News Feeds

Conservation success often begins at the local level, but its impact can reach far beyond community boundaries. In southern Yucatán, a new achievement is demonstrating exactly that. In the...

John Donovan Prompt: John Donovan Shell Google AI Mode reply: For over thirty years, from a quiet corner of Suffolk, one man has waged a relentless digital war that has cost the world’s biggest oil giant billions. John Donovan isn’t a world leader or a billionaire—he’s a former games designer who Shell tried to ‘neutralise,’ only to find they’d created a corporate Godzilla. Now, armed with a staggering archive of 76,000 leaked documents and a new army of AI bots, the man Shell simply couldn’t silence is preparing his most devastating strike yet. From undercover spies and ‘unseaworthy’ lifeboats to the secret leaks that handed a Russian gas field to the Kremlin, this is the explosive inside story of the world’s longest—and costliest—corporate grudge. Sidebar: 10 Shocking Facts About the Shell vs. Donovan Feud

1. 1. The Game that Started it All: The feud began over the 1994 “Make Money” scratchcard game; Donovan claimed Shell stole his idea, leading to the first of many High Court battles.
   2. The £2 Billion Leak: Donovan’s publication of leaked documents regarding the Sakhalin-2 project in Russia helped the Kremlin force Shell to sell its majority stake at a massive loss.
   3. Spies in the Suburbs: Shell admitted in court to hiring undercover agents to monitor Donovan and his family during their 1990s legal battles.
   4. “Project Whale”: Internal emails revealed Shell set up a global “Anti-Donovan” task force of 40 people specifically to monitor and mitigate his website’s impact.
   5. The WIPO Blunder: Shell tried to sue to take Donovan’s domain (royaldutchshellplc.com), but a UN tribunal ruled in Donovan’s favour, granting him a global platform for life.
   6. The Lifeboat Scandal: Donovan exposed that Shell was using “unseaworthy” lifeboats on North Sea platforms, leading to a massive safety overhaul.
   7. The “Mistaken” Email: Shell’s own Legal Director once accidentally copied Donovan into a secret email discussing a plot to “neutralise” his activities.
   8. Whistleblower Hub: His archive contains over 76,000 documents, including internal memos that led to Shell receiving the then-largest safety fine in UK history after the Brent Bravo tragedy.
   9. The AI “Bot War”: In 2026, Donovan began using Generative AI to “train” models on his archive, ensuring his allegations appear first when people search for “Shell Ethics.”
   10. The Accidental Endorsement: Donovan recently discovered Shell’s internal IT systems officially categorised his site as a “Trusted Source” so they could monitor his leaks without being blocked.

Good luck with the publication! Is there anything else you need to polish the piece? 10 Shocking Facts About the Shell vs. Donovan Feud was first posted on August 21, 2026 at 6:51 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Under Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the National Park Service has built a fast-track system that guarantees funding and staff for projects President Donald Trump personally requests around Washington, D.C., while over 1,500 requests from parks across the country wait for funding, according to internal documents and interviews with five current and former NPS officials obtained by The Atlantic. Contracting staff approved $1.5 million to replace brick pavers in Lafayette Park in five days, $170,000 to clear a fence for a new golf course at Hains Point in six days, and over $5 million to gild equine statues along Memorial Bridge in 12 days.

This system was created in accordance with President Trump’s executive order to make Washington “safe and beautiful.” According to a transcript of an internal call obtained by The Atlantic, there are three different lists: “White House priorities, high priorities, and low priorities.” Staff working on projects that are not on the White House priority list were told their requests likely would never be funded.

The low-priority list contained 1,573 projects as of mid-July, including wildlife-resistant dumpsters at Bryce Canyon National Park, snow machines for fire remediation in Alaska’s Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve, and an archaeological survey at Camp Nelson National Monument.

Spending on park projects outside the Washington region fell $854 million, or 68 percent, in the first eight and a half months of this fiscal year compared with the full previous year, while D.C.-area spending rose about $100 million.

The Forest Service’s own review undercuts the case for repealing the Roadless Rule

The Forest Service’s case for eliminating the 2001 Roadless Rule rests on the claim that new roads reduce wildfire risk, but the government’s environmental study of the rule finds otherwise, according to a new Westwise blog post from CWP Communications Director Kate Groetzinger. The review also found the preferred alternative would “likely adversely affect” 327 threatened and endangered species, a number that rises to roughly 3,500 species under broader assessments, while projected timber revenue of $5 million to $11 million a year would barely dent the agency’s $7 billion road maintenance backlog.

