News Feeds

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

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

Demand for key grid hardware has soared since 2019, due to large load growth, integration of new energy generation resources, and investment to modernize the aging grid. This demand is driving up equipment lead times and prices. In fact, if you need a large power transformer, you may have to wait up to four years. The stakes are high for American businesses and consumers: the grid supply chain crunch is already impacting utility bills, threatening reliability, and stalling critical projects, from power plants and data centers to new housing construction.

While recent investment announcements in domestic grid component manufacturing will help ease shortages in the coming years, these developments on their own are not enough to secure America’s grid supply chain. Policymakers can leverage a range of proven industrial policy tools to boost the capacity, coordination, and competitiveness of US grid component manufacturing. Addressing the gridlock is an opportunity to reinvigorate domestic manufacturing, strengthen US energy security, improve energy affordability, and propel economic growth.

The post Solving the Gridlock: America’s Electric Supply Chain Opportunity appeared first on RMI.

Every spring and fall, millions of migratory birds cross the American continent along major natural corridors known as flyways. These flyways connect ecosystems, economies, and cultures from the...

Click the icon at the bottom right to view the issue full screen. March 2026

The post Down to Earth: March 2026 appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

Don’t be fooled by NorthWestern Energy and the PSC’s spin on the latest rate increase to Montanan’s energy bills. In November 2025, the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) announced it denied $43 million in rate increases to NorthWestern Energy “to the benefit of Montana customers.” So why are Montana customers still paying more? MEIC’s Energy …

The post MEIC’s Nick Fitzmaurice Explains How NorthWestern Energy Keeps Getting Away with Raising Montana Customer’s Rates appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

Indigenous leaders from across the Amazon have warned that stopping the expansion of oil drilling into their territories will be a crucial test for a growing international coalition committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

As 60 countries discussed at a landmark conference in Santa Marta, Colombia, pathways to end the world’s reliance on fossil fuels, Indigenous groups said the process risks losing credibility if governments continue opening new oil frontiers in the Amazon.

Their central demand was the establishment of fossil fuel “exclusion zones” across Indigenous territories and biodiverse areas of the rainforest, permanently barring new oil and gas expansion in one of the world’s most critical ecosystems. Indigenous representatives proposed establishing protected “Life Zones”, which they said would provide legal safeguards against governments and companies seeking to expand extraction into their lands.

But Indigenous delegates left the conference frustrated as the final synthesis report drafted by co-chairs Colombia and the Netherlands failed to include the proposal.

In a statement at the end of the conference, Patricia Suárez, from the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC), said formally declaring Indigenous territories – especially those inhabited by peoples in voluntary isolation – as exclusion zones for extractive industries was “an urgent measure”.

“If the heart of the conference does not begin there, it risks remaining a set of good intentions that fails to respond to either science or our Indigenous knowledge systems,” she added.

Pushing for a new oil frontier

Campaigners say the pressure on the Amazon is intensifying just as scientists warn the rainforest is nearing irreversible collapse. Around 20% of all newly identified global oil reserves between 2022 and 2024 were discovered in the Amazon basin, fuelling renewed interest from governments and companies seeking to develop the region as the world’s next major oil frontier.

Ecuador has moved ahead with the auction of new oil blocks in the rainforest, while the country’s right-wing president Daniel Noboa has promoted the region as a “new oil-producing horizon” and backed efforts to expand fracking with support from Chinese companies.

• Apr 30, 2026 News Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green Read more
• Apr 29, 2026 Comment Six nations at Santa Marta could shape fossil fuel futures A small but critical handful of countries attending the conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels remain deeply committed to expanding their output Read more
• May 6, 2026 Investigations How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets Shell used its exit from onshore operations in Nigeria to boost its climate credentials, but new reporting shows that the firm continues to trade oil from its former business Read more

In Santa Marta, a coalition of seven Indigenous nations from Ecuador issued a declaration condemning the government, which did not participate in the conference.

“While the world talks about energy transition, our government is pushing for more oil in the Amazon,” said Marcelo Mayancha, president of the Shiwiar nation. “Throughout history, we have always defended our land. That is our home. We will forever defend our territory.”

Indigenous groups also warned that Peru – another South American nation absent from the conference – plans to auction new oil blocks in the Yavarí-Tapiche Territorial Corridor, a highly sensitive region along the Brazilian border that contains the world’s largest known concentration of Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.

COP30 host under scrutiny

Indigenous leaders also criticised Brazil, arguing that despite its international climate leadership, the country is simultaneously advancing major new oil projects in the Amazon region.

