elders describe a giant sea serpent asleep in the trench toward Fergusson Island, its back forming the seamount chain and its stillness holding back earthquakes; to cut its skin with dynamite or a drill is to shake the island and wash away the gardens.

In the channel to Wagifa, a masalai woman is said to sing; when fishing turns greedy or the sea is polluted, her song changes and the fish stop coming.

South of Dobu, the seamounts called Bwebweso are the resting houses of Kula spirits, crossed only in silence, therefore no fishing, no anchoring, no industry.

Around Panaeati and Brooker Islands, unseen beings called tokwai are said to farm tuna and trevally on the deep seamounts; people may eat what strays to the reef, but:

“we must eat the fruits, not the tree — mining is cutting the tree down.”

In the waters off Sudest, a mother spirit is said to birth all the fish and send them to feed the people; damage her home, and “the whole food chain collapses.”

"It's not just rocks and water. It's ancestors' house, spirits' garden, bones of the sea. If you break it, you can't fix it again."

— Composite of Milne Bay chiefs, elders and mothers, as told to ASW

Further north on Karkar Island, ASW Madang members describe the same principle in their own terms: masalai, guardian spirits, protect specific reefs and currents, and the message across every telling is the same, to approach the deep with humility, not greed.

Certain reefs are set aside as resting places for ancestors; entry requires protocol, prayer, or the permission of an elder, and breaking that protocol is believed to bring sickness or misfortune.

Communities read the health of their sea the way scientists read instruments: coral colour and growth, seabirds feeding close to shore, water clarity, whether tuna return to Panaeati in season, whether sharks are still seen at the Tewala drop-off.

“These natural signs guide us more than scientific instruments,”ASW Karkar notes.

It is this law, not a regulator’s checklist, that communities invoke when asked whether Free, Prior and Informed Consent has ever truly been given.

“In Milne Bay, the same rule applies — not just for mining but for marriage, for land. If you don’t follow it, it’s not worth it,” one member explains.

In Karkar, Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is defined with equal clarity:

“Free: no bribery or pressure. Prior: consultation before decisions are made. Informed: information given in our language, with time to discuss among clans.”

By that standard, the community’s own standard is that consent for seabed mining in Papua New Guinea has never been met.

The Warriors of The Alliance of Solwara Warriors

Community alarm over seabed mining in Papua New Guinea reaches back to 2009, when the state issued Nautilus Minerals its first environmental permit, and hardened in 2012, when more than 25,000 signatures were carried to Northern Governor Garry Juffa and the Mining Minister.

In those early years, resistance was scattered. A few individual voices and a handful of civil society groups such as the Bismarck Ramu Group, and politicians including Governor Juffa and Dr Allan Marat, with the Catholic and Lutheran churches played a critical early role.

In 2016, those voices coalesced formally into the Alliance of Solwara Warriors (ASW), a coalition built specifically to “speak one voice, in one language,” maintaining a single, grassroots-driven position: Ban Seabed Mining.

Today ASW brings together coastal communities, community-based organisations, NGOs, churches and concerned individuals across the Bismarck and Solomon Seas, coordinated by seven regional focal points:

No. Name Organisation Province 1 John Momori Caritas Kavieng Diocese New Ireland 2 Jenny Jack Duke of York AE1 Development East New Britain 3 Lawrence Smith Balel Conservation Autonomous Region of Bougainville 4 Pais Alik Caritas Papitalai Manus 5 Edderlink Sarwau ASW Karkar Madang 6 James Tomiyavau Caritas Alotau Milne Bay 7 Jonathan Mesulam West Coast Development Foundation New Ireland

Jonathan Mesulam, Coordinator of the  Alliance of Solwara Warriors and Founder and Director, West Coast Development Foundation speaking on NBC Current Affairs in Papua New Guinea. Credit: West Coast Development Foundation

Jonathan Mesulam (pictured above) has coordinated the Alliance’s response for over a decade as founder of the West Coast Development Foundation, campaigning against deep sea mining, illegal logging and climate impacts across New Ireland Province since 2011, and facing threats for it. Hey says: “We never losing hope.”

Women lead throughout the network: from Jenny Jack’s work with Duke of York communities to the mothers, aunties and clan mothers who, as Milne Bay members describe it, “spoke” alongside chiefs and youth when the decision came to stand against mining.

The Catholic and Lutheran churches, through diocesan Caritas offices in Kavieng, Alotau and Papitalai, provide organisational backbone and moral authority across provinces.

Knowledge passes down deliberately, through elders and clan leaders to parents, uncles and aunties, and finally to children and youth who: “learn by doing.” ASW’s own name for itself in Tok Pisin says it plainly: Yumi Lukautim Solwara — we look after the sea.

Fifteen Years of Resistance

Alliance of Solwara Warriors at their 2nd Strategic Meeting held in Namatanai, New Ireland Province, October 2023. Credit: West Coast Development Foundation.

ASW’s campaign has combined community mobilisation, education, lobbying, church solidarity, and sustained legal action. This has led to winning real victories, while the threat of deep sea mining itself has refused to stay defeated.

YEAR MILESTONE 2009 PNG’s environmental regulator issues Nautilus Minerals its first permit for Solwara 1. 2011 Nautilus is granted Mining Lease ML-154 — the world’s first deep sea mining lease. 2012 Civil society delivers a 25,000+ signature petition to Governor Garry Juffa and the Mining Minister. 2016 The Alliance of Solwara Warriors is formally established, uniting scattered opposition into one grassroots voice. 2017 Coastal communities file court action against the Mineral Resources Authority; the Pacific Council of Churches condemns seabed mining; the first Namatanai forum is held; Jonathan Mesulam and three others file the landmark Deep Sea Mining – Freedom of Information (DSM-FOI) case. 2019 Nautilus Minerals collapses into bankruptcy after sustained community resistance and investor withdrawal; PNG’s Prime Minister announces a ten-year moratorium on seabed mining. It is a hard-won victory — and, ASW insists, only a pause. 2022–23 After the DSM-FOI case is dismissed at the National Court, PNG’s Supreme Court quashes that decision and sets a precedent ruling on Section 51 — the constitutional right to freedom of information — before ordering the case back to trial. ASW attends the International Seabed Authority in Jamaica and holds a third public forum plus 20 Days of Human Rights Activism across Namatanai and Kavieng. 2023 Despite the moratorium, PNG’s Mining Minister confirms the project’s backers — now trading as Deep Sea Mining Finance Ltd — intend to return, even as coastal communities reaffirm their opposition. 2024 ASW and partners launch the Wokisok Association and Kono Enpun Cooperative Society — community-owned economic alternatives; the National Court orders regulators to disclose all Solwara 1 documents to Mesulam and fellow plaintiffs; communities respond publicly when the survey vessel MV Coco resumes testing and sampling in their waters. 2025 The fight for political leadership continues: an acting provincial governor voices support for seabed mining even as the Prime Minister restates PNG’s opposition abroad; Governor Garry Juffa, Allan Bird and civil society renew their objections; ASW convenes its own provincial stakeholder consultation on seabed mining in New Ireland. 2026 The Alliance of Solwara Warriors continue to educate and mobilise within their local communites in their ongoing resistance against deep sea mining in the protection of their lives, livelihoods, cultural practuces and their living ocean.

 

The through-line across fifteen years is consistent: every time the project appears defeated, it resurfaces under a new name or a new backer, and every time, the Alliance of Solwara Warriors is still there — in the courts, in the villages, and at the national, regional and international tables.

Saying Yes to Life:
Building the Post-Extractive Ocean

The Alliance of Solwara’s (ASW) fight has never been only about refusal.

“Our main focus remains on protecting the ocean,” the Alliance states, “whilst promoting sustainable ocean management”

This is a living, practical answer to the question of what a post-extractive Papua New Guinea and Pacific looks like.

That answer is already taking shape in Locally Managed Marine Areas designed and governed by the communities who depend on them; in coral farming and marine research programs that rebuild reef health from the bottom up; and in fisheries projects and new community enterprises like the the Wokisok Association and Kono Enpun Cooperative Society among them. Such local cultural and economic initiatives keep income in the hands of the people who hold the knowledge, not offshore investors.

In May 2025, the West Coast Development Foundation ran a two-day fisheries training program for the community, passing skills forward exactly the way kastom knowledge always has: hand to hand, generation to generation.

Culture is treated as infrastructure, not decoration. ASW organises annual World Ocean Day celebrations and actively promotes cultural practices tied to the sea — above all the Shark Calling Culture that gives the Alliance’s own name its meaning. Reviving these practices is itself a form of resistance: proof that a living relationship with the ocean, carried in language, ritual and totem, is precisely what an industrial seabed mine would sever for good.

"The ocean is our everything, and destroying the oceans means destroying our everything."

— Pais Alick, ASW Manus

ASW is candid about what has made this model work, and offers it freely to others facing the same fight.

“One very important lesson,” the Alliance reflects, “is simply to tell the truth about any development project — people knowing the truth and accepting the facts will resist projects that will not benefit them. You do not need to force people to support the fight.”

And no community needs to face it alone:

“When I started talking about seabed mining, I thought I was the only one in the village,” one member recalls.

Awareness-raising and networking revealed how many others already stood against it.

That is how the Alliance itself was built, and it is why ASW has appreciated regional and global solidarity — with the Deep Sea Mining Campaign, with Yes to Life No to Mining, and with allies in Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Hawaii, Cook Islands, Aotearoa/New Zealand and tacross the Pacific, all pushing together for a Pacific-wide ban.

 

"The Ocean is the source of our livelihoods — we depend on it greatly."

— Lawrence Smith, Balel Conservation, Bougainville

A Message To The Grandchildren

from Molot village, Duke of York Islands in the Biasmarck Sea, Papua New Guinea. Credit: Dr Helen Rosenbaum, Deep Sea Mining Campaign.

Nowhere is the meaning of “Yes to Life” clearer than in the words ASW’s own members chose when asked what they wanted their grandchildren to know about this moment. In the voice of an elder and ASW member from Milne Bay Province:

“My grandchildren, if you are reading this, it means the sea is still alive. It means the reef still has colour, the fish still run, and the spirits still rest in peace in the sea.”

“I am telling you this because big companies came asking to dig up the deep sea floor. They talked about jobs. They talked about money. But we saw the water grow hot, the coral turn white, and the big fish stop coming like they used to. So I, with your other grandparents, made a choice. We stood up and said no. We heard the sea cry. We stood by the law of our ancestors — the chiefs spoke, the Kula leaders spoke, the mothers spoke, the youth spoke.”

“Free, Prior and Informed Consent means: sit properly, talk straight, agree together in truth — and we did not agree to break the seafloor. We carried the pain, so you would not carry the burden. We ate little, so you could eat well later.”

“If you stand on the bow of a canoe and look down and see the colour of the reef — that is our gift to you. Do not let anyone fool you with the word “development.” Real development is when children can still catch fish with their own hands.”

Because of your grandparents’ decision — we live.”

— An Alliance of Solwara Warrior Elder, Milne Bay Province

Yes to Life No to Mining

Fifteen years on, the Solwara Warriors have already won things no court order can undo: a bankrupt mining company, a moratorium no government asked for on its own, a constitutional precedent on the public’s right to know, and a generation of youth who, in ASW’s own words, “see the sea as their identity and pride.”

Traditional knowledge, the Alliance is clear, “is not dying — it’s fighting under heavy pressure,” and it is winning ground: in Locally Managed Marine Areas, in coral farms, in cooperatives, in a fisheries training course, in a shark-calling song still sung on the water.