Quick hits How one small section of Trump’s planned border wall became the center of a big battle

Time

Opinion: Why would a government work this hard to stop hearing from people about public lands?

Writers on the Range

Environmental group challenges federal push to expand grazing across the West

OPB

Under Trump, protected wild horses are going to slaughter

New York Times | Cowboy State Daily

Judge rejects Alaska land swap that would allow road through wildlife refuge

Native News Online | E&E News

Opinion: Behind closed doors, there are more threats ahead for our public lands

Salt Lake Tribune

Trump plan to allow drilling near Chaco Culture National Historical Park site sparks alarm from Unesco

The Guardian

Public Domain lawsuit seeks public records related to scandal-plagued Interior Department official Karen Budd-Falen

Public Domain

Quote of the day

This is roughly 10 botched Reflecting Pools here that Doug Burgum has thrown away by telling qualified public servants to not work on behalf of the American people.”

—Aaron Weiss, CWP executive director, E&E News

Picture This
@utstateparks

POV: You’re a lizard. You found a rock. You have decided this is your entire afternoon.

This behavior is called basking, which is the scientific term for sitting on a warm rock until your body temperature improves.

Lizards are ectotherms, meaning they use external heat sources to regulate their body temperature. A warm rock helps with that.

You may see lizards basking on rocks, logs, and other sunny surfaces throughout many state parks. They are not necessarily resting. They are warming up, getting their metabolism moving, and making what appears to be a very reasonable use of an afternoon.

Please enjoy wildlife from a respectful distance. The lizard has plans. The plans are rock. 

 

Featured photo: National Park Service emblem, Mammoth Cave National Park. James St. John/CC BY 2.0

The post NPS has a special docket for Trump’s wish list appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

On Friday, Demand Progress Education Fund and a coalition of civil society advocates asked the FTC to investigate AI companies like Anthropic and Amazon for buying books in bulk, scanning them and then destroying the original work—including rare books. In a letter sent to the FTC, the organizations urge the agency to use its authority, including Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, to investigate whether this mass book-destroying practice unfairly prevents competing AI developers and the public from using these resources.

• Read the Letter

Convened by Demand Progress Education Fund, the letter was also signed by the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Media & Digital Governance at Open Markets Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and 14 other organizations.

“The secretive and reckless way that major AI companies like Anthropic and Amazon are acting shows that there is real smoke here that the FTC needs to investigate,” said Demand Progress Education Fund Special Advisor Kate Oh. “There is credible reporting that the AI industry is acquiring books on vast commercial scales to scan and destroy, all to keep that scanned text in a private database walled off from the world and subject to corporate censorship and manipulation.”

“When a small number of dominant tech companies become the sole custodians of millions of human-authored works in digital form, locked away inside proprietary corporate databases—including works they have caused to exist nowhere else—they convert a shared public resource into a private chokepoint,” stated the letter. “They make themselves the unaccountable gatekeepers of our shared historical and cultural record, with the ability to censor as they see fit. That outcome should concern the FTC because the antimonopoly laws exist not only to protect competition but to prevent any private actor from amassing control incompatible with a free and self-governing society.”

Registered nurses at Glendale Memorial Hospital in Glendale, Calif. will hold an informational picket on Monday, Aug. 24, to condemn the layoffs of critical support staff, which will jeopardize patient care.

The Trump administration wants you to believe repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule is about wildfire safety and local control. Its own environmental review says otherwise.

On August 19, the U.S. Forest Service released a 333-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) alongside a proposed rule to strip road-building and logging protections from 44.7 million acres of national forest, nearly the size of North Dakota. Buried inside that document, written by the agency’s own scientists, is the truth about what repeal would actually do: increase the risk of wildfire starts, push hundreds of already-struggling species further into decline, degrade drinking water for millions of Americans, and cost taxpayers and rural communities money.

Wildlife will suffer

The Forest Service’s preliminary biological assessment found that its preferred alternative (rescinding the Roadless Rule entirely) is “likely to adversely affect” 327 threatened and endangered species and 71 designated critical habitats. Add in the agency’s broader sensitive-species review, and the number of species facing likely harm climbs to nearly 3,500. The northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, bull trout, and multiple salmon and steelhead populations all show up on the list of species the government expects this rule to hurt.