Luene Karipuna, delegate from Brazil’s coalition of Amazon peoples (COIAB), said the oil push threatens the stability of the rainforest. Not far from her home, in the northern state of Amapá, state-run oil giant Petrobras is currently exploring for new offshore oil reserves off the mouth of the Amazon river.

Brazil participated in the Santa Marta conference and was among the countries that first pushed for discussions on transitioning away from fossil fuels at COP negotiations. Yet the country is also planning one of the largest expansions in oil production in the world, according to last year’s Production Gap report.

Veteran Brazilian climate scientist Carlos Nobre told Climate Home that the country’s participation at the Santa Marta conference contrasted with its oil and gas production targets. “It does not make any sense for Brazil to continue with any new oil exploration,” he said, and noted that science is clear that no new fossil fuels should be developed to avoid crossing dangerous climate tipping points.

He added that the Brazilian government faces pressures from economic sectors, since Petrobras is one of the countries top exporting companies. “They look only at the economic value of exporting fossil fuels. Brazil has to change.”

The COP30 host also promised to draft a voluntary proposal for a global roadmap away from fossil fuels, which is expected to be published before this year’s COP31 summit.

“In Brazil, that advance has caused so many problems because it overlaps with Indigenous territories. Companies tell us there won’t be an impact, but we see an impact,” Karipuna said. “We feel the Brazilian government has auctioned our land without dialogue.”

For Karipuna and other Indigenous leaders, establishing exclusion zones across the Amazon is no longer just a regional demand, but a prerequisite to prevent the collapse of the rainforest.

“That’s the first step for an energy transition that places Indigenous peoples at the centre,” she added.

The post Indigenous groups warn Amazon oil expansion tests fossil fuel phase-out coalition appeared first on Climate Home News.

A new study identifies thousands of flowering plants belonging to rare and ancient lineages that are in urgent need of protection. 

Read more on E360 →

In April 2026, Indigenous women’s groups announced looming funding cuts for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG+) support. These cuts occurred without transparent communication or forewarning. At the press conference, Hilda Anderson-Pryz stated, “in March, crucial funding to some Indigenous organizations ended with no official notification of renewal… This lack of sustained support is a significant barrier to making real progress and combating this crisis. Today, our right to life is threatened by the lack of political will and it will remain so until the government enacts the 231 calls for justice. But seven years later… only two have been fully implemented.” Anderson-Pryz addresses the heart of the matter – the true cost of funding cuts – Indigenous women’s lives. 

This economic austerity measure is known as the “sunsetting” of funding. In this case, the federal government will allow critical funding to expire without renewal.

Contrary to the National Inquiry’s (2019) Calls for Justice, which outline the need for long-term, guaranteed, and sustainable funding, multiple programs and projects involving “Indigenous rights, title, and gender-based violence prevention and response” are on the chopping block (Macdonald & McIntosh, 2025). These cutbacks demonstrate that the lives of Indigenous women do not matter to Canada. 

In response to the press conference, over 400 family members of MMIWG+ have questioned the efficacy of National Indigenous women’s organizations. In a letter to Federal government officials, they note that “these organizations do not represent the families” (Ward, 2026, para. 3). This distrust is indicative of tensions between families and Indigenous women’s groups. Both this letter from family members and the National Inquiry (2019) emphasize the need to invest in and resource self-determined, family and survivor-led solutions. 

In this period of economic austerity, and given Canada’s long history of gendered colonization, it is not a surprise that gender-based reconciliatory initiatives are considered expendable.

What do Trump and Carney Have in Common? 

These austerity measures follow news south of the border, where the Trump administration is making funding cuts to the Office on Violence Against Women, which will disproportionately affect Indigenous women. In November 2025, as a part of its attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion, Trump’s administration removed a report from the Department of Justice on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples. Another generation of Indigenous women, on both sides of colonially imposed borders, is now subject to, and targeted by, government policy and societal indifference.

Canada likes to position itself as superior to our Southern neighbours, perpetuating a master narrative of a peaceful, multicultural, accepting, and polite country (Thobani, 2007). This posturing obscures the ongoing colonial genocidal violence that Indigenous Peoples experience through state regimes, policies, and systems. Our relationship to the nation state has always been defined by violence, and hate against Indigenous women runs deep. Despite a master narrative that portrays Canada as a human rights beacon, Indigenous women’s human rights are continuously violated (Luoma, 2021; National Inquiry, 2019a). 