The threat has not gone away with political leaders who continue to court the very project communities have refused for a decade and a half. But so has the Alliance.

As a global network of communities defending the right to say no, and building the right to say yes, we stand with the Alliance of Solwara Warriors, with the people of the Bismarck and Solomon Seas, and with every coastal community choosing life and culture over short-term money.

“My grandparents fought in their time, so the sea lives.”

— A Milne Bay Elder

For this, we say Yes to Life, No to Mining!

Special Thanks:
Jonathan Mesulam, Coordinator, Alliance of Solwara Warriors (ASW) and Co-founder and Director of the West Coast Development Foundation (WCDF) who interviewed Alliance of Solwara Members across the Bismarck and Solomon Seas and collated the timeline of ‘Fifteen Years of Resistance’.

Editor:
Nat Lowrey, Deep Sea Mining Campaign (DSMC)

ASW, WCDF and DSMC are members of Yes to Life No to Mining

 

The post Warriors Defending Our Mother Nature: The Ocean Is Our Home appeared first on Yes to Life No to Mining.

‘The Great Reformulation’: How some grocery giants are cutting back on food chemicals Ketura Persellin August 24, 2026

Many grocery stores are meeting consumer demand by taking food chemicals off their shelves. 

More than 70% of U.S. adults are concerned about chemicals in their food and water – and they deserve better consumer protections than the federal government has given them.

Due to a legal loophole, almost 99% of all new food chemicals introduced in the past 20 years have been approved by companies themselves, rather than the Food and Drug Administration. The Trump administration recently took a step toward amending that loophole – but it may be years before people see changes in their shopping carts as a result.

Some grocery giants aren’t waiting to act on potentially harmful food chemicals.

Whole Foods is a leader, with a longstanding commitment to ban a lengthy list of ingredients throughout its store. H-E-B, the largest chain in Texas, has banned more than 200 ingredients of concern from its store brand products. Albertons, Kroger, Target and Wegmans have each removed around 100 food chemicals from their store brand items.

Food chemicals are just one feature of a food system that favors industry and leaves the public with too few options for eating well. But understanding how retailers are responding shows how the food landscape is shifting and can help point shoppers in the right direction.

Grocery stores have more control over store-brand products

The products at most grocery retailers fall into one of two categories: name brand goods like Cheerios, and store brand or “private label” goods like Kroger Toasted O’s. 

Private label brands make up close to 25% of most retail sales. Shoppers used to associate more affordable private label brands with lower quality. But that’s changing. More than half of consumers now say they can’t justify spending more on name brands when private label products meet their needs.  

But retailer pledges usually focus on these in-house brands because they own the product lines and have control over the supply chains, so they have more sway here than over manufacturers of brand name products.

‘The Great Reformulation’

Many major grocers are now capitalizing on consumer demand by removing ingredients or reformulating products – a trend one publication calls the Great Reformulation. Many stores’ restrictions and bans focus on ingredients like artificial colors, flavors, preservatives and sweeteners, and some include a much wider range of additives.

Here’s where some of the other top grocery retailers stand.

Retailers with clear commitments and results

Albertsons. The company has removed 110 ingredients from its private label brand, Open Nature. The brand is available in the company’s 20 grocery subsidiaries, including Jewel-Osco and Safeway.

H-E-B. The Texas staple’s store brands feature their Select Ingredients seal, indicating products are free from more than 203 ingredients.

Kroger. Kroger’s Simple Truth and Simple Truth Organic store brands date back more than a decade. As of 2021, its product lines were free of more than 101 ingredients.

Target. Target’s private label brand, Good & Gather, is free of more than 100 ingredients of concern. In 2026, Target announced it would remove synthetic dyes from all cereal sold in its stores.

Wegmans. Wegmans launched its Food You Feel Good About line in 1991, with restrictions on artificial colors, flavors, preservatives and sweeteners. Its website currently lists close to 100 ingredients of concern that are not used in its private label products.

Whole Foods. Whole Foods has had storewide standards for colors, flavors and preservatives since it opened its doors in 1980. Today a list of 300 banned or restricted chemicals is easy to find on the Whole Foods website. 

Retailers with commitments and some signs of success

Aldi. Aldi removed 13 ingredients, including artificial colors, from its store brand line more than a decade ago. This year, Aldi announced it would ban 44 more chemical ingredients from all of its private label foods, vitamins and supplements by December 2027. 

Trader Joe’s. Trader Joe’s inventory is dominated by its private label products. The store generally commits to no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives in their product – with some exceptions – but doesn’t offer a full list of banned ingredients.

Walmart. Last year, Walmart pledged to eliminate synthetic dyes and 30 other ingredients from its Great Value brand. Sam’s Club, which is owned by Walmart, has already removed more than 40 ingredients of concern from its Member’s Mark products.

Retailers with pledges but few signs of progress

Ahold Delhaize USA. In 2018, Ahold Delhaize USA – owner of Giant, Hannaford’s, Food Lion and Stop and Shop – pledged to remove all synthetic colors, artificial flavors, artificial preservatives, sweeteners, MSG and high fructose corn syrup from private label products by 2025. But their 2025 annual report made no mention of the initiative, and no updates have been issued since.

Retailers without public pledges

Costco. The company has yet to announce any commitment to remove ingredients of concern from its product line, Kirkland Signature. A proposed class-action lawsuit earlier this year accused Costco of falsely advertising “no preservatives” in its rotisserie chicken.

States are stepping in to regulate chemicals of concern 

States are also leading efforts to fill gaps in federal regulation.

A 2023 California law banned four toxic chemicals from food products manufactured, distributed or sold in the state, and a 2024 law banned six food chemicals from food served in public schools. 

Other states have since launched efforts to restrict ingredients in food sold in their stores. As of August, more than 150 bills had been introduced and 20 signed into law. Take a look at EWG’s interactive food legislation map to find out more.

When it comes to harmful chemicals in food and packaging, states are often better – and faster – at providing consumer protections than the federal government. State laws have been so effective that they’re now being targeted by the food and beverage industry, which is backing legislation that would erase many state consumer protections.

What to look for when you shop

For many families, it can be hard to eat healthy. Avoiding food chemicals of concern is one challenge among many others, including affordability, access and the addictive nature of many highly processed foods.

That’s why EWG pushes for policies that can make healthy eating easier for everyone. In the meantime, there are a few tools that can help you navigate the grocery store:

• Take a look at EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals™, which highlights some of the most concerning chemicals still allowed in the U.S. food supply.
• Consult EWG’s Food Scores to find out what’s in your food. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods and can help you identify less-processed alternatives.
• Use our label reading guide. It helps you scan ingredient lists for items you wouldn’t have in your home kitchen, and make sure to check how much added sugar, salt and saturated fat is in your food.
• And when you’re on the go, check our Healthy Living app to find products.

Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Ketura Persellin Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN August 25, 2026

Should ‘city slickers’ receive farm subsidies? Anthony Lacey August 24, 2026

Farm subsidies should go only to people living or working on a farm. 

That’s what Senate Agriculture Committee members Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) agreed on when the panel debated the farm bill earlier this month. Grassley, a long-time advocate for ensuring farm subsidy recipients are “actively engaged” on a farm, and Welch both said subsidies for people living in the country’s largest cities makes little sense. 

EWG has long held the same position. 

For years we’ve tracked the billions of dollars paid out in farm subsidies to people who don’t live or work on farms. We recently found that more than 92,000 “city slickers” living in some of the biggest metropolitan areas in the U.S. took in more than $2.6 billion in farm subsidies between 2020 and 2025.

Although it seems no one believes paying these city slickers makes sense, Republicans at the recent Senate farm bill hearing voted against doing anything about it.

‘Actively engaged’

Welch proposed a series of amendments to the pending farm bill that would ensure that people who collect subsidies live or work on a farm. They would also lower payment limits on those subsidies and address fraud in two of the largest farm subsidy programs. 

If adopted and enacted, these changes would help taxpayers and family farmers. 

One of his amendments would have simply required an audit of some farm subsidy recipients when a subsidy program has a high “error rate,” which indicates farmers may have been paid too much.

Welch suggested subsidies should go to people “on tractors” and offered the amendment to audit certain farms.

Grassley agreed, saying, “You and I believe that people who are actively engaged are the only ones who should be receiving farm payments.” 

Grassley also said runaway farm subsidies are driving up the cost of farming, making it harder for family farmers to compete with their larger, more heavily subsidized neighbors. “We should be helping those farmers who can’t help themselves,” not the biggest corporate farms collecting the lion’s share of farm subsidies, he said. 

When Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in 2025, lawmakers enlarged loopholes that make it easier for the largest farm operations to get more money. 

The bill allowed every member of a farm partnership to collect up to $155,000, so long as the farm is organized as a pass-through entity, such as a joint venture, S corporation, or limited liability corporation.

Since the new law was enacted, the number of “city slickers” collecting farm subsidies has increased by 13,000 – even if some of those recipients never step foot on a farm. 

One of Welch’s amendments would have only required an audit when the “error rate” for two farm subsidy programs exceeded 6%. Agriculture Department studies show that the error rate for the two programs topped 6% in 2022 and 8% in 2023, resulting in more than $567 million in improper payments. 

Republicans have insisted that states should share more of the cost of anti-hunger programs when the error rate exceeds 6 percent, so simply requiring an audit when farm subsidy program error rates exceed 6 percent seems reasonable, right? 

Wrong. 

Grassley and other committee Republicans voted against Welch’s audit amendment. Democrats refuse to support the GOP farm bill in part because it fails to address deep funding cuts to anti-hunger programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP. 

So Grassley said he would not be able to support any amendments Democrats offer.

Dairy farm subsidies

Even Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) seemed to agree that farmers – or at least Welch’s dairy farmers – should have to live or work on farms if they receive farm subsidies. 

Unlike other farm subsidy programs – which can make a payment regardless of whether the “farmer” actually harvests a crop – dairy subsidies are automatically terminated if a dairy receiving them stops producing milk. 

Welch said that the principle – of subsidies going only to people who truly live and work on farms – should apply to all farmers, no matter what they produce.

He said, “Whether it’s the SNAP program or it’s a [farm] support program, the intention of Congress is that the actual farmer that gets the money or the actual person who is in need of nutrition gets the nutrition aid.” 

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Authors Geoff Horsfield August 24, 2026

This is a guest post by Camilo Sánchez, a communications strategist working for Greenpeace International.

We are living through a cost of living crisis that is being treated as if it were a mysterious, purely “economic” event, when in reality it has a clear, combustible cause: our dependence on coal, oil and gas. Across the United States, Europe and far beyond, the main driver of recent price surges has not been wages or “too much money” in the system, but repeated fossil fuel shocks feeding into everything from electricity bills to food prices. When we talk about inflation today, in many countries we are mostly talking about fossilflation, a price spiral rooted in the fossil fuel system itself.

War, chokepoints and the human cost of fossilflation

The US‑Israeli war on Iran is first and foremost a human catastrophe, with thousands of lives lost, families displaced and communities facing bombing, blackouts and water cuts across Iran and the wider Middle East. Those impacts are compounded by the environmental devastation of burning refineries, major oil spills, leaking pipelines and militarised shipping lanes, whose toxic fallout will last far beyond the nightly news cycle. At the same time, the decision to wage war in a region that carried a substantial share of the world’s oil and LNG has triggered what the International Energy Agency calls the worst energy crisis since the 1970s, sending fuel, food and transport prices soaring.