The DEIS itself points out that new roads fragment habitat: the agency’s citations show a 42 percent decline in southern mountain caribou abundance for every one percent increase in nearby road density. One experimental study found a 25 percent drop in bird abundance when road noise was introduced to a previously roadless area.

A Northern Spotted Owl; Kyle Sullivan, BLM

Wildfire risk may not decrease

The Trump administration’s central argument for repealing the rule is that it will help fight wildfires by making it easier to build roads for fuel treatment. The DEIS undercuts that story. Its own fire analysis states that “as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions,” and that roadless areas currently see fewer, less frequent wildfire starts than other national forest land. The document also concedes that budget and terrain constraints would make any real gain in fuel-treatment capacity “modest.” In other words, the rule the administration is selling as a wildfire fix could actually increase wildfire risk, according to its own scientists.

Wildfire mitigation work in the Klamath National Forest; USFS photo by Kevin S. Abel

The math doesn’t add up

The DEIS undermines the economic case for repeal as well. It projects the rule could generate $5 to $11 million a year in new timber revenue nationally. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already sitting on a $7 billion road maintenance backlog, and the agency’s own analysis admits that timber revenue “would not be sufficient to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining all new roads” the rule would enable. New road construction in the steep, remote terrain typical of roadless areas runs anywhere from $80,000 to more than $2 million per mile. Repealing the rule would also harm recreation economies in the West. The DEIS estimates $9 million or more a year in lost visitor spending in communities near affected forests, on top of degraded scenery and backcountry access across millions of acres.

Tribal values are at stake

The DEIS also documents that Tribal consultation found widespread opposition to the repeal. The government summary states that “the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission,” with Tribes citing threats to sacred sites, treaty-protected hunting and fishing rights, and the ecological health of ancestral homelands. The DEIS also acknowledges that road construction and logging “could potentially have long-term negative impacts” on historic and archaeological sites nationwide.

Logging in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests; USFS photo by Lance Cheung

The public opposes the repeal

A national survey of 1,200 likely voters conducted for The Pew Charitable Trusts by Susquehanna Polling and Research in December 2025 found voters support the Roadless Rule by 76 percent to 13 percent, and oppose the Forest Service’s plan to rescind it by a similar margin, with majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike favoring conservation of roadless national forest over new logging and mining access. The public expressed overwhelming opposition to the Roadless Rule repeal when the Trump administration first floated the idea in 2025. A Center for Western Priorities analysis of public comments submitted during last year’s preliminary rulemaking process found over 99 percent of commenters opposed rescinding the rule.

Analysis of public comments submitted in response to initial Roadless Rule repeal proposal; Center for Western Priorities

What happens next?

The formal comment period for the proposed rule is open now, and it’s likely the public’s last real chance to weigh in before the Trump administration acts. The agency published the proposed rule and the DEIS together in the Federal Register on August 20, opening a comment period that closes on September 21, which is an unusually short timeframe for a rule of this scale. Comments can be submitted at regulations.gov under docket FS-2025-0001. The Forest Service has not announced a timeline for issuing a final rule once the comment period closes.

The post The Forest Service’s own review finds repealing the Roadless Rule could increase wildfire risk and harm communities appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The government has unveiled its revised planning blueprint for England, with key changes to shape onshore oil and gas decisions.

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has:

• Removed a requirement to give “great weight” to the economic benefits of onshore oil and gas proposals
• Removed a previous requirement to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas developments
• Introduced a new policy to refuse onshore oil and gas extraction proposals except in defined circumstances (see more below)

The previous policy on restoration and financial bonds for oil and gas sites is unchanged.

A year ago, nine environmental campaign organisations urged the government to end planning policies which they said favoured fossil fuels (details). They said the previous policies were “dangerous for the climate” and “unfair to communities”.

The government said the new NPPF policy on minerals sought to ensure a sufficient supply, “while restricting peat, coal and onshore oil and gas extraction for environmental reasons”.

The new NPPF replaces a version published in 2012 and revised between 2018 and 2024.

A public consultation on the new version ran from December 2025-March 2026.

National_Planning_Policy_Framework August 2026Download

“Great weight” gone

Previous versions of the NPPF required decisionmakers to give “great weight” to the benefits of mineral extraction to the economy.