Racism, heteropatriarchy, and misogyny have contributed to Indigenous women being targeted for violence (Bourgeois, 2018; National Inquiry, 2019). The “root cause of violence” against Indigenous women and girls is a “race-based genocide,” and gendered colonization that impacts our safety and contributes to increased violence (Duhamel, 2015; National Inquiry, 2019). Through framing MMIWG as an “Indigenous problem,” Canada has obscured its culpability for ongoing genocide (Bourgeois, 2015; Dowling, 2019; National Inquiry, 2019). The rise in residential school denialism, white nationalism, and general disdain for Indigenous Peoples continues apace, colliding with growing economic uncertainty and fear. 

The Economics of Gender (In)Justice  

Under “Canada Strong,” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Federal government made massive budget cuts to “Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC),” and to employees who work on the Indigenous rights and relations portfolio at the Department of Justice. These fiscal constraints will widen socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples and contribute to the continued underfunding of essential human services. These cutbacks are not “neutral but in fact follow… racial [and, in this case, gendered] lines” (Levesque, 2025, para. 8). 

Despite Human Rights Tribunal findings that the Canadian government has continuously discriminated against Indigenous children through underfunding child welfare services, these recent measures represent a continued colonial strategy of slashing funding and violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Notably, “the Canadian Human Rights Commission” is also slated to face funding cuts, which will surely exacerbate the impact of these austerity measures (Levesque, 2025; Smith, 2025, para. 11). 

Amidst this uncertainty, Canada’s economic priorities reveal a shallow commitment to “reconciliation” (Assembly of First Nations, 2025) and gender justice, with disproportionate impacts for Indigenous women. Additionally, federal service cuts include Correctional Service Canada (CSC). Over 50% of federally incarcerated women are Indigenous (and have an MMIW family member). Given the importance of literacy levels for rehabilitation and reintegration, CSC’s proposed cuts to “library technicians and employment co-ordinator positions” will contribute to the ongoing confinement of Indigenous women (Ibrahim, 2026, para. 1), contrary to the Department of Justice’s Indigenous Justice Strategy (IJS) released in March 2025. 

Implementing the IJS strategy will require “substantial effort and funding commitments” (Horn, 2025, para. 11). The 2025 Canada Strong Budget does not mention the IJS. Just like the clip art adorning the IJS – this is yet another example of window dressing – the shifts, niceties, and apologies that momentarily give us hope, “only to ultimately crush it” (Horn, 2025, para. 13). 

Together, these economic measures confirm that the era of rights and reconciliation for Indigenous Peoples, and Indigenous women in particular, is long gone. Instead, as the budget reveals, our inherent rights, laws, and lives are overridden in pursuit of military, extractive, and industrial projects, so-called economic reconciliation or, the “National Interest.”

Economic reconciliation maintains dependence on a predatory economy and perpetuates violence against the land, waters, and Indigenous women. It is not freedom. It is not self-determination. It is colonization. 

Clearly, the lives, human rights, and safety of Indigenous women are not a priority for the Federal government. These austerity measures coincide with record-breaking military spending. As NDP Member of Parliament Leah Gazan noted, Prime Minister Carney is cutting approximately “$7 billion of funding between ISC and Crown-Indigenous relations… and has recently committed $13 billion in military funding.” Funding constraints continue amidst increasing rates of violence against Indigenous women, and minimal effort to implement the National Inquiry’s calls for justice. 

Violence on Violence

Indigenous women have long identified the solutions, programs, and support needed to respond to and protect them from violence. Those solutions have been consistently ignored by successive colonial governments (Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, 1991; Amnesty International 2004; National Inquiry, 2019; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996). Families have continuously questioned decisions that are made without them, behind closed doors. 

This lack of transparency and accountability continues with the Canada Strong Budget (2025). Existing programming was already subject to patchwork – meaning it is often unsustainable, short-term, and project-based (or all three) – funding issues, and ongoing struggles to meet the needs of clientele (National Inquiry, 2019a). 

Tightening the fiscal shoestrings and using stealthy “sunsetting” to halt funding that supports ending violence against Indigenous women – while simultaneously increasing funding to support the military industrial complex – demonstrates the Canadian government’s ongoing commitment to sustaining shape-shifting colonial violence.

Endnotes

Assembly of First Nations [AFN]. Federal Budget 2025. AFN, 2025. https://afn.ca/all-news/bulletins/federal-budget-2025/ 

Bourgeois, E. “Generations of genocide – The historical roots of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” In K. Anderson, C. Belcourt, & M. Campbell (Eds.), Keetsahnak, Our Missing and Murdered Indigenous Sisters. University of Alberta Press, 2018.