The closure and repeated disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, which controls around a fifth of global oil and gas shipping, has shown again how easily a single chokepoint can turn into a global economic weapon. Another fossil fuel chokepoint, the Bab al‑Mandeb strait, has become a flashpoint in a connected war over Red Sea shipping and Yemen, against the backdrop of the same energy shock. This strategically located transit route has enabled Saudi Arabia to boost its oil revenue during the crisis, even as missile threats and blockade politics deepen a humanitarian emergency and ripple into higher bills far from the frontline. As long as our energy system relies on oil and gas flowing through war‑prone chokepoints, war anywhere becomes a crisis everywhere.

The US‑Israeli war on Iran is not an isolated episode. Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine, earlier energy crises and repeated OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) supply squeezes have all followed a familiar pattern, fossil fuel prices surge, inflation jumps, whiteland households are left to absorb the shock through higher bills. Each time, governments and central banks talk about “temporary energy noise”, but the reality is that every fossil shock leaves a permanent mark on the price level, pushing people deeper into hardship even after headline inflation starts to fall again.

Governments are bailing out fossil fuels, not people

August 06 2023, Canada, Alberta. Tar Sand Processing in Alberta near Fort McMurray. © Markus Mauthe / Greenpeace

Since fossilflation is driven by oil and gas, governments must cut down their countries’ dependence on fossil fuels as a response to energy shocks. But this is not what we are seeing. An analysis of seven EU countries’ responses to the US‑Israeli war on Iran shows that most emergency packages have been designed to protect fossil fuel consumption rather than to cut dependence on it. Across Europe, roughly 86% of crisis spending by governments is encouraging more fossil fuel use through fuel tax cuts, broad VAT reductions on energy (cutting sales tax on everyone’s gas and electricity bills) and untargeted subsidies (direct payments or price supports for fossil fuel costs for all consumers rather than prioritising support for the most vulnerable households. 

Spain, Germany, and Ireland have spent the most on broad fossil fuel bailouts by cutting fuel taxes across the board. This brings prices down for now, but keeps these countries hooked on imported oil and gas.

The Spanish government’s energy relief €5 billion package is a mixed bag: it includes protection for people against rising energy costs and measures towards shifting to renewables but also a massive tax break for heavy industry, making it one of Europe’s strongest renewable energy commitments and one of its biggest fossil fuel lock-ins, at the same time.

Despite its bold climate rhetoric, Germany’s actual response to the energy price shock has been almost entirely fuel tax cuts and price caps, nothing that meaningfully reduces its fossil fuel dependence.

The Netherlands and Sweden have done better, putting more money into things like energy-efficient homes, heat pump incentives, and cheaper public transport. But even they still spend heavily on fossil fuel subsidies.

Overall, none of these seven EU countries has a plan that actually ends fossil fuel dependence, all are allocating more to fossil fuel bailouts than to structural solutions.

Such measures make fossil fuels cheaper to keep using, rather than helping people use less of them which is not only inconsistent with climate goals, it also deepens inequality. Broad tax cuts and general fuel untargeted subsidies tend to benefit higher‑income households and sectors with high fossil consumption, while leaving the poorest communities with only partial relief and no long‑term protection. Only a small share of the government spending is going towards reducing fossil fuel for good, or speeding up the transition to renewables.

Instead of using limited  public budgets to insulate buildings, expand clean public transport, support agroecology and tax windfall fossil profits, many governments are effectively writing cheques to the fossil fuel industry, hoping that temporary discounts will buy social peace.

Fossilflation, inequality and peace

Fossilflation is not just a technical issue for central bankers, it is a justice and peace issue. Every time oil and gas prices surge, it is ordinary households, especially in low‑income communities on the frontlines of climate impacts, that pay the price through rising bills and reduced public services. In the first 50 days of the US‑Israeli war on Iran, an estimated 150 billion dollars moved from households to oil and gas companies through higher energy prices alone, while governments worldwide are on track to spend around 1.1 trillion US dollars propping up the fossil fuel industry in 2026.

Meanwhile, the social and environmental costs of fossilflation are enormous too. Air pollution from burning coal, oil and gas is linked to roughly 8.7 million premature deaths a year worldwide, and climate‑driven disasters such as floods and heatwaves add hundreds of millions of euros to energy bills in countries like France and Germany on top of lives lost. When governments choose to preserve fossil fuel profits and military alliances over people’s wellbeing, they are effectively trading peace and stability for an economy built on volatile, violent energy sources.

May 01 2002, Germany, Ingolstadt. Esso Refinery. © Jens Küsters / Greenpeace

Dependence on fossil fuel chokepoints such as Hormuz and Bab al‑Mandeb also undermines peace directly. It gives armed actors leverage over global energy prices, incentivises military protection of shipping lanes, and turns entire regions into geopolitical battlegrounds where civilians pay in parts: first through war and destruction, then through the economic fallout and ultimately, through more extreme weather. Breaking this dependence is therefore imperative not only to the climate imperative but also to peace.

The way out: decentralised renewables and a fair response to fossilflation

August 16 2023, Indonesia, Jakarta. Electric Bus in Jakarta.© Jurnasyanto Sukarno / Greenpeace

The evidence from the US, Europe and conflict zones points to a clear conclusion: tackling fossilflation means ending our dependence on oil and gas. There is no shortage of sunlight or wind threatening our energy security, what keeps our societies vulnerable is the decision to stick with fuels whose price and supply can be disrupted at any moment by Trump’s mood, a pipeline explosion or a war.

A coherent response needs four pillars.

• Decentralised, price‑stable renewables. Wind and solar have become the cheapest forms of new electricity generation in history, with solar costs falling by around 87% and battery storage by more than 90% since 2010, and they do not depend on shipping through war‑prone chokepoints. Scaling up local energy communities, rooftop solar, heat pumps, smart grids and green storage can turn households and communities from passive bill‑payers into active participants in a resilient energy system.
• Demand reduction and fair transport. Instead of subsidising fossil fuels for private cars, governments can introduce affordable climate tickets for public transport, strengthen rail networks and night trains, and support remote working and speed limits to cut oil demand. Fair transport policies reduce emissions and shield people from future oil price spikes.

June 10 2015, Japan, Kanagawa-ken. Neighbors Visiting at Farmer’s Market in Japan © Kayo Sawaguchi / Greenpeace

• Resilient food system. Large‑scale renovation of homes, phasing out gas from buildings, and investing in agroecology to break dependence on fossil‑based fertilisers can turn cities and rural areas into climate‑resilient spaces, while making heating and food more affordable in the long run.
• Tax justice and ending fossil fuel bailouts. Ending fossil fuel subsidies and broad tax cuts, introducing permanent taxes on super‑profits and on the ultra‑rich, and banning fossil fuel advertising can help fund solutions that can actually protect people from energy shocks while accelerating the transition.

February 24 2025, Germany, Nauen. Wind Farm. © Paul Langrock / Greenpeace

Breaking free from fossil fuels is not just climate policy, it is an anti-inflation policy, social policy and peace policy. As long as we remain locked into oil and gas, we will remain trapped in repeated cycles of fossilflation, war‑fuelled price shocks and widening inequality. Shifting to renewables, efficiency, fair taxation and justice‑based solutions, is both the opportunity and the precondition for real energy independence, economic stability and lasting peace.

What can you do?

For us to fully tackle this situation, we have to look at both its causes and its solutions. You can start by calling it the right way: fossilflation, so that we put the light on the oil and gas addiction that is causing this crisis in the first place.

Together with that, you can also demand your government to tax those fossil fuel polluters that are reaping astronomical profits from the war. That money would fund the policies and measures that are needed to protect you and your community in this and the next crises, as well as to finance the shift towards the clean, stable and renewable energies that we so urgently need.

The post When oil sets the price appeared first on 350.

EWG statement on decision upholding EPA ‘hazardous substances’ designation for two PFAS Monica Amarelo August 21, 2026

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court in a unanimous ruling this week rejected industry groups’ lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s  “hazardous substances” designation for two “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. 

The lawsuit, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenged the Biden EPA’s 2024 rule that, for the first time, designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law, formally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA. PFOA and PFOS are two of the most studied PFAS.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, including one judge nominated by former President Barack Obama and two nominated by President Donald Trump, issued the Aug. 18 ruling. They found that the EPA acted within its CERCLA authority in making the designation. The court also found that holding polluters accountable for cleanup costs is a core purpose of the Superfund law.

The Environmental Working Group and a broad coalition of environmental, health and community advocates welcomed the designation when the EPA first proposed it, in 2022, and again when the agency finalized it, in 2024. 

The rule was long overdue, considering the scale of PFAS contamination nationwide. It gives the agency new tools to address PFOA and PFOS contamination at sites throughout the U.S.

The ruling means polluters, not taxpayers, will remain on the hook for cleanup costs at sites with PFOA and PFOS contamination – something EWG and its allies have long called for.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs:

For decades, chemical giants like DuPont and 3M knew PFOA and PFOS were poisoning communities and covered it up anyway. This week, the D.C. Circuit made it clear: Companies don’t get to buy their way out of that legacy through litigation.

This ruling shuts the door on industry’s last-ditch attempt to dodge cleanup costs for two of the most notorious forever chemicals.

The science on PFAS harms has been clear for years. These chemicals are linked to weakened vaccine response, higher risk of certain cancers, thyroid disruption and harm to the developing reproductive system, even at extremely low levels.

The court didn’t just uphold a regulation. It upheld the basic principle that polluters, not taxpayers or contaminated communities, should pay to clean up the mess they make.

This isn’t the end of the fight.

With this precedent, the EPA has a clear legal path to designate the more hazardous PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances, and it should move quickly to do so.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 21, 2026

• August 21, 2026

Extreme Weather And Rising Electricity Costs – The Green Connection Urges Parliament To Withdraw Proposed Gas Bill, Warns Of Climate, Community And Financial Risks

As communities in South Africa and around the world face increasingly severe weather events, and local households grapple with unaffordable electricity prices, following another major tariff increase, The Green Connection is urging Parliament to withdraw the proposed Gas Bill. The eco-justice organisation warns that the Bill could lock South Africa into long-term fossil-fuel infrastructure, expose electricity consumers to volatile international gas prices, weaken protections for affected communities and landowners, and give the Minister sweeping new powers. Most fundamentally, the Bill is not aligned with South Africa’s climate commitments or the Climate Change Act.

The Green Connection submitted detailed comments on the Bill to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Electricity and Energy on 7 August 2026, calling for the legislation to be withdrawn. The proposed legislation would repeal the Gas Act of 2001 and replace it with a new framework intended to promote a gas industry that largely does not yet exist in South Africa.

The Green Connection’s Advocacy Lead, Lisa Makaula says, “The Bill makes no reference to the Climate Change Act, South Africa’s emissions targets or the just transition, despite the need for new legislation to support the country’s climate commitments. It also treats liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a “clean” or “transition” fuel, despite growing scientific concern about methane emissions and the climate impacts of expanding fossil-fuel infrastructure. Since gas licences could be issued for up to 25 years, this could potentially extend well beyond the period in which South Africa has committed to achieving net-zero emissions.”

Natural gas is made up primarily of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming. Over a 20-year period, methane traps roughly 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide. Reducing methane emissions is therefore considered one of the fastest ways to slow near-term global warming. However, the proposed Gas Bill contains no explicit requirements to monitor, report or limit methane leaks across the gas value chain.

At a time when communities are already experiencing the consequences of a changing climate, The Green Connection says it is deeply concerned that Parliament is considering legislation that could facilitate further fossil-fuel development without adequately addressing these climate risks.