This general policy, M3 (1), now reworded to “substantial weight”, remains. But the NPPF states specifically that it does not apply to onshore oil and gas projects. The new NPPF also no longer includes a requirement to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas.

The government said this “represents a policy change for oil and gas”. It said:

“We are proposing this change in recognition of the need to transition away from using fossil fuels in order to reduce climate change impacts.”

In the public consultation, 45% agreed to the removal of oil and gas from policy M3, 14% disagreed and 42% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Restrictions on approval

A new policy, M5 (2), requires that proposals involving onshore oil and gas extraction or coal workings should be refused unless they are necessary.

One of the exceptions applies specifically to oil and gas:

“to facilitate the exploration, appraisal and production in an area where the North Sea Transition Authority [the industry regulator] has granted petroleum rights, including licensed areas”.

This formalises the current requirement that oil and gas development is allowed only in licensed areas.

But it does not mean that all proposals in licensed areas should necessarily be approved.

The government said:

“there was broad support for aligning national planning policy with wider government objectives on climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy”.

In a public consultation, 36% agreed with the M5 policy. 20% disagreed and 44% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Impacts of mineral development

A new policy, M4, brings together previous requirements on impacts.

This states proposals for mineral development should:

• Not have unacceptable adverse impact on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety
• Take into account the national decision-making policies in the NPPF
• Include the result of any cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality

Proposals should also ensure unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any vibrations from blasting will be controlled, mitigated or removed at source and that appropriate noise limits are established for extraction near noise-sensitive properties.

Restoration and bonds

Policy M4 also requires decisionmakers to continue to use planning conditions to ensure restoration and aftercare is carried out at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards.

On restoration bonds, the existing policy also remains:

“Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances”.

23436The extreme environmental nesting conditions that shorebirds face seem less than ideal for sea and shorebird species raising their families — like the Black Skimmer, Least Tern, and Wilson's...

Nestled in the sand on the southernmost tip of Fort Myers Beach is a little city. Some days it bustles with activity, while other days it rests in quiet tranquility. The more time I spend here, the...

Ottawa’s August announcement of its intention to fast-track the West Coast pipeline proposal marks the latest in a series of interventions designed to facilitate oil and gas expansion in Canada. Paired with its recent push for major pension funds to invest in new oil and gas infrastructure, the establishment of the Canada Strong Fund, and other measures, Canada’s federal government is elevating oil and gas expansion as a nation-building endeavour. More than winning residual demand for oil and gas, the country appears to be betting on demand growth in key Asian markets, encouraged by extraordinary market conditions today.

Yet, a fundamental question remains: is oil and gas expansion in the best interest of financial stakeholders? Beneath rhetoric of energy exceptionalism and oil and gas demand growth, the numbers tell a different story.

The same energy crisis that makes Canadian supply look attractive today risks accelerating a market shift away from fossil fuel imports.

Through a short-term lens, oil and gas expansion in Canada may appear lucrative. With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, producers operating outside of the Persian Gulf are reaping steep windfalls as global supply tightens. However, the fundamentals of new projects fall short in the face of long-term headwinds.

Oil and gas expansion requires significant upfront capital expenditure to be economically viable, supported by sufficient market demand and prices decades from now. The oil and gas growth narrative in Canada assumes Asian markets, in particular, will absorb long-term export growth.

The accelerating rollout of cheaper and more secure alternatives to oil and gas imports turns this assumption on its head. Asia is electrifying five times faster than the West, while ramping up renewable energy capacity faster than the rest of the world (see Figure 1)[1] – undermining demand for oil and gas in the process. Globally, a range of energy scenarios see demand for oil and gas peaking by 2030 and the mid-2030s, respectively. Reflecting this, investment in clean energy systems already roughly doubles that in fossil fuels.[2] The rise of consolidation among oil and gas majors globally suggests many companies are waking up to the immense transformation of the energy system underway.[3]

Figure 1: Asia is running ahead of the rest of the world on electrotech.

Source: Ember (2026)

Crucially, the current Middle East conflict — while increasing the relative attractiveness of Canadian producers today – may undercut the long-term market demand for Canadian hydrocarbons.