Bourgeois, R. “Colonial exploitation: The Canadian state and the trafficking of Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada.” UCLA Law Review, 1426 (2015): 1428-1463. 

CPAC. “Indigenous women’s groups warn of the sunsetting of some funding for MMIWG supports.” April 8, 2026 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/live/ak-r2G48WeA 

Department of Justice Canada. Indigenous Justice Strategy. Government of Canada, 2025. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ijr-dja/ijs-sja/tijs-lsja/pdf/IJS_EN.pdf 

Dowling, S. Elimination, in the feminine. Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 21.6 (2019): 787-802. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2019.1607525

Duhamel, K.R. “‘I feel like my spirit knows violence’ understanding genocide – and how to stop it – in the context of the National inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” In J. Black-Morsette (Ed.), REDress. HighWater Press, 2025.

Fryer, S. & Leblanc-Laurendeau, O. Background paper: Understanding federal jurisdiction and First Nations (Publication No. 1019-51-E). Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2019. https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/BackgroundPapers/PDF/2019-51-E.pdf 

Government of Canada. Canada Strong Budget 2025. Government of Canada, 2025. https://budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/pdf/budget-2025.pdf 

Horn, K. “The Indigenous Justice Strategy: ‘Progressive and Transformative Reform’?” Yellowhead Institute, May 21, 2025. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2025/the-indigenous-justice-strategy-progressive-and-transformative-reform/ 

Hwang, P. “Cuts targeting Indigenous rights staff at Justice Department ‘reckless,’ critics warn.” CBC News. February 23, 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cuts-targeting-indigenous-rights-staff-at-justice-department-reckless-critics-warn-9.7097164 

Ibrahim, S. “Federal prisons to lose library technicians, employment co-ordinators in budget cuts.” CBC News. March 11, 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prison-cuts-librarians-employment-coordinators-9.7123434 

Lapointe, J. “Can the new B.C. government bring real change for Indigenous communities?” The Narwhal. November 20, 2024. https://thenarwhal.ca/energy-economic-reconciliation-indigenous-youth-bc/ 

Levesque, A. “Carney government cuts unfairly hit First Nations.” Policy Options. July 22, 2025.https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/07/budget-cuts-first-nations/ 

Luetkemeyer, E. “Trump administration removes report on Missing and Murdered Native Americans, calling it DEI content.” Oklahoma Watch. November 14, 2025. https://oklahomawatch.org/2025/11/14/trump-administration-removes-report-on-missing-and-murdered-native-americans-calling-it-dei-content/ 

Luoma, C. “Closing the cultural rights gap in transitional justice: Developments from Canada’s National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 39.1 (2021): 30-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051921992747 

Macdonald, D. & Mcintosh, E. ‘Budget cuts by stealth: Letting programs ‘sunset’ to cut costs won’t be painless.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. October 28, 2025. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/budget-cuts-by-stealth-letting-programs-sunset-to-cut-costs-wont-be-painless/ 

National Inquiry. (2019a). Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the National Inquiry Intro Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. National Inquiry, 2019. https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a-1.pdf
Pember, M.A. “Trump administration targets office on violence against women with ‘consolidation.’” ICT News. January 29, 2026. https://ictnews.org/news/trump-administration-targets-office-on-violence-against-women-with-consolidation/ 

Smith, D. “‘Concerning’ cuts to justice system in federal budget.” CBA National. November 5, 2025. https://nationalmagazine.ca/fr-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2025/%E2%80%98concerning-cuts-to-justice-system-in-federal-budget 

Thobani, S. Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and nation in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2007.

Citation:

McGuire, Michaela M. “Sunsetting Gender Justice: Economic Austerity and the Defunding of MMIWG+ Supports,” Yellowhead Institute. May 08, 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/sunsetting-gender-justice-economic-austerity-and-the-defunding-of-mmiwg-supports

Artwork: MMIR 2024, Solange Aguilar, @shesanargonaut

The post Sunsetting Gender Justice: <br> Economic Austerity and the Defunding of MMIWG+ Supports appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

Permainan slot online sering dianggap sepenuhnya bergantung pada keberuntungan. Namun, pemain berpengalaman memahami bahwa ada beberapa indikator penting yang dapat dianalisis untuk membaca ritme permainan secara lebih efektif. Istilah seperti RTP, volatilitas, hit frequency, hingga pola bonus sebenarnya bukan mitos semata, melainkan bagian dari sistem matematis yang membentuk perilaku sebuah game slot.