“South Africa has recently experienced severe cold conditions and snowfall in parts of KwaZulu-Natal and other provinces, while communities in Europe continue to face record-breaking heat, drought and wildfires. While individual weather events cannot simply be attributed to climate change, scientists have established that a warming climate is increasing the likelihood and intensity of many types of extreme weather,” adds Makaula.

The Bill also raises concerns about affordability because imported LNG is exposed to international markets, where gas prices can be highly volatile. Expanding gas-fired electricity generation could therefore expose South African electricity consumers to global price shocks. According to The Green Connection, these costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers through higher electricity tariffs, placing additional pressure on households already struggling with the cost of living. What South Africans need is an energy future that is affordable, sustainable and aligned with our climate
commitments. Expanding dependence on imported gas seems to be taking us in the opposite direction.

Gas pipeline infrastructure (left/top), rising household utility costs (right/bottom)

According to The Green Connection’s Outreach Ambassador, Neville van Rooy, “Another huge concern is that the Bill could reduce precious public safeguards at precisely the time when communities need a greater say in decisions affecting their lives, livelihoods and land. Repealing the current Gas Act puts existing protections at risk, including requirements relating to fair processes, notification of affected people, local-language advertising and environmental rehabilitation. Too risky for the people, the proposed Bill leaves many of these matters to ministerial discretion, without guaranteeing that equivalent protections will be put in place.”

“The Bill would also give the Minister broad powers, including to determine which activities require licences, granting exemptions and deciding whether to expropriate land. Concentrating these powers in the hands of the Minister, while weakening independent oversight and public participation, could allow decisions about nationally significant infrastructure to be made without sufficient input from the people most directly affected,” says van Rooy.

Land rights, including customary and informal land rights, are a particular concern here because the proposed Bill would allow the Minister to initiate expropriation, while removing or weakening some of these safeguards, whereas under the current framework, expropriation can take place at a licensee’s request, following a public hearing and with compensation provided. The Bill also fails to adequately protect the rights of traditional and Khoi-San communities.

He says, “South Africa’s experience shows why strong protections and meaningful participation are necessary. Communities such as those in Xolobeni have had to fight for years to protect their land, livelihoods and way of life from extractive developments. As an organisation working alongside small-scale fishers and coastal communities, we are particularly concerned that people who could be directly affected by gas infrastructure have not been adequately considered. Small-scale fishing communities, fishing co-operatives and fishing-dependent communities are absent from the Bill’s supporting socio-economic assessment, despite the potential impacts of coastal gas infrastructure on marine ecosystems and livelihoods.”

The Green Connection has raised further concerns about the Final Socio-Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIAS) report supporting the Bill, which appears to belong to an earlier version of the legislation an amendment rather than the proposed repeal-and-replacement of the Gas Act and therefore does not accurately reflect the Bill currently before Parliament. It also uses incorrect clause numbers and predates key developments in South Africa’s climate legislation. Moreover, the assessment does not adequately consider the implications for small-scale fishers, fishing co-operatives and fishing-dependent communities.

The proposed Gas Bill forms part of a broader package of fossil-fuel policy framework currently being advanced in South Africa that is not aligned with the Climate Change Act and could expose taxpayers to significant environmental liabilities. This includes the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development (UPRD) Act, which The Green Connection argues could lock the country into long-term fossil-fuel dependence while sidelining public participation and coastal communities. It also includes the proposed South African National Petroleum Company (SANPC) Bill, which seeks to consolidate state oil and gas assets.

The organisation says these legislative developments should be considered together, rather than as isolated pieces of legislation, because of their potential implications for South Africa’s climate commitments, energy costs, public finances and community livelihoods.

“We urge Parliament to withdraw the Bill and reconsider whether expanding imported gas infrastructure is consistent with South Africa’s climate commitments and broader social and economic objectives. However, should Parliament decide to proceed, the Bill requires substantial amendments to ensure that it is aligned with the Climate Change Act and national emissions targets, and it will be critical to introduce meaningful methane monitoring and reporting requirements. The Bill must protect public participation and environmental safeguards and recognise customary and informal land rights in ways that guarantee fair compensation. Meaningful consultation with communities affected by gas infrastructure must be a requirement. Finally, adequate funding must be made available for decommissioning and environmental rehabilitation,” Makaula concludes.

The Green Connection is also calling for public hearings in affected coastal provinces and for the Bill to be referred to the National Council of Provinces and the National House of Traditional and Khoi-San leaders.

The eco-justice organisation says, “The choices made today will affect generations to come. South Africa cannot afford long-term energy decisions that ignore climate science, community rights and economic realities.”

June 4, 2026 Past News JUDGMENT RESERVED: HIGH COURT CONSIDERS ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING WEST COAST SEISMIC SURVEY APPROVAL

On Tuesday afternoon, the Western Cape High Court concluded a two-day hearing in the ongoing legal challenge by Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co-operative, The Green Connection and Natural Justice (the Applicants) against the State and TGS Geophysical Company UK Ltd.

June 26, 2026 Past News Saldanha Red Dust Emissions Decision Referred to National Environment Department

On 25 June 2026, The Green Connection welcomed the West Coast District Municipality’s decision to reject Transnet Port Terminals’ application to renew an Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) for the Saldanha Iron Ore Terminal.

June 30, 2026 Past News (Op-Ed) Ska Fela Moya: Don’t Give Up, Just Breathe The Fumes

When a corporation wraps itself in the language of human endurance while polluting the air that athletes breathe, we should name it for what it is. A lost opportunity.

July 14, 2026 Latest News OPEN LETTER: GREEN CONNECTION QUESTIONS ISRAELI OIL COMPANY’S BID FOR SOUTH AFRICAN OFFSHORE BLOCK AMID ICJ CASE

Environmental justice organisation The Green Connection has written an open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa about reports that Israeli-owned Navitas Petroleum LP is set to become operator of offshore oil and gas exploration Block 1 CBK in the Orange Basin off South Africa’s West Coast.

The post Extreme Weather And Rising Electricity Costs – The Green Connection Urges Parliament To Withdraw Proposed Gas Bill, Warns Of Climate, Community And Financial Risks appeared first on The Green Connection.

Thanks to state laws, Dollar Tree is pledging to remove ‘forever chemicals’ from its shelves Monica Amarelo August 20, 2026

If you’ve ever wondered whether state chemical safety laws actually change what ends up on store shelves, Dollar Tree just answered: yes – and faster than consumers might think.

For years, the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS have turned up in personal care products, food packaging, children’s toys and household cleaners sold at dollar stores and everywhere else. Dollar Tree, which operates more than 8,000 stores in the U.S. and Canada, has now pledged to get PFAS out of its products.

Get Your FREE Copy of EWG's Guide To Avoiding PFAS Chemicals

In its chemical management policy, the retailer committed to restricting forever chemicals in its private-label food packaging, children’s products and toys, and formulated products like cleaning supplies and personal care items. By the end of 2027, Dollar Tree suppliers must be able to declare in writing that PFAS haven’t been intentionally added.

Dollar Tree didn’t just decide one day on its own to get tougher on chemicals. It made the change in part because states took decisive action. 

States led, retailers followed

Dollar Tree’s policy explicitly follows restrictions “already adopted in some states.” That’s not a coincidence. It’s exactly how state chemical safety laws are designed to work.

• 13 states now ban PFAS in food packaging, starting with Washington, in 2022.
• 9 states restrict PFAS in children’s products and toys, from California (since 2023) through Illinois (phasing in by 2032).
• 12 states restrict PFAS in cosmetics and personal care products
• 6 states restrict PFAS in household cleaners specifically

For more information on states’ regulation of PFAS as a class in consumer products, visit Safer States. The organization tracks the compliance year for each law, category by category.

Nearly every category in Dollar Tree’s new policy corresponds to one or more specific state laws. 

One retailer’s policy has a national impact

State chemical safety laws typically exert an influence that extends beyond their own borders. 

When a state bans PFAS in one product category, national retailers face a choice: Maintain two (or more) separate supply chains, one complying with a specific state’s law and one that doesn’t and is sold everywhere else, or simplify their production lines by using the safer version only.

Increasingly, companies choose to streamline. It’s cheaper to run one supply chain than two. 

And once a retailer builds the infrastructure to screen out a chemical for California, Maine or Minnesota, it’s fairly straightforward, and good business, to apply that standard nationwide. 

So a law enacted by one state can ultimately protect shoppers in every state, whether or not other states’ lawmakers act.

This is precisely the ripple effect EWG and our state group partners have been fighting for, bill by bill, state by state, targeting toxic chemicals, including PFAS.

Tackling additional chemicals

Other chemicals of concern, such as bisphenols, formaldehyde and parabens, are on Dollar Tree’s list to remove from its private-label products. The retailer’s updated policy lays out real deadlines, not just intentions:

• Formaldehyde-releasing chemicals will be phased out of private-brand formulated products by the end of 2028.
• Two parabens – propylparaben and butylparaben – are already restricted. Four more will be added by 2028, bringing the total to six restricted parabens, all linked to hormone disruption.
• Bisphenol A and bisphenol S, chemicals of concern in food-contact materials, will be restricted from food packaging by 2028.

Within two years, Dollar Tree will also cut in half – as measured against a 2026 baseline – the number of household cleaners and air fresheners containing restricted chemicals.

Starting in 2027, the company has committed to reporting publicly on its progress, including the share of its private-label formulated products that can be fully screened for chemicals of concern, and the share of the screened assortment that’s free of them. 

PFAS exposure health risks

States are targeting PFAS in particular because they don’t break down in the environment or in the human body, so even low, repeated doses build up over time – that’s why they’re called forever chemicals. 

Research links exposure to weakened vaccine response, higher risk of certain cancers, thyroid disruption and harm to the developing reproductive system.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. The chemicals cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that exposure can begin before birth.

That’s the health backdrop behind the categories Dollar Tree’s policy targets first: children’s products and toys, food packaging and formulated products such as cleaning supplies and personal care items.

What this means if you shop at Dollar Tree

Dollar Tree’s intentions are clear, and states pushed the company toward them. But not every product on its shelves will be PFAS-free tomorrow. These are phased-in commitments with multi-year timelines, not an overnight transformation. 

You don’t have to wait until 2027 to shop smarter. Here’s are a few things you can do now:

• Check the Healthy Living™ app before you buy. Search a cleaning or personal care product by name, or scan its barcode in the store, for its EWG rating and the science behind the score. Then compare options side by side to choose with confidence.
• Look for the EWG Verified® mark. Products carrying it already meet strict standards to avoid intentionally added PFAS and other chemicals of concern. You don’t need to wait for retailers.
• Use Food Scores for packaged food. Check ingredients, whether or not it’s an ultra-processed food and packaging concerns where available, before it goes in your cart.

Areas of Focus Food Personal Care Products Cosmetics Household & Consumer Products Cleaning Supplies Cookware & Food Containers Family Health BPA PFAS Chemicals Your wallet and your family’s health will both benefit Authors Monica Amarelo August 20, 2026

For years, the Akademik Lomonosov looked like one of the nuclear industry’s more eccentric experiments: two reactors mounted on a barge and towed thousands of kilometers to Pevek, a tiny Russian port above the Arctic Circle.

But next week, representatives of the nuclear and maritime industries will gather in Washington to discuss whether something resembling Russia’s experiment could become considerably more commonplace.

On August 26 and 27, the International Atomic Energy Agency will formally launch ATLAS — Atomic Technologies Licensed for Applications at Sea — an initiative aimed at developing an international bureaucratic framework for civilian nuclear technologies at sea. The project encompasses both floating nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered commercial ships, bringing together two industries whose regulatory worlds have historically not much intersected.