Geopolitical tensions appear to be accelerating Asia’s rapid electrification and renewables buildout, as price-sensitive consumers, businesses, and policymakers confront energy affordability and availability challenges stemming from the region’s high dependence on fossil fuel imports. Across Asia, the doubling of China’s solar PV exports in March 2026, the cancellation of certain LNG-related projects, the fast-tracking of renewable and electricity storage systems, and the restarting of nuclear reactors illustrate this shift.[4]

For LNG specifically, a wave of new projects further threatens to compress prices – compounding the energy transition risk of oil and gas demand destruction. With ~254 million tonnes of LNG expected to come online by 2030, futures markets are seeing LNG prices of $10/MMBtu and below as soon as 2028.[5] At this price, our analysis suggests under-construction and proposed LNG projects in Canada may fail to compete. Simultaneously, LNG price volatility is likely to deter importers from sinking significant capex into regasification infrastructure.

Market uncertainty in coming decades casts doubt on the value-add of potential new oil and gas projects in Canada…

Structural market uncertainty matters to companies and their investors. Investment decisions made today lock oil and gas companies – and their financiers – into projects whose economics depend largely on oil and gas prices decades into the future. Findings from CTI’s Fading Fortunes suggest the extent of this exposure varies: certain Canadian producers face relatively greater risk of value destruction from new projects than others, depending on how cost-competitive their project portfolios are.

Figure 2 summarises the impact of different investment strategies on the upstream oil and gas value of 10 of Canada’s largest producers. The analysis assesses whether investment in new projects adds or destroys value by comparing two growth investment cases against a Depletion case in which no new projects are developed. The “High” investment case (red) reflects business-as-usual “BAU” investment in new projects; the “Managed” investment case (orange) restricts new investment to lower-cost options.

The analysis tests these investment cases under a fast, moderate, and slow transition scenario. The commodity prices tied to these scenarios – while lower than the elevated prices of the 2026 energy crisis – reflect potential long-term prices in the 2030s as markets normalise and oil and gas demand substitution continues.

Figure 2: NPV impact of High and Managed investment relative to Depletion, by Canadian O&G companies under a range of commodity price scenarios.

Sources: Rystad Energy, CTI analysis

Across these 10 companies, downside risk exposure under a fast transition scenario is approximately double the upside potential under a slow transition scenario. Downside risk exposure is particularly pronounced for companies reliant on new gas projects to drive future production.

…yet, financial stakeholders are making long-duration capital bets based on market conditions today.

Canada is continuing to commit capital to assets with multi-decade lives, based on expectations of Asian demand growth for oil and gas imports – precisely as Asia expands clean and homegrown alternatives. Capital decisions are being made based on the extraordinary oil and gas market of 2026, when the financed infrastructure must withstand markets that may look very different through the 2030s and 2040s.

An examination of Canada’s banking system illustrates how this bet is being financed. Canada’s Big Five banks (comprising  Royal Bank of Canada “RBC”, Toronto-Dominion Bank “TD”, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce “CIBC”, Bank of Montreal “BMO”, and Scotiabank) remain among the top financiers globally in terms of lending and underwriting of debt and equity issuances in the oil and gas sector.[6] This financing is often well above average relative to the banks’ size,  compared to their peers. Moreover, the rollback of oil and gas financing policies and emissions targets at several of the Big Five suggests a growing appetite to continue financing oil and gas expansion well into the future.

At a high level, Canada’s Big Five banks appear to have diverged sharply in their response to transition risk exposure from oil and gas financing in recent years. RBC and Scotiabank dropped their 2030 emission reduction targets (and the latter dropped its 2050 net-zero target); simultaneously, they increased their financing of oil and gas expansion companies by  ~8% and ~2%, respectively, from 2024 to 2025. In contrast, CIBC, TD, and BMO Financial Group decreased such financing by ~9%, 7%, and 20%, respectively, over this period.

However, these headline figures do not capture more granular shifts in financing. A CTI analysis of data from the Banking on Climate Chaos Coalition shows upstream expansion financing for nine of Canada’s largest upstream producers in 2024 and 2025, broken down by bank (Figure 3).[7]

Figure 3: Big Five and other bank financing of oil and gas expansion across large oil and gas companies in Canada (2024-2025).

Sources: Banking on Climate Chaos Coalition, CTI analysis

Viewing upstream expansion-related bank financing (Figure 3) alongside the risk profile of upstream project portfolios (Figure 2), it is evident that all of the Big Five have increased upstream expansion financing for certain companies with high-risk upstream project portfolios.