Meski demikian, penting untuk memahami satu hal sejak awal: slot online modern bekerja sehingga tidak ada pola pasti yang dapat menjamin kemenangan. Yang bisa dilakukan pemain adalah membaca karakteristik permainan untuk meningkatkan efisiensi bermain dan mengelola risiko dengan lebih cerdas.

Apa yang Dimaksud dengan “Pola Slot”?

Dalam praktik komunitas pemain, “pola slot” biasanya mengacu pada:

• Frekuensi munculnya scatter
• Jarak antar bonus
• Perubahan ritme kemenangan kecil
• Pola taruhan tertentu
• Perilaku volatilitas game

Secara teknis, pola ini bukan rumus pasti, melainkan observasi statistik terhadap perilaku game dalam periode tertentu.

Pemain profesional umumnya tidak percaya pada “kode rahasia slot”, tetapi lebih fokus membaca:

• jenis volatilitas,
• distribusi pembayaran,
• RTP,
• dan momentum permainan.

Faktor Penting untuk Membaca Pola Slot 1. RTP (Return to Player)

RTP adalah persentase teoritis pengembalian dana kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang.

Contoh sederhana:

RTP=96%=96100RTP = 96\% = \frac{96}{100}RTP=96%=10096​

Artinya, dari total taruhan 100 unit, game secara teori mengembalikan 96 unit kepada pemain dalam jutaan putaran. Namun RTP bukan jaminan hasil sesi pribadi.

Cara Menggunakan RTP untuk Membaca Pola

• RTP tinggi (>96%) biasanya lebih stabil
• RTP rendah cenderung lebih agresif terhadap bankroll
• RTP tinggi cocok untuk permainan jangka panjang

Pemain berpengalaman sering memilih game dengan RTP tinggi untuk mengurangi risiko kehilangan modal terlalu cepat.

2. Volatilitas Slot

Volatilitas menentukan bagaimana slot membayar kemenangan.

Volatilitas Rendah

• Menang lebih sering
• Nilai kemenangan kecil
• Cocok untuk modal kecil

Volatilitas Tinggi

• Kemenangan lebih jarang
• Potensi jackpot besar
• Membutuhkan modal lebih kuat

Hubungan RTP dan volatilitas sering disalahpahami. Dua slot bisa memiliki RTP sama tetapi pengalaman bermain sangat berbeda.

Analogi Praktis

Bayangkan dua game memiliki RTP 96%:

• Slot A memberi kemenangan kecil setiap beberapa spin
• Slot B jarang menang tetapi sekali menang nilainya besar

Inilah mengapa pemain perlu membaca “karakter game”, bukan hanya angka RTP.

Cara Membaca Momentum Slot Secara Praktis 1. Perhatikan Hit Frequency

Hit frequency adalah seberapa sering kemenangan muncul.

Ciri slot dengan hit frequency tinggi:

• Banyak kemenangan kecil
• Balance lebih stabil
• Bonus muncul lebih konsisten

Sedangkan hit frequency rendah biasanya:

• Banyak spin kosong
• Bonus sulit muncul
• Potensi payout besar saat menang

Pemain berpengalaman biasanya melakukan 20–50 spin awal untuk membaca ritme game sebelum meningkatkan taruhan.

2. Analisis Pola Scatter dan Bonus

Scatter menjadi indikator penting dalam observasi pola slot.

Beberapa tanda yang sering diperhatikan:

• Scatter muncul berulang di reel tertentu
• Bonus hampir aktif beberapa kali
• Free spin mulai lebih sering muncul

Meskipun tetap acak, banyak pemain menggunakan observasi ini untuk menentukan:

• lanjut bermain,
• pindah game,
• atau menurunkan taruhan.

Membaca Slot Volatilitas Tinggi

Misalkan seorang pemain mencoba game dengan:

• RTP 96,5%
• volatilitas tinggi,
• max win besar.

Dalam 100 spin pertama:

• 70 spin kosong
• 20 kemenangan kecil
• 8 kemenangan sedang
• 2 bonus free spin

Bagi pemain baru, pola ini terlihat buruk. Namun bagi pemain berpengalaman, ini normal untuk slot volatilitas tinggi.

Game jenis ini sering:

• menyimpan payout besar,
• memiliki fase “kering”,
• lalu memberikan lonjakan kemenangan besar.

Karena itu, pemain profesional biasanya:

• menyiapkan bankroll lebih panjang,
• menggunakan taruhan stabil,
• dan tidak langsung mengejar kekalahan.

Mengikuti Pola Tanpa Memahami Volatilitas

Banyak pemain mengikuti “pola gacor” tanpa memahami tipe game.