The event is significantly timed. After decades on the fringes of the nuclear industry, maritime reactors are attracting new interest as small modular reactor developers search for markets and the shipping industry looks for ways to decarbonize.

The United States is already preparing. In July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Marine Minerals Administration signed an agreement establishing how the agencies would divide responsibility if developers propose nuclear projects on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. No such commercial projects have yet been proposed, but the government is creating a regulatory pathway before they arrive. The NRC is separately developing guidance for licensing floating plants and nuclear propulsion systems.

Russia got there first

None of this is entirely theoretical. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov has been supplying electricity from Pevek since 2019 and entered commercial operation in 2020. Its two KLT-40S reactors provide roughly 70 megawatts of generating capacity, making it the world’s only operating commercial floating nuclear power station.

Bellona has followed—and criticized—the project since construction began in 2006, raising questions about its economics, radioactive waste, spent fuel, maritime accidents and the risks inherent in moving nuclear materials through remote Arctic waters. The plant also became an illustration of nuclear megaproject delays: construction ultimately took 13 years rather than the four originally envisioned.

But Rosatom has not abandoned the concept. Quite the opposite.

The Russian state nuclear corporation is now trying to turn the Lomonosov experiment into a repeatable model. Four newer floating power units equipped with RITM-200S reactors are planned to supply the remote Baimskaya mining project in Chukotka. In May, Rosatom announced completion of the first reactor unit for the project.

That project also demonstrates why floating nuclear power may prove considerably more complicated than simply putting a small reactor on a barge.

Russian shipyards lacked the capacity to build the first two hulls on the required schedule, forcing Rosatom to outsource them to China’s Wison shipyard. The first Chinese-built hull arrived at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg this spring, where its Russian reactors and turbines are to be installed.

In other words, floating nuclear plants promise factory-style construction, but Russia’s experience suggests that they still require an elaborate international industrial supply chain.

New technology, new vulnerabilities

The renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power at sea also arrives at an unsettling moment for international nuclear security. Recent wars have challenged a longstanding assumption underlying civilian nuclear power—that reactors and other nuclear facilities remain insulated from military conflict.

Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has turned Europe’s largest nuclear station into part of an active war zone, repeatedly exposing the site to explosions, drone activity and losses of external power. In February 2025, a drone struck and badly damaged the New Safe Confinement protecting the remains of the destroyed Chernobyl reactor. And this year, projectiles struck the grounds of Iran’s operating Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant during the war there, though no reactor damage or radioactive release was reported.

None of these incidents produced a major radiological accident. But together they raise a question that becomes especially important as nuclear power moves offshore: Does mobility make a reactor safer in wartime—or simply create new ways for it to become vulnerable?

A floating plant could theoretically be moved away from a threatened area, something impossible for a conventional reactor. But a reactor moored in a harbor or supplying an isolated military, mining or industrial installation could also become a conspicuous strategic target. Its electrical connections, cooling systems, moorings and supporting infrastructure may be more exposed than those of a heavily protected land-based plant. And a nuclear-powered commercial ship introduces another problem entirely: unlike Zaporizhzhia or Bushehr, it could actually sail into or through a conflict zone.

A nuclear plant without an address

The technical problems with floating nuclear plants may be easier to solve than the legal ones. Nuclear regulation has traditionally assumed that a reactor stays put. Maritime law, by contrast, is built around vessels that cross borders and operate under different flag, coastal and port-state jurisdictions. A floating reactor forces those systems together.

Who licenses a reactor built in one country, registered in another and moored in a third? Who takes responsibility for its nuclear waste and spent fuel? Which country is responsible for safeguards if the plant moves? What happens when a nuclear-powered ship enters a foreign port—or when a floating reactor must be evacuated because of war or extreme weather?

The IAEA has identified refueling, maintenance, remote operation, safeguards, security and international regulatory harmonization among the issues that must be resolved. Meanwhile, the International Maritime Organization is revising its own 1981 safety code for nuclear merchant ships, with adoption of a new code currently envisioned for 2030.

The appeal nevertheless seems obvious. Floating plants could be assembled in specialized shipyards rather than constructed individually at remote sites, then delivered to isolated communities, mines, islands or industrial projects whose grids cannot support conventional gigawatt-scale reactors. When their work is finished, they could theoretically be removed.

That is the vision ATLAS will begin trying to turn into a workable international system next week.

Russia, meanwhile, has already spent nearly two decades discovering what happens when that idea encounters reality. Its experience suggests floating nuclear power can work—to a point. Whether it can be made economical, replicable and safe enough to operate around the world is a much larger question—and one the rest of the nuclear industry is suddenly eager to answer.

The post Floating nuclear power was a Russian curiosity. Now others want to give it a shot appeared first on Bellona.org.

Restoring cuts to two USDA programs will help more farmers adopt regenerative agriculture Anthony Lacey August 20, 2026

When federal conservation programs have adequate funding, more farmers sign up and put the money toward the most environmentally beneficial and cost-effective regenerative agriculture practices. 

But these programs are in danger of even more cuts.

House and Senate Republicans are floating farm bill proposals that would further reduce funding for the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, and Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP. 

The bill as written would leave more than 56,500 valid farmer applications unfunded by EQIP over the next few fiscal years. The key states set to be hit hardest by estimated cuts and unfunded valid contracts are:

• Arkansas – $81.6 million and 2,232 contracts
• Alabama – $35.9 million and 2,171 contracts
• Kansas – $51.6 million and 1,593 contracts
• West Virginia – $17 million and 661 contracts 
• Georgia – $62.8 million and 2,411 contracts
• Colorado – $56.5 million and 822 contracts

Regenerative agriculture practices such as cover crops and riparian buffers can help increase farm resilience and profitability while also improving the environment. Although they need reform, these programs help reduce agriculture’s air and water pollution, and add to farm resilience. 

Independent analysis has found between 70% and 120% higher profitability for farms that adopt regenerative agriculture practices and a return on investment of 15% to 25% over 10 years. Restoring funding for EQIP and CSP could help more farmers adopt practices that should also help secure their future financial stability.

Preventing those cuts could provide tens of thousands of farmers with continued support for vital conservation projects. Two amendments to the draft farm bill, offered by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), would restore funding to the programs.

If Congress adopts either amendment, significantly more farmers would receive EQIP and CSP support than they would under the current Republican bill. 

EQIP and CSP funding

In 2024, nearly $1.9 billion in USDA conservation support went to practices that increase regenerative agriculture. But as available funding shrank, in 2025, federal support for those regenerative practices dropped by more than $1 billion.

As money for these popular programs disappears, fewer and fewer farmers are able to receive the support they need. In contrast, when funding is available for these programs, existing participants put more funding into good practices and more farmers are able to take part.

The EQIP and CSP are two of the largest federal conservation programs. They are vital to helping farmers adopt regenerative agriculture practices. 

The White House’s own Make America Healthy Again strategy highlighted the importance of expanding the two programs: 

Empowering farmers and keeping solutions voluntary by expanding programs like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and Conservation Stewardship Program, all while avoiding burdensome mandates; [and] keeping decision-making local and practical with solutions from the farm, not Washington, D.C.

Despite the Trump administration strategy, the House-passed farm bill and the Senate version under consideration would cut the two programs by over $2.4 billion.  

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, included billions more dollars for EQIP and CSP as an opportunity for farmers and ranchers.

Before the IRA funding, just 31% of applicants received an EQIP contract, leaving a backlog of thousands of farmers and ranchers. Following the IRA funding, 43% of farmers received EQIP funding for 2024. 

States had made progress with the IRA funding in  eliminating a backlog of applications – and the additional funding inspired more farmers to apply. 

All farmers and ranchers, regardless of what they grow or where they live, are eligible for conservation funding. That means the farmers who grow fruits and vegetables – the food that the dietary guidelines for Americans and doctors tell us to eat – are more likely to get this money than traditional subsidies. 

Farmers of color, beginning farmers and women are also much more likely to receive EQIP and CSP funds than farm subsidies. If Congress wants to support these farmers and ranchers, conservation programs have an outsized role to play. 

Regenerative agriculture funding went down in 2025

EWG found that EQIP obligations to farmers were $1.82 billion across all practices for fiscal year 2025. Of this pot of money, 43%, or $790.6 million, went to farmers for practices that were on EWG’s list of regenerative practices.

Due to the additional funding from the IRA, total EQIP obligations in fiscal year 2024 were $2.6 billion. Of this, $1.88 billion, or 45%, went to practices that were regenerative. Funding for these practices greatly decreased between 2024 and 2025. 

Through public records requests, EWG received data for USDA obligations made in 2025.  We used data from the USDA’s Financial Assistance Program Data Dashboard for 2024 obligations. 

Farm bill conservation cuts would hurt farmers

The upcoming farm bill must maintain conservation funding, especially for regenerative practices. 

Farmers and ranchers have been promised this money – Congress shouldn’t take it away. The stakes are too high. 

Restoring funding for the two USDA programs would not only reduce agriculture’s environmental and climate impact. It could also provide reliable support to tens of thousands of farmers and potentially reduce the costs of ad hoc disaster assistance and crop insurance payouts covered by American taxpayers.  

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Conservation Authors Geoff Horsfield August 20, 2026

We checked 12 fast food chains for ultra-processed ingredients. Only one had none Anthony Lacey August 20, 2026

Fast food chains – think popular places like KFC, McDonald’s and Pizza Hut – can be quick and easy places to grab a meal. And many of us do.

U.S. families get almost a third of their calories from somewhere other than home.

But if you’re looking to eat less ultra-processed food, or UPF, eating out can be a challenge. 

Diets high in UPF have been linked to many poor health outcomes, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, heart disease and even early death. 

Unlike companies that sell packaged food, restaurants aren't required to post ingredient lists. And the food industry has pressured the government to delay a much-needed definition of UPF, which could support policies that help people make healthier choices.

EWG took a closer look at the menus from 12 of the top fast food spots in the U.S. to help families on the go find less-processed options:

• Arby’s
• Burger King
• Chick-fil-A
• Chipotle
• Dominos
• KFC
• McDonald’s
• Panera
• Pizza Hut
• Subway
• Taco Bell
• Wendy’s

There was one surprising standout: Chipotle’s food menu contains no ultra-processed ingredients.

Some of the other places offer a few non-UPF options, if you know how to look for them.

53 ingredients, none ultra-processed

Because fast food chains aren’t required to make ingredient lists public, our review was limited to the most recent information available online. It isn’t a comprehensive look at all fast food – but it does suggest that some chains, like Chipotle, are better than others when it comes to ultra-processed food.

Every menu item at Chipotle is made from some combination of 53 total ingredients. That includes the flour used to make tortillas, vegetables for guacamole and salsa, and seasonings to prepare beans, rice, meat and poultry. It also includes the rennet and cultures used to make cheese. 

That doesn’t mean you should make every meal a burrito bowl. Depending on which ingredients you choose, nutrients like sodium and saturated fat can quickly climb above the average adult’s recommended daily limit. 

But if you keep those caveats in mind, you can get a good amount of nutrients, vitamins and minerals from whole food sources.

Other less-processed options

At most other fast food restaurants, it’s harder to find a meal that isn’t ultra-processed.

That’s because industrial ingredients are a cheap way to mass produce flavorful foods with long shelf lives. They also help create consistency – the reason a Big Mac in Los Angeles tastes the same as a Big Mac in Kansas City.