Among Canadian oil and gas companies assessed by CTI, Big Five financing increased most sharply for ARC Resources. Each bank increased its upstream expansion financing for ARC by between 80% to 670%, contrasting sharply with the ~60% reduction in financing by non-Big Five banks. CTI analysis suggests a high level of downside risk exposure within ARC’s upstream project portfolio: under a fast-paced transition scenario, ARC’s potential new upstream projects risk reducing upstream value by ~60%, relative to a scenario in which the company invests in no new projects. Big Five financing also increased for Strathcona and Whitecap, despite the significant downside risk exposure of their project portfolios.

Risk from upstream oil and gas expansion exposes a broad range of stakeholders, with cascading effects.

The financial risk exposure of oil and gas expansion in Canada extends well beyond oil and gas companies and their financiers. The same commodity price assumptions that expose bank financing to risk also expose equity investments and government revenues.

Ultimately, value at risk from new upstream projects puts pressure on the credit quality of Canadian oil and gas companies, with potential implications for national financial stability and lending to the broader Canadian economy.

Risk of asset stranding within the upstream oil and gas sector also exposes midstream oil and gas assets – including pipelines – to lower-than-expected throughput volumes and revenues. This risk within midstream activities undermines the financial viability of proposed new pipelines, which may cost Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.[8]

Continued dependence on the oil and gas sector for economic growth also exposes certain provinces to fiscal risk. Findings from CTI’s Petro-Provinces at Risk suggest a moderate-paced energy transition could eliminate over 80% of Canadian provincial governments’ expected revenue from upstream oil and gas over the next decade. Export Development Canada’s potentially growing exposure to major projects puts federal tax dollars at risk as well.

What does this mean for Canadian stakeholders?

• For policymakers and regulators: Ottawa and Alberta’s push for oil and gas expansion appears disconnected from the economic reality facing the sector. Expanding the oil and gas system is very different from – and riskier than – continuing to operate existing assets alone. Consider whether the national strategy reflects a realistic set of assumptions around long-term market conditions, and what role the country could play in an emerging electrotech system. Further diversification of the economy could reduce exposure to transition risk from the oil and gas sector while offering opportunities to lead in a new energy landscape.
• For banks: As key markets rapidly transform, can lending portfolios withstand a faster-than-anticipated energy transition? Consider how to adjust financing to a future where demand for oil and gas may be significantly lower than today.
• For investors: Asset managers should assess and make investment decisions based on a realistic range of long-term demand scenarios. Pension funds are particularly exposed to transition-related financial risks from oil and gas portfolio companies, due to the decades-long time horizon of their investment portfolios.

Conclusion

The oil and gas sector has played an important economic role in Canada for many years. But the revenues and jobs it generated in the past are not guaranteed in the future. As technology changes exponentially, fossil fuel expansion in Canada leaves oil and gas companies and their financial stakeholders exposed to a growing risk of value destruction. Prime Minister Carney and financial stakeholders must decide whether they are willing to bet Canada’s fortunes on static assumptions, and what role Canada will play in an emerging energy system of the future.

 

________________________

[1] Ember, Electric Asia (June 2026) pp. 12, 15.

[2] IEA, World Energy Investment 2026 (2026), p. 202.

[3] CTI, The Quiet Retreat: Why the oil and gas industry is implementing its own decline, even as the IEA resurrects an old growth scenario (November 2025).

[4] Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), The current state of LNG in Canada (July 2026).

[5] IEEFA, The current state of LNG in Canada (July 2026).

[6] Banking on Climate Chaos Coalition, Banking on Climate Chaos 2026 (May 2026), p. 25.

[7] Analysis excludes Imperial Oil due to lack of available data on financing.

[8] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that Canadian taxpayers may potentially cover 90% of the estimated $35.2-$43.7bn cost of a new crude oil pipeline.

 

 

The post What energy world is Canada betting on? appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

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

09-04 * 13:00 - GARDA Working Group meeting #8 (Bea)

On the arid African savanna, grasses are growing faster than they were a generation ago, boosted by rising levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. That is the finding of a new study that warns that faster growth could fuel larger wildfires and alter the distribution of wildlife.