Padahal:

• pola taruhan cocok di slot rendah volatilitas belum tentu efektif di slot tinggi volatilitas,
• setiap provider memiliki algoritma distribusi berbeda.

Bermain Emosional

Ketika kalah beruntun, banyak pemain:

• menaikkan taruhan,
• mengejar kekalahan,
• kehilangan kontrol bankroll.

Dalam analisis profesional, pengelolaan modal justru lebih penting dibanding mencari pola.

Strategi Membaca Pola Secara Efektif Gunakan Pendekatan Statistik

Fokus pada:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• dan distribusi bonus.

Jangan terpaku pada mitos komunitas semata.

Catat Performa Game

Pemain serius sering membuat catatan:

• jumlah spin,
• frekuensi scatter,
• waktu bonus muncul,
• pola kemenangan besar.

Data sederhana ini membantu memahami karakter masing-masing game.

Tetapkan Batas Bermain

Strategi terbaik tetap berasal dari kontrol diri:

• tentukan target kemenangan,
• tentukan batas kekalahan,
• berhenti saat target tercapai.

Mengapa Pola Slot Tetap Menarik Dipelajari?

Walaupun slot berbasis, pola perilaku matematis tetap bisa dianalisis secara statistik. Inilah alasan mengapa:

• streamer slot,
• analis kasino,
• hingga komunitas pemain profesional
  sering membahas RTP, volatilitas, dan momentum permainan.

Namun para ahli juga sepakat bahwa:

• tidak ada sistem pasti untuk menang,
• tidak ada jam gacor universal,
• dan tidak ada pola yang bisa mengalahkan RNG secara konsisten.

Kesimpulan

Membaca pola slot online secara efektif bukan berarti mencari trik rahasia untuk menang terus-menerus. Pendekatan yang benar adalah memahami cara kerja game melalui:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• serta perilaku bonus.

Pemain yang cerdas tidak hanya mengandalkan insting, tetapi juga menggunakan observasi, manajemen modal, dan pemahaman statistik sederhana untuk mengambil keputusan bermain yang lebih rasional.

Pada akhirnya, slot online tetap merupakan permainan berbasis probabilitas. Semakin baik pemain memahami struktur matematis di balik permainan, semakin kecil kemungkinan terjebak dalam keputusan emosional dan mitos yang menyesatkan.

Harjeet Singh is a climate activist and strategic advisor to the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, as well as founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.

For thirty years, global climate talks perfected policy paralysis around the primary cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. Within the UNFCCC negotiations, the “consensus card” was played with surgical precision by the fossil fuel industry and wealthy producer nations to block meaningful action.

For decades, talks were restricted to the “demand side” – reducing emissions – while the “supply side” – the extraction of oil, gas, and coal – was treated as a forbidden subject. This so-called progress was a treadmill, leading nowhere despite plenty of sweat.

The breaking point: from Belém to Santa Marta

The failure peaked at COP30 in Belém, where, despite widespread support, the final outcome contained no fossil fuel phase-out mandate. Instead, the world watched as the COP30 Presidency announced a “roadmap” initiative at the very end of the talks – a face-saving measure that lacked formal standing in the process.

The halls of Belém were once again crawling with lobbyists, ensuring that “consensus” remained a tool for delay. Recognising the UNFCCC logjam, Global South countries in the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative demanded a series of dedicated conferences.

• Apr 30, 2026 News Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green Read more
• Apr 28, 2026 News Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way Read more

Colombia, the biggest producer among them, broke the status quo by pioneering this new path: the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, joined by the Netherlands as co-host.

The pioneering conference in Santa Marta in late April moved us from the “if” to the “how”, signalling a shift from airy pledges to the reality of implementation. But as the dust settles, a more ancient struggle is resurfacing: the struggle for the “pen”.

The invisible hand of control

History shows that when developed nations can no longer block a process, they attempt to colonise it. In Santa Marta, we witnessed the opening gambit of a familiar play – exclusion followed by takeover. Critics signalled this early on in an open letter, calling out the systemic disregard for African lives and environments in global policy and the persistent marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples’ voices and concerns.

Under the guise of “technical support”, wealthy nations fought to steer the outcome of workstreams towards Global North-dominated institutions. Despite the expertise they may bring, why are the recognised bodies for this process exclusively based in an area representing only 20% of the world’s population?