But some options are better than others:

Soups, salads and grain bowls that aren’t built on highly processed breads

Most burger buns, pizza crusts and sandwich breads at fast food chains are made with highly processed, enriched flour with low nutritional value. They may also contain potentially harmful chemicals like azodicarbonamide, or ADA, potassium bromate and TBHQ.

Chicken, fish and tofu that hasn’t been breaded – or beans

Sandwich meat and pizza toppings like pepperoni or sausage are ultra-processed and have been strongly linked to higher cancer risk. Most breaded or fried chicken and fish fillets at fast food restaurants are ultra-processed because of the way they’re prepared.

Basic dressings and seasonings like olive oil, vinegar, salt and pepper

Dressings, dips and sauces are common sources of artificial colors, flavors, emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners and other additives. Chick-fil-A’s fat-free honey mustard dressing alone has more than 20 different ingredients. You can also try just using less.

Some sides and breakfast items

Many restaurants also offer minimally processed sides like applesauce, fruit, corn on the cob and house or side salads (not including dressing).

Panera’s breakfast menu offers Greek yogurt with berries and steel-cut oats with strawberries and pecans, made mostly of minimally processed foods, though each has added sugar.

Drinks like water, black coffee, and unsweetened iced teas

Most sodas and other sweet drinks – including specialty coffee drinks – are either high in added sugar or contain artificial sweeteners like aspartame or sucralose. Taco Bell’s dirty sodas can have more than 100 grams of added sugar, which is double the recommended daily limit.

When it comes to food, being basic is a good thing. When in doubt, look for foods you recognize and flavors you could probably create in your own kitchen.

For some help eating healthier

It’s not practical for people to avoid every ultra-processed food. There’s a reason our food supply is full of them: They’re widely available, affordable, appealing for consumers and extremely profitable for companies. 

The Food and Drug Administration isn’t helping – at least not yet. It has repeatedly failed to regulate ultra-processed foods and has delayed an official definition of UPF. Instead, in August it sent a white paper on defining UPF for White House pre-publication review, several steps removed from a formal definition that could support policies like front-of-package labeling and school nutrition standards.

But you can start simple by making a few healthier swaps. Check if your favorite restaurants post ingredient lists and nutrition facts. Look for more whole foods and avoid longer lists of ingredients you wouldn’t find in a home kitchen.

When it comes to grocery shopping, you can check EWG's Food Scores, which rates more than 150,000 products on nutrition, ingredients and processing, and flags UPF for you. Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app.

Finally, follow Fed UP! – a new coalition of scientists, researchers and public health advocates dedicated to exposing the harms of UPF.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN Guest Authors Adam Levin (EWG communications intern) August 20, 2026

EWG: California’s extreme heat, soaring utility bills make cooling unaffordable for millions Anthony Lacey August 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California is experiencing more frequent and dangerous heat days, but sky-high utility bills mean millions of people can’t afford to run air conditioning that could keep them safe, a new Environmental Working Group report finds. 

EWG is calling on policy makers to prioritize solutions like customer-sited solar electric devices that can drastically lower or eliminate annual utility costs for air conditioning. 

Heat advisory days defined as “extreme” or “major” – those threatening the health of anyone without cooling or hydration – jumped an average of 55% statewide over the last two decades, the report shows. Increases in the number of these days ranged from 30% to 145% depending on the region.

At the same time, California families are spending $4 billion a year on home air conditioning, adding$95 to $800 to annual utility bills. Almost 7 million ratepayers are already in some form of utility debt and paying some of the highest electricity bills in the U.S.

The result is an impossible choice for many households: Either risk the harmful effects of exposure to extreme heat or get needed cooling relief and fall further behind on utility bills.

“California is getting hotter and many families throughout the state can’t afford to stay safe from the heat because electricity is so expensive,” said Josh Wink, EWG fellow and report co-author. “Californians shouldn’t have to pick between making ends meet or suffering the health threats of extreme heat, but that’s the situation millions are now in.”

Heat risk is rising fast

EWG found California counties averaged 191 days, or 52.3%, of the year that the National Weather Service defines as experiencing major or extreme heat risk. 

These days put people at risk of heat stroke, severe dehydration, mental health challenges, and other forms of heat injury. Even “minor” hot days can threaten the safety of heat-sensitive people, although the major and extreme days are of the biggest concern.

The increase in these days over the last 20 years includes:

• San Francisco: 145% increase
• Sacramento County: 111.4% increase
• Santa Clara County: 100% increase
• Riverside County: 58.1% increase
• Fresno: 54.6% increase
• San Diego County: 40.2% increase
• Los Angeles County: 30.8% increase

Rising heat isn’t just an inland problem. Traditionally mild coastal regions are also seeing steep jumps in major and extreme heat days, though the range varies significantly. For example, San Francisco saw 2 days on average compared to 42 days in San Bernardino County, with other areas falling somewhere between both ranges.

While coastal communities experience less frequent extreme heat, they are also the least equipped to cope with the soaring heat. Only 70% of these communities have home air conditioning compared to 92%in inland counties, according to U.S. Census data. In some areas, like San Francisco, it’s as low as 35%.

Renters also lack equal access to air conditioning. Statewide, 64% of two- to four-bedroom apartment units have air conditioning, EWG found, compared with 80% of single-family homes statewide. 

“The negative effects of climate change, such as extremes of heat, wildfire smoke, and air pollution are associated with early pregnancy loss, preterm births, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and stillbirth,” said Dr. Hayley Miller, an assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at University of California, San Francisco.

“Heat stress symptoms in pregnant patients do overlap with common pregnancy complications like nausea, muscle cramps, rashes, nosebleeds, dehydration, even contractions similar to preterm labor symptoms,” Miller added.

Access to a vital resource

“We often hear from our partners who do home visits for asthma about families having to choose between opening their windows to cool their homes but allowing the smoke in and impacting their child's asthma or keeping their windows closed so their child can breathe, but suffering from unsafe temperatures in the house,” said Brandon Kitagawa, Senior Policy Associate with Regional Asthma Management & Prevention, a project of the Public Health Institute. 

“To be clear, making homes resilient to extreme heat will be difficult. It will require significant investment in building retrofits and eliminating barriers to implementation, but the benefits for our communities’ health and wellbeing is worth it. 

“We will need every tool at our disposal to address this challenge, so we are happy to see the state considering steps to make the adoption of balcony solar easier in California, as it would reduce the cost of using air conditioning, particularly when it is most needed,” added Kitagawa.

According to U.S. Census data, 78.61% of California households statewide have access to air conditioning devices at home, but that prevalence varies widely by dwelling type and region. 

“No matter where someone lives in California, they are facing heat risks that would have been unimaginable two decades ago. Many are in homes not built for this kind of heat,” said Wink.

Even though home cooling is a vital resource, ever-increasing utility bills mean some residents opt against using air conditioning to prevent making the bills even worse. An estimated 7 million Californians are behind on their bills.

Clean, reliable solar power can help

Customer-sited solar electric generating devices – whether rooftop solar or smaller balcony solar systems – are a proven way to bring down or even fully cover cooling costs, EWG’s research shows. 

A typical residential rooftop solar system generates enough electricity to cover a home’s central air conditioning needs for a year. Even a balcony plug-in solar system can help, producing enough power to offset the electricity that a window air conditioning unit needs.

But red tape makes it hard for many Californians to access solar. That’s why EWG is supporting SB 868, introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). If enacted, it would cut through those barriers and make it easier for renters and homeowners to get these systems. The bill cleared the Senate in May and is pending in the Assembly.

“Access to balcony solar is a no-brainer in terms of lowering people's costs, increasing generation of clean, renewable energy, and just giving people the ability to control at least part of their energy future,” said Wiener. “So it's really important and I'm really excited that we're almost at the finish line.”

EWG recommends that state policymakers prioritize expanding access to residential solar of all types and sizes in response to the extreme heat.

NOTE: EWG hosted a virtual press briefing on the new analysis featuring Josh Wink, Dr. Hayley Miller, Brandon Kitagawa and Sen. Scott Weiner. The recording of the event can be found here.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy Family Health California Balcony and rooftop solar could cover home cooling costs, if policy makers prioritize access Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 19, 2026

California’s rising heat and soaring utility bills make vital cooling unaffordable for many Anthony Lacey August 19, 2026 Bernadette Del Chiaro Rooftop and balcony solar systems can help provide immediate relief Josh Wink (EWG fellow) August 19, 2026 Overview

• California’s total number of hot days ranging from “moderate” to “extreme” heat has risen 12.9% over the past 20 years
• Depending on the region, the state now experiences 2 to 42 days a year of dangerous “major” or “extreme” heat — a 55% average increase over the last two decades
• To cope with California’s heat, consumers spend $4 billion per year on air conditioning, ranging from $95 to $800 annually per family
• Electricity from customer-sited rooftop and balcony solar can fully offset these costs, addressing affordability and reducing strain on the electric grid on hot, summer days

California has always been warm but climate change is driving up “major” and “extreme” heat advisories between 30% and 145% in parts of the state, new EWG research finds. Yet soaring electricity costs make home cooling unaffordable for millions, threatening public health.

This dynamic creates an impossible choice for many Californians struggling with affordability: suffer during hazardous heat or default on electricity bills.

The National Weather Service defines what qualifies as a certain heat day, and EWG’s report relies on those definitions. Even “minor” heat days can threaten the safety of heat-sensitive people. “Major” and “extreme” heat days threaten everyone’s health if people can’t get hydration and/or cooling. These latter two types of days put everyone at risk of heat stroke, severe dehydration, mental health challenges and other forms of heat injury.

On average, California saw a 55% increase in the number of heat advisory days classified as major or extreme over the last 20 years, EWG found. Certain counties saw higher numbers of days classified as major or extreme heat than others.           

CountyPercentage increase (2006-2015 vs. 2016-2025)Average major and extreme heat risk days (2015-2024)San Bernardino61.2%42Riverside58.1%34Los Angeles30.8%33San Diego40.2%21Fresno54.6%13San Francisco145%2

And it’s not just major and extreme heat days on the uptick. The total number of days deemed anywhere from “moderate” to “extreme” rose by 12.9% over the last two decades.

Air conditioning can bring much-needed relief, but EWG’s research found that home access to cooling in the state varies widely between traditionally hotter climates versus cooler climates, as well as by housing type. 

According to U.S. Census data, 92% of Californians living in inland counties, for example, have access to an air conditioner inside the home, compared to just 70% in coastal areas. And all along the Central and Northern coast, including San Francisco, community-wide rates are as low as 35%. Furthermore, just 64% of two- to four-bedroom unit apartments statewide have access to air conditioning, EWG found. 

This means the jump in major and extreme events in these areas creates a unique public health threat that many families lack the equipment to manage. 

But access to an air conditioner is only half the equation – being able to afford to run it is the other half. California consumers spend $4 billion per year on residential air conditioning. These costs amount to $95 to $800 in extra utility bill costs annually per family.

Almost 7 million California households are behind in their utility bill payments. Many of these families may be forced to choose to go without air conditioning rather than risk adding to their already sky-high charges. This can create public health risks for these families. People shouldn’t have to choose between affordability and their health.

Policymakers need to look for solutions that tackle both the heat and utility bills. One step is doing more to expand consumer access to distributed generation devices, such as rooftop solar or balcony solar, that can help power electricity-hungry air conditioners more cost effectively and without contributing to climate change or adding strain to the electric grid.  