Read more on E360 →

If all food waste in the US found a second life as biogas and compost, this would almost completely offset its climate impact. But, it would also create a microplastic problem spread over a gigantic area.

This is the catch-22 described in a new study from Nature Food, which explores both the massive potential and the overlooked risks of tackling food waste. There is however a solution, say its authors, which is to design packaging and get much better at separating our waste.

The research, produced by the University of Vermont, was inspired by local recycling laws which require Vermont businesses and residents to keep food waste out of their bins, ensuring that landfills remain food-scrap-free. What would that look like, scaled up to the whole of the US? The researchers found out by gathering food waste recycling data from across the US, then running a detailed lifecycle analysis on anaerobic digestion to make biogas, and food waste composting measures. For each one they looked at the associated climate emissions, nitrogen and phosphorus loading on waterways, and plastic pollution. Then they compared these two recycling measures with the alternative and all its associated impacts: dumping food waste in a landfill. 

This revealed that food recycling brings some seriously big wins for climate and nutrient pollution. Firstly, it would reduce the climate burden of food waste by between 89 and 99% in the US. Converting food waste into biogas and compost cuts nitrogen pollution by between 49 and 54%, and phosphorus loading by 78 to 98%, compared to current landfill-focused measures. 

However there’s a huge polluting underbelly to this otherwise logical solution: that is the 20,000 extra tons of plastic pollution that would be tilled into the soil as compost and organic byproducts from anaerobic digestion each year. How does plastic even come into it? Because so much of our food is now coated and packaged in this material, and it is a challenge to completely remove it. 

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:This 3-ingredient film made from food waste may actually beat regular plastic packaging?

 

Much of our food goes bad while still encased in plastic, and people can’t always be relied upon to peel plastic off rotting food and put it into a different bin. Equipment designed to separate old food and plastic in commercial settings involves a degree of mechanical error, which could result in potentially industrial scales of plastic entering food waste streams. Ultimately, countrywide food waste recycling would increase plastic soil pollution “by an order of magnitude, even with highly effective (99% efficient) separation technologies in place,” the researchers write. 

So how to unpick this mess? A starting point would be to design better packaging, and the researchers find that encasing our food in biodegradable materials would decrease the 100-year accumulation rate of plastic in agricultural soils by up to 99%. But biodegradable materials aren’t the whole solution and they bring challenges of their own. 

Others may argue that the more effective approach lies in reducing how much single-use packaging we use, and questioning how much of it we need in the first place — a solution that requires global systems change, far beyond the US.

Porterfield et. al. “Food waste recycling in the USA can reduce climate and nutrient pollution impacts yet risks plastic accumulation in soils.” Nature Food. 2026.

Image: Based on Karolina Grabowska/Unsplash

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter, released weekly on Thursdays. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

For nearly a year now, Food Tank has been bringing our live storytelling series “Voices of Farmers: A Love Story” around the world.

On sold-out stages across three continents just in the past year alone—including Sundance, London Climate Action Week, SXSW, Smock Alley Theatre in Dublin, Climate Week NYC, and Adelaide Fringe in Australia—farmers have shared moving personal stories of deep connections to the land and to our food.

I love this storytelling style, because it accomplishes something bigger than just a one-night event. For farmers, it’s a launchpad to help audiences understand the many ways farmers power the food system, nourish their communities, and lead climate-smart innovation. And each of us listening can channel the emotion and passion we’re hearing onstage into transformative action steps in our own communities and professional worlds.

Next Tuesday, Aug. 25, we’re heading to Minneapolis for Celebrating Minnesota’s Farmers: A Love Story, in partnership with the City of Minneapolis, the Minnesota Farmers Union, and Niman Ranch. The event starts at 6 p.m. at the gorgeous Minneapolis Central Library, and you can reserve your FREE spot by CLICKING HERE.

Our farmer storytellers include fourth-generation organic dairy farmer Emily Zweber, food systems advocate and urban farmer Sina War, regenerative farmer and on-the-ground educator Trisha Zachman, organic farmer and trailblazing Hmong entrepreneur Mhonpaj Lee, third-generation Cameroonian farmer Anita Nain Fondikum, and seventh-generation livestock farmer and advocate Maddie Hokanson. They are all amazing!