The hastily assembled report containing the “Chairs’ Takeaways” from Santa Marta requires scrutiny and raises the following concerns:

• The Roadmap Trap: Connecting national transition plans to the Science Panel on the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) and the NDC Partnership. These bodies, largely dominated by Western experts, risk imposing frameworks that treat sovereign developing nations as markets for the private sector. Will “science” be used to legitimise a Global North-centric status quo while ignoring debt, trade and finance rules, and other forces that shape national policy?

• The Financial Architecture: Pushing the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to lead the work on macroeconomic dependencies on fossil fuels. Expertise matters, but whose stability is going to be prioritised? Is it the communities losing their livelihoods, or the global financial systems that grew fat on fossil fuel rents?

• The Trade Filter: Bringing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – a club of wealthy nations – into “producer–consumer alignment”. This is a coup to ensure the international trade system keeps serving the West and its elites under the guise of “coordination”.

A view of the room during the opening plenary of the Santa Marta conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels on April 28, 2026 (Photo by IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis) A view of the room during the opening plenary of the Santa Marta conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels on April 28, 2026 (Photo by IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis) The “dos and don’ts” for developed nations

For decades, the responsibility of rich nations to provide public finance for climate action in vulnerable countries has been replaced by private sector “leverage”. Developed nations must stop using “climate finance” as a tool to open new markets for their multinational corporations and put actual, grant-based finance on the table to support the transition in the Global South.

They should also refrain from forcing every initiative back into the UNFCCC gridlock, where meaningful progress on a fossil fuel phase-out has been systematically blocked.

Finally, it is critical that the Santa Marta process is recognised as a sovereign space for historically silenced nations to hold polluters accountable, rather than being treated as a showroom for Western exports.

This requires addressing the hypocrisy of so-called “front runners”. Canada, France, Ireland, Australia and Norway attend these conferences as “leaders” while greenlighting oil and gas expansion. You cannot lead a transition while pouring fuel on the fire. Leadership requires immediately ending expansion; anything else is an expensive photo-op.

Unity as the ultimate tool

For developing nations, the path forward is radical unity. Global North diplomacy often seeks to divide and conquer through bilateral deals that bypass collective power. Developing nations must refuse to be cowed.

This is a chance to move beyond tools that prioritise debt and trade over development. Collectively, the Global South can build technical and financial frameworks that advance energy sovereignty and justice. South-South cooperation must be the primary engine of a fair transition that holds historical polluters accountable.

The road to Tuvalu 2027 – reclaiming the agenda

The announcement that Tuvalu will co-host the second conference in 2027 is a political necessity. Tuvalu, a least developed country, is a living symbol of the climate crisis and a vanguard of justice.

Tuvalu must have the power to set the agenda from day one. This cannot be another “safe space” for dialogue without commitment, as seen at the first conference. The road to Tuvalu must advance a mechanism that gained wider support in Santa Marta but was ignored in the Chairs’ Takeaways: a Fossil Fuel Treaty.

We need a framework to manage the decline of fossil fuel extraction based on fair shares and equity, turning international cooperation into support for resilient, renewable economies.

The process has only just begun. Santa Marta was the spark, but Tuvalu must be the engine room of implementation. The Global South must take the pen to script the transition rooted in equity and justice.

The post Developing countries must hold the pen to script the fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

Johnny Appleseed was ahead of his time. Not because he fed so many people by planting apple trees (really, he got them drunk instead, as his real goal was encouraging the production of cider), but because he created so much shade to enjoy on hot days. More than two centuries later, American cities are wishing they had better followed Appleseed’s lead, as rising temperatures and a lack of tree cover combine to make urban life increasingly stifling.

A pair of new studies show how simply planting more trees can provide huge temperature benefits, not to mention how the additional plant life would boost biodiversity and improve mental health for urbanites. The first finds that tree cover can cancel half of the heat island effect, in which the urban jungle gets much hotter than the surrounding countryside. The second compares neighborhoods in 65 American cities, finding that canopy-deprived areas suffer up to 40 percent more excess heat than heavily greened spots. 

Places like New York and Atlanta and Los Angeles, then, don’t just have to foster and maintain their “gray” infrastructure — roads and sidewalks and such — but their living infrastructure as well. “Heat is already a major public health threat. It kills 350,000 people a year by some estimates, and it’s worse in cities,” said Robert McDonald, the Nature Conservancy’s lead scientist for nature-based solutions and lead scientist for Europe, who spearheaded the first paper. “The urban heat island effect would be about double what it is now if world cities didn’t have trees.”