A hot state gets hotter

EWG used NWS data to calculate heat risk across the state, using the NWS definitions for types of heat (see Table 1): 

Table 1. NWS heat risk definitions

Heat classificationDescriptionMinorPrimarily affects those who are extremely sensitive to heat and without cooling/hydrationModerateAffects those who are sensitive to heat, especially those without cooling/hydration, and some health systems and industriesMajorAffects anyone without cooling/hydration as well as health systems and industriesExtremeRare and/or long-duration extreme heat with no overnight relief affecting anyone without cooling/hydration as well as health systems, industries, and infrastructure

California is a hot state. Over the last decade, California counties averaged at least 191 days per year, or 52.3% of the days, experiencing some level of heat risk. 

On these days, air conditioning is desirable for people’s comfort and productivity. Indoor cooling can also be a public health necessity on even moderate heat days for sensitive populations, such as infants, young children, seniors, pregnant women and those with medical conditions.   

Major and extreme heat risk is also on the rise in California, with the state seeing a greater increase in the proportion of days that fall into these two categories over the last two decades. On these days, anyone without cooling or hydration is at risk of injury from the heat.

From 2006 to 2015, the state averaged 3.12% of days defined as major or extreme heat risk. This ticked up to an average of 4.81% of days from 2016 to 2025. While this is just a 1.69 percentage point increase, it represents a startling 54.2% spike in the proportion of major or extreme heat risk days in California (see Figures 1 and 2). This amounts to a growth from 11 days per year to 17.5 days per year labeled as major or extreme. 

Figure 1. Proportion of heat risk days reaching “major” or “extreme” levels     

Image

Dark red represents three-year moving average, solid black represents the overall trend and gray represents the annual data

Figure 2. Proportion of heat risk days reaching “moderate” levels

Image

Orange line represents three-year moving average of moderate days, solid represents the overall trend and gray represents the annual data

Different regions are seeing a greater rise in major and extreme heat than others although nearly every region in the state is seeing some level of uptick of extreme heat.  

CountyPercentage increase (2005-2014 vs. 2015-2024)Average major and extreme heat risk days (2015-2024)San Bernardino61.2%42Riverside58.1%34Los Angeles30.8%33San Diego40.2%21Fresno54.6%13Sacramento111.4%10Santa Clara100%5Santa Barbara36.8%4Sonoma36.7%4San Francisco145%2Importance of air conditioning

As more Californians face increased extreme heat, access to air conditioning becomes more important.

According to U.S. Census data, 78.61% of California households statewide have access to air conditioning devices at home, but that prevalence varies widely by dwelling type and region. 

Statewide, 80% of single-family homes have air conditioning, whereas only 64% of two- to four-bedroom apartments have air conditioning. 

EWG’s research also found that while 92% of all households in inland counties have air conditioning, that number drops to 70% in coastal counties. Many coastal counties, like San Francisco, see air conditioning rates less than half those of their inland neighbors (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Air conditioning prevalence across California counties

Image

AC access rate represents the percent of occupied households with functional ai conditioning access

Further elevating the challenges with rising heat is the fact that more of the state’s population is staying home than ever before. Today, 13% of Californians work from home. Many Californians are also primarily at home during the hot summer months due to many reasons ranging from seasonal work schedules, school breaks, and being permanently at home due to health issues.      

Affordability and sky-high utility bills

With major and extreme heat on the rise combined with the fact that California has the second highest average electricity rates in the nation, California faces the dual problem of public health threats from heat and energy affordability. 

This general upward trend in heat adds to California’s cost of living challenges. Consumers in the state collectively spend $4 billion per year on residential air conditioning, which can only be expected to go up as the state continues to get hotter and air conditioning becomes a greater necessity for more Californians.     

For individual households, based on peak summer rates for the least and most expensive utility service territories, the cost of running home air conditioners in California breaks down to: 

• $95 to $529 per year for an average 1-bedroom apartment, depending on the utility service territory.

• $450 to $800 per year for an average sized single-family home, depending on the utility service territory. 

Not everyone can afford to pay their utility bill even if they have access to an air conditioning device inside their home. Almost 7 million California ratepayers are in some form of utility debt (see Figure 4).

The investor-owned utility service territories with the highest arrears are mostly in the Central Valley, which also has the highest rates of air conditioning prevalence and high heat.

Figure 4. Q3 2024 utilities arrears in California by ZIP code

Image

Map represents total count of customers more than 30 days in arrears. Note: This map does not include customers in publicly owned utility territories.

Solar solutions can provide relief

With temperatures continuing to rise, California policymakers should do more to increase access to customer-sited solar energy solutions that can help make cooling more affordable, along with other solutions like energy efficiency.

Self-generation of electricity, either from a rooftop solar system or from a smaller balcony solar system, are two proven methods for reducing home energy bills while powering necessary air conditioning, reducing strain on the electric grid and helping fight climate change. 

There are different ways for consumers to get access to cost-saving solar energy technologies. 

The most common are professionally-installed solar photovoltaic systems. Over two million systems are located on residential properties throughout California, including hundreds of multi-family apartment buildings. These systems are hard-wired into the building and typically located on roofs but can also be built on elevated canopies over parking lots. 

These rooftop solar systems can fully cover air conditioning costs and power needs. A central air conditioning system in an average sized single-family home requires 1,372 kilowatt-hours per year according to the California Energy Commission. This is an average number. Single-family homes located in hotter regions will likely use much more electricity for cooling. 

The average residential rooftop solar system has a capacity of 6,000 watts. In California, a 6,000-watt system can be expected to generate 9,000 kilowatt hours of electricity saving families an average of $3,120 per year. Full details of EWG’s justification for the estimated costs, savings and power generation of solar systems are in the report's methodology.

When combined with home energy efficiency upgrades, these systems dramatically reduce home energy costs and allow residents to cool their homes without worrying about going into debt with their electricity bills just to stay safe during major or extreme heat events.

Benefits of balcony solar

Balcony solar, also known as plug-in solar, is another emerging form of customer-sited solar energy.  It uses the same technology found on roofs but these systems are smaller, portable and easy to install by residents.

Over the course of a year, even the smallest balcony solar system will offset the electrical costs of running a window air conditioning unit during the hot summer months.

For example, a small 180-watt balcony solar system could generate 284 kilowatt hours in a year. A small window air conditioner unit requires 289 kilowatt hours in a year, so a balcony solar system could offset that unit’s electricity needs throughout the year. This would help keep people cool in the summer without adding to their annual budget.

A larger plug in solar system that is 1,200 watts in size could generate 1,892 kilowatt-hours in a year, enough to offset a large central air conditioning system which consumes 1,372 kilowatt-hours on average. These balcony solar systems could save consumers anywhere from $95 to $800 per year on utility bill savings depending on size and location.

SB 868, a bill introduced in the California Senate by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would open up opportunities for California consumers to access balcony or plug-in solar systems. EWG is sponsoring the legislation because it offers an environmentally-friendly financial lifeline at a time of high utility bills.

For those who live or work from home, access to solar-powered air conditioning is obvious. For those who work outside the home, pre-cooling the home or apartment during the day can also help lower electric bill costs. 

Additionally, adding a battery to either a rooftop or balcony system can enhance savings and give consumers greater flexibility in deciding when to run air conditioners. 

Need for quick action

California has always been one of the hottest states in the country. Due to climate change, the heat facing the state is getting more severe. This increased heat means increased need to run air conditioners which, given rising electricity prices, creates a dual problem for consumers. 

The state must take the lead on implementing helpful policy solutions that make it easier for Californians to access money-saving balcony and rooftop solar systems. With no foreseeable end to the rising temperatures or utility rates, this leadership is vital for both energy affordability and for public safety.

Our August Common Sense monthly newsletter reveals how a prayer walk alone will not stop the destruction of the Columbia River. But it is a precursor to action. One cannot take bold action — especially action involving sacrifice — without spiritual commitment. 

The post “Common Sense” Newsletter – August 2026: Walking the Columbia River with Julie Lomboy appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Four EWG-sponsored California consumer choice, safety bills clear key spending committees JR Culpepper August 13, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Four bills sponsored by the Environmental Working Group this week cleared appropriations committees in the California Legislature, sending the legislation for full floor votes as state lawmakers enter their final voting stretch before adjournment.

The bills target some of the most pressing consumer health and affordability issues facing Californians: toxic “forever chemical” pesticides, undisclosed chemicals in baby diapers, America’s addiction to ultra-processed foods and sky-high electricity bills. 

“Sacramento lawmakers have a chance this month to prove, once again, why California continues to reshape the national marketplace on health and safety,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG's senior vice president for California. 

“Each of these bills reflects something simple: people deserve transparency, and they deserve affordable options that don't compromise their health,” she added.

Using solar to lower sky-high electricity bills (Senate Bill 868)

SB 868, the Plug and Play Solar Act, would cut the red tape blocking affordable balcony solar systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes, while ensuring the systems meet strict safety standards. The bill sustained some extensive amendments in the Assembly Appropriations Committee that have yet to be reviewed and analyzed. 

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network, and now heads for an Assembly floor vote.

“Balcony solar lets California residents place a small solar panel on a sunny patio or balcony, plug it into a regular wall outlet and start saving on their electricity bill right away,” said Del Chiaro. “Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet. At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool. 

“We have yet to see the amendments to the bill and can’t yet comment on their significance,” she added.

California electricity rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, leaving the state with the nation's second-highest energy prices. A single 400-watt balcony solar system can cover roughly 14% of the average apartment's electricity usage, providing savings of about $250 per year. While the cost of balcony solar starts around $500 today, EWG expects SB 868 would enable broader adoption of the systems, making them more accessible to low-income households.

Balcony solar already thrives in Europe, with more than 4 million systems installed in Germany alone, and efforts to expand deployment continue to gather steam in other countries. 

In the U.S., regulatory barriers have kept the technology out of reach for many – barriers SB 868 would remove while setting statewide safety standards. 

Other states are moving in the same direction, including New York, where a balcony solar bill now awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul's signature.

Widespread use of PFAS pesticides (Assembly Bill 1603)

AB 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would address the use of toxic "forever chemicals" pesticides allowed for use in California. It now heads to the Senate floor.

More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to California crops each year, contaminating produce, soil and water. EWG research found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state.

As introduced, AB 1603 would have banned the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides statewide by 2035, paused new state approvals immediately, phased out by 2030 the PFAS pesticides not permitted in Europe, and required public disclosure of PFAS pesticide use.

Under pressure from the pesticide industry and agricultural interests, the bill's author agreed to remove the ban provisions and other restrictions, in order to keep the legislation moving.  

Even in its amended form, AB 1603 is an important step forward as it represents growing legislative concern about regulating PFAS as a class of chemicals, and it marks the first time California has required the state to systematically track and disclose PFAS pesticide use, information state agencies didn't have before EWG's research brought it to light.

“We need to stop spraying our strawberries and peaches with toxic forever chemicals,” said Susan Little, EWG's California legislative director.  “We are contaminating our food and water supplies and it needs to stop.”  

“With this bill, we are calling a spade a spade so that farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this problem and we can continue to address it,” she added.

Of the thousands of PFAS used in commerce, very few have comprehensive toxicity data, but what we do know is alarming: the health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, immune suppression, and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe. 

Baby diapers made of mystery chemicals (Assembly Bill 1901)

AB 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children's diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all intentionally added ingredients, both on product packaging and online.

EWG is co-sponsoring the bill alongside Consumer Reports, the Center for Environmental Health and Children Now. AB 1901 now heads to a full Senate floor vote.

Babies spend much of their first two to three years of life in diapers. Yet disposable diapers are exempt by the federal government from carrying ingredient labels of any kind, and manufacturers are not required to inform regulators about the chemicals used to make them.