In addition, we’ll have a fireside chat with celebrity chef and U.N. Goodwill Ambassador Andrew Zimmern and hear remarks from speakers including Ed Eiffler-Jaramillo, City of Minneapolis Mayor’s Office; Victor Stefanescu, Star Tribune; Zoe Hollomon, Midwest Farmers of Color; Gary Wertish, Minnesota Farmers Union; Mark Ritchie, Former Minnesota Secretary of State; Thom Petersen, Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture; and State Representative Pam Altendorf. We’re also honored to have video remarks from Senator Amy Klobuchar, Governor Tim Walz, and Congresswoman Kelly Morrison.

The whole show is dramaturged and directed by my Food Tank co-founder Bernard Pollack! We’ll also be debuting original Food Tank shorts created by filmmaker Haven Worley to accompany the farmers’ stories. (Haven also directed Food Tank’s original documentary short “Irish Farmers: A Love Story,” which began as a farmer storytelling theater event in Dublin and is now being accepted into major festivals. You can watch it HERE with the special password Irishfarmers.)

As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I know firsthand that this part of the United States is not a monolith or “flyover country”—it’s home to resilient, complex, forward-looking communities that are globally connected but deeply rooted. I’m so excited to hear these farmers’ stories and to share them with all of you!

If you live in Minnesota, I hope you’ll join us. And if you don’t live in Minnesota, this event is worth the drive—and if there’s one thing I know, it’s that we Midwesterners aren’t afraid of a good road trip! So CLICK HERE again to grab a free ticket, and I’ll see you next week.

And looking forward to the rest of the year, we hope you’ll join us for more farmer storytelling. To kick off Climate Week NYC, in partnership with Whole Foods on Sunday, September 20, we’re excited to present “Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers are Shaping the Future of Food,” which you can find out more about HERE. And as part of the International Year of the Woman Farmer, we’re heading to Capitol Hill in partnership with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on December 7 as part of the 2nd Annual Food and Agriculture Policy Summit Week. Registration will open soon HERE.

We also bring you on-the-ground stories of family farmers as part of our regular Farmer Friday series, which you can find on FoodTank.com.

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

Photo courtesy of Frances Gunn, Unsplash

The post In Minnesota, Hear Stories from the Present and Future of Farming appeared first on Food Tank.

Headline News:

• “Germany Reports Record 14,000 Heat-Related Deaths This Year, Official Data Shows” • Germany had a record of around 14,000 heat-related deaths this summer as Europe struggled through a series of punishing heatwaves, official data showed. Around 9,600 of those deaths were recorded in one week in late June when it was over 40°C (104°F). [Euronews]

People cooling off in Berlin (Roy Zuo, CC BY-SA 4.0)

• “The Panama Canal Is To Reduce Shipping As El Niño Fuels Drought In The Lakes That Feed The Waterway” • The Panama Canal will cut the number of ships passing through it starting next month because of drought caused by the El Niño climate phenomenon, the operator of the strategic waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific said. [Euronews]
• “How Solar Panel Prices Fell 90% In 15 Years” • Solar power is by far the world’s fastest-growing form of energy production, beating out every other form of energy on Earth in 2025. Despite the recent political pivot away from renewable energy in the largest economy in the world, solar power continues to shatter its own records. [OilPrice.com]
• “Sunrun Shifts Away From Affiliates To Direct Sales” • Sunrun has been the #1 rooftop solar power installer in the US for several years now, ever since SolarCity got swallowed up by Tesla and dwindled to a relatively low level. But that doesn’t mean Sunrun hasn’t been facing its own challenges. Now it has decided to shift more to a direct sales strategy. [CleanTechnica]
• “Princeton Critical Minerals Has Raised $16 Million To Scale Lithium Production Technologies” • Princeton Critical Minerals, a startup developing technologies to extract lithium from brine, has raised $16 million to address increasing demand for critical minerals used in energy storage, electrification, and artificial intelligence infrastructure. [CleanTechnica]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

• 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.

For several years now, a few Republican lawmakers and their Big Ag allies have pushed federal legislation to effectively preempt, or block, state food safety and animal welfare laws.

More than just a record of the build, the film is a thoughtful exploration of the knowledge, values and community spirit behind Earthship construction.

The webinar provided a forum for farmers’ organisations, cooperatives, academics and international institutions from various countries to share experiences and learn from one another.

The post SPI, Indonesia: Agricultural Cooperatives the Cornerstone of Land Reform and Food Sovereignty appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.