Today, manufacturers can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors,” potentially toxic mystery cocktails that leave parents with no way of knowing what chemicals sit against their baby's skin day after day.

“A newborn can't choose what touches their skin, and right now, neither can their parents because manufacturers have made sure of it,” said EWG’s Little. 

“Every hour of every day, an infant's skin is absorbing whatever industry decided not to tell us about. Parents can read a nutrition label or a shampoo label but not this. AB 1901 isn't asking for anything radical. It's asking for diapers to contain ingredient labels that are similar to labels  required of other baby products,” she added.

Recent tests have found diapers may contain volatile organic compounds; phthalates, linked to hormone disruption and reproductive and developmental harm; quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, used in wetness indicators and linked to reproductive effects, skin irritation and asthma; and dyes and bleaching agents that can cause allergic reactions or skin and respiratory irritation. Because babies' skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, they are especially vulnerable to these exposures.

EWG has created a Guide to Safer Diapers to help parents navigate the market in the meantime, and diapers earning the EWG Verified® mark meet our strict standards for ingredient transparency and health.

What is and isn't ultra-processed food (Assembly Bill 2244)

AB 2244, by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would create a first-of-its-kind state certification program allowing shoppers to easily identify foods that are not ultra-processed, or UPF. These foods make up more than two-thirds of children's diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S., and have been linked to serious health harms including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders and mental health issues.

If enacted, the bill would establish a standardized “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” label. Products could carry the new label if they are classified as “not UPF” under state law. The legislation will next get a full Senate floor vote.

The California Department of Public Health would oversee accreditation of independent certification agents, with products subject to recertification at least every three years. Certification agents would be required to register with the state, disclose all certified products, and submit to state audits at any time, with a public online list of certified products and enforcement against misuse of the label.

“Parents shouldn't need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they're feeding their kids,” said Del Chiaro. “AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives like flavors. This new seal doesn't limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible.”

 “Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory,” she added.

The bill would also require large food retailers, those selling more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and generating more than $10 million in annual sales, to display certified products in a way that's easy for shoppers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation in stores. 

What's next

If lawmakers pass the bills, they would head to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk for his signature.

“California has an opportunity, once again, to show the rest of the country what real consumer protection looks like,” Del Chiaro said. “We're urging lawmakers to finish the job on all four of these bills.”

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Legislation covers diaper chemicals, PFAS pesticides, solar and ultra-processed food Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 13, 2026

• August 13, 2026

SA’s Increasing Energy Costs Put Pressure On The Most Vulnerable Among Us

As winter grips South Africa, millions of households are facing an impossible choice between keeping the lights on, putting food on the table, and paying essential expenses such as school fees and transport costs. The Green Connection believes that the country’s current tariff structure may be deepening poverty and inequality while forcing ordinary citizens to shoulder the cost of institutional failures over which they have no control.

“Every tariff increase could further entrench inequality and may place an unbearable burden on families already struggling to make ends meet. The problem extends beyond inflationary pressures, pointing to an electricity pricing system that compels consumers to pay for historical inefficiencies, cost overruns, governance failures, and mistakes associated with major infrastructure projects. For many South Africans, rising electricity tariffs are no longer simply a matter of economics but a matter of survival,” says The Green Connection’s Outreach Ambassador, Neville van Rooy.

Since 2015, Eskom has implemented 12 consecutive annual tariff increases – all approved by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA). Electricity costs have dramatically increased over the past two decades, rising by around 190 per cent in real terms while continuing to outpace inflation. Meanwhile, in 2023, StatsSA reported that more than 23 million South Africans live below the lower-bound poverty threshold, highlighting concerns that rising living costs could place many households at risk of falling into extreme poverty.

The Green Connection notes that the pressure is especially severe for households that purchase electricity through municipalities. Unlike customers who buy electricity directly from Eskom, municipal consumers often pay additional charges because local authorities must recover the costs of maintaining infrastructure and funding essential public services. As a result, the same tariff increase can have vastly different consequences depending on where people live and how they access electricity.

Electricity transmission lines (left), Prepaid Electricity meter (right)

“The current situation demonstrates how deeply energy insecurity is affecting vulnerable communities. Winter has once again exposed the reality facing millions of people across South Africa. Families are being forced to make impossible decisions between electricity, food, medicine, school fees, and other basic necessities. These are not abstract policy discussions. These are real decisions being made in real homes every day,” adds van Rooy.

According to Lisa Makaula, Advocacy Lead at The Green Connection “Increasing tariffs, without addressing the underlying problems within the system, simply shifts responsibility onto those who are least able to bear the cost. The public may effectively be paying for a R54.7 billion mistake made by someone else. That is fundamentally unjust. Communities should not be expected to absorb the costs of poor planning, regulatory failures, or infrastructure mismanagement. Accountability must become part of the conversation.”

In January 2026, The Green Connection submitted recommendations to NERSA regarding Eskom’s Multi-Year Price Determination process – its second input into the MYPD6 evaluation process – emphasising the need for greater transparency, stronger public participation, and a comprehensive review of the country’s electricity pricing framework. The organisation argues that the existing approach is unsustainable because it relies heavily on assumptions linked to costly coal infrastructure projects, including Medupi and Kusile, despite the growing affordability of renewable energy technologies.

According to The Green Connection, the country’s continued reliance on fossil fuels is placing unnecessary pressure on consumers while slowing progress towards a more affordable and resilient energy future.

Makaula says that South Africa has reached a turning point in how electricity should be priced, and that the Electricity Pricing Policy – which has been approved by Cabinet – should be an opportunity to correct injustices of the past. She says, “We cannot continue relying on outdated models that ignore changing economic and technological realities, and that no longer serve the interests of the people. Renewable energy is already cheaper to build than new coal infrastructure, yet electricity pricing continues to be influenced by assumptions rooted in a broken system. The pricing overhaul should serve the public interest because access to affordable energy should not be a luxury but is essential for dignity, health, education, and economic opportunity.”

The Green Connection maintains that greater public participation is essential if long-term solutions are to be developed. According to the eco-justice organisation, communities must be given meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that directly affect their lives. The country’s long-term energy security depends on embracing a just transition that prioritises affordability, sustainability, and accountability. This includes expanding investment in renewable energy, improving transparency within the electricity sector, and ensuring that vulnerable households are protected from excessive price increases.

The Green Connection also believes that the reform of South Africa’s Electricity Pricing Policy presents an important opportunity to align electricity pricing with current energy needs while shielding vulnerable households from escalating costs. This should include expanding and strengthening Free Basic Electricity provisions so that poor and working-class communities are better protected from tariff increases. Electricity pricing must support equitable access to energy and ensure that people are not penalised simply for remaining connected to the national grid.

As South Africans continue to confront rising living costs, The Green Connection is calling for urgent intervention to prevent even more households from being pushed into poverty. “The country is facing a defining moment,” says van Rooy. “We cannot build a just society while people are being forced to choose between warmth, food, education, and electricity. Access to affordable energy should strengthen communities rather than push them further into hardship. If we fail to act now, the social and economic consequences may affect future generations.”

Community comments:
Reinett Pullen, a small-scale fisherwoman and community activist from the Eastern Cape, believes that rising electricity costs are placing unbearable pressure on fishing communities that depend on reliable power to sustain their livelihoods. Deborah De Wee, environmental activist and founding member of the Spirit of Endeavour Fisherwomen in Doring Bay, is of the opinion that escalating electricity prices are driving already vulnerable fishing households deeper into poverty. Voices from Elands Bay echo these concerns, warning that unaffordable electricity tariffs may result in fishing families, pensioners, and unemployed residents struggling to survive as household costs continue to outpace already limited incomes.

Pullen says, “For fishing communities, electricity is not a luxury. It is the difference between putting food on the table and going hungry. We rely on electricity to preserve our catch, feed our families, and sustain our livelihoods, yet every increase in tariffs forces us to make impossible choices between electricity, food, education, and other basic necessities. A just energy transition cannot be measured only by market efficiency but also by whether it protects those who already carry the heaviest burden. We urge NERSA and government to put affordability, social justice, and meaningful public participation at the centre of all electricity reforms. Access to affordable electricity is not a privilege. It is essential to our dignity, our livelihoods, and our future.”

De Wee says, “In Doring Bay, our livelihoods depend on the sea, but our income is seasonal and uncertain. Electricity costs, however, continue to rise regardless of whether families have an income or not. Many households are surviving on social grants, while others are being forced to return to collecting firewood because electricity has become unaffordable. We are spending more money than ever for fewer units of power, and for many families, electricity now lasts only a few days before they have to buy again. This is not just an energy issue. It is a poverty issue, a dignity issue, and a community survival issue. Policymakers must recognise that people cannot continue to absorb endless increases while struggling to meet their most basic needs. Affordable electricity is essential if communities like ours are to have any chance of a secure and dignified future.”

Small-scale fisher in Elands Bay, Patrick Adonis says, “Electricity tariffs are currently beyond what we can afford. Our households are struggling, our expenses are greater than our income, so we have to stretch every cent as far as possible. But the electricity increases and tariffs have gone through the roof. This hits us very hard, and it is affecting us as the fishing community of Elands Bay in a very negative way.”

Elands Bay resident, pensioner Michelle Engelbrecht says, “Why is electricity becoming so expensive? As a pensioner and a resident of Cederberg and Elands Bay, I am deeply concerned because electricity prices have gone up again. For people – who are already struggling to make ends meet – our way of life is being affected. How are we supposed to survive with only R2,400 each month (the pensioner’s grant) when more than half is spent just on electricity? It is simply unliveable. Today, I am being forced to go back to the old days of cooking our daily food over an open fire, because I cannot afford electricity. It’s simply too expensive. And what about those who are currently unemployed? Even if you are working, all you can afford is electricity, because the price keeps rising higher and higher. Is there no solution? We cannot continue to live like this.”

Elands Bay fisherman, Andries Booysen says, “Government and NERSA should take a careful look at these electricity tariffs, because excessive price increases are bringing us to our knees. The cost of living is already too high. It’s not fair that we are already struggling to keep our heads above water, and now we also have to bear the burden of these additional increases.”

May 26, 2026 Past News WEST COAST SEISMIC SURVEY CASE MOVES CLOSER TO HEARING

This Energy Month, the legal challenge between Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co-operative, The Green Connection, and Natural Justice (the Applicants), and the government together with TGS Geophysical Company UK Ltd (the Respondents), concerning authorisation for offshore seismic surveys along South Africa’s West Coast and Northern Cape coastline, has entered a critical new phase.

June 4, 2026 Latest News JUDGMENT RESERVED: HIGH COURT CONSIDERS ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING WEST COAST SEISMIC SURVEY APPROVAL

On Tuesday afternoon, the Western Cape High Court concluded a two-day hearing in the ongoing legal challenge by Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co-operative, The Green Connection and Natural Justice (the Applicants) against the State and TGS Geophysical Company UK Ltd.

June 26, 2026 Latest News Saldanha Red Dust Emissions Decision Referred to National Environment Department

On 25 June 2026, The Green Connection welcomed the West Coast District Municipality’s decision to reject Transnet Port Terminals’ application to renew an Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) for the Saldanha Iron Ore Terminal.

June 30, 2026 Latest News (Op-Ed) Ska Fela Moya: Don’t Give Up, Just Breathe The Fumes

When a corporation wraps itself in the language of human endurance while polluting the air that athletes breathe, we should name it for what it is. A lost opportunity.

The post SA’s Increasing Energy Costs Put Pressure On The Most Vulnerable Among Us appeared first on The Green Connection.