By increasing their canopies, metropolises dress themselves like their more comfortable rural counterparts. A vegetated area cools itself both because plants “sweat” by releasing moisture from their leaves, and because trees provide shade. By contrast, concrete absorbs the sun’s energy, driving temperatures up, and releases it throughout the night. That beats back the cooling typically experienced in the evening, meaning urbanites without air conditioning don’t get respite. This is especially dangerous for vulnerable groups like the elderly, and it’s one reason heat kills more Americans every year than all other extreme weather events combined.

Such conditions are especially dangerous for those living in lower-income neighborhoods, which tend to have significantly less tree canopy than richer areas. In industrialized areas, for example, vast stretches of concrete absorb and radiate heat. In urban centers, policymakers may have prioritized building dense housing without incorporating ample tree cover. Compare that to the suburbs, which have plenty of parks, curbside trees, and yards to cool things down.

The differences in greenery between neighborhoods translates into striking differences in temperatures. The second study calculated this “cooling dividend,” or the difference in the average urban heat island in areas with low and high canopy cover. It found gaps reaching almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit. If you’re lucky enough to live where there’s lots of trees, you might experience 20 to 40 percent less excess heat. The report found that this is playing out regularly across the U.S. “I think what maybe was surprising is that there was a dramatic amount of consistency,” said Steve Whitesell, executive editor at the Healthy Green Spaces Coalition, which authored the report. “In other words, they were all showing an impact.”

Read Next Pocket gardens: The tiny urban oases with surprisingly big benefits Matt Simon

The trick is not just planting enough trees, but planting the right kind. The biggest species provide the most shade, of course. But more cryptically, some provide more evaporative cooling than others — drought-adapted trees, for instance, try to retain as much water as they can. A neighborhood might also want to prioritize food production, opting for trees that create both shade and fruit. Favoring native varieties will also help support native animal life, like birds and pollinating insects. 

Climate change, though, is complicating these calculations. Even in rural areas, without the added temperatures of the urban heat island effect, some places are getting so hot that native plants are moving north in search of cooler climes. Within cities, they are blasted with still more heat — and temperatures will only climb from here. So urban arborists aren’t just planting species that will thrive today, but will survive the climate of tomorrow. “I think that for us to use trees as a type of living infrastructure, that can counter those increased temperatures, is paramount,” said Edith de Guzman, a cooperative extension researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies urban heat but wasn’t involved in either study. “I think it’s pretty much the most important thing we can do.”

But trees alone can’t save urbanites. McDonald’s study found that even if cities planted as many as possible, it would only offset 20 percent of the potential running up of temperatures due to climate change. Designers will have to deploy other techniques, like reflective rooftops, to manage the heat. That’s especially important in poorer nations, whose cities are rapidly growing but have much less tree cover than richer countries, the study found. “It’s just to say that climate change is a big enough challenge that while planting more tree cover helps with temperatures, it won’t do the job by itself,” McDonald said. 

Urban areas have been here before, McDonald added. As the Industrial Revolution kicked in, people in overpopulated metropolises would have to travel to the countryside to glimpse greenery. An exception was London, with its many publicly available green spaces, which Paris took as inspiration when it essentially rebuilt itself in the 1800s and made room for massive parks. Today, planners are similarly bringing some of the country back into the city, blurring the lines between rural and urban. “We know how to increase tree cover, if we put our minds to it,” McDonald said. “But it takes effort and time.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The solution to urban heat is much, much simpler than you think on May 8, 2026.

Campaigners working to limit the use of controversial sun-dimming technology have praised the Europe’s foreign ministers for warning of the risks such technology poses, but opinions remain split over whether it merits more research, with the European Union keeping its position open for now.

At a joint council meeting in Luxembourg, ministers representing the EU’s 27 member states signed off on a statement agreeing for the first time that they were “concerned that large-scale climate interventions, in particular solar radiation modification (SRM), pose significant risks for the climate, the environment, security and geopolitics”.

Their statement, issued in late April, called for a moratorium on deployment of SRM technologies, as well as “the full application of the precautionary principle to geoengineering” and for the EU to engage in international talks on international governance arrangements, including those related to research.

SRM refers to any deliberate attempt to reduce the amount of heat which reaches the Earth from the sun. This could be carried out by artificially brightening clouds or injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, which could reduce or reverse global warming but risk severe and unpredictable side-effects.

• Jun 12, 2025 News Deep-sea geoengineering set for scrutiny, as ocean treaty approval nears The High Seas Treaty could require environmental impact assessments and consultation for marine carbon dioxide removal projects Read more
• Feb 3, 2025 Energy Arctic geoengineering experiment shuts down over environmental risks US-based nonprofit Arctic Ice Project has cancelled tests in Alaska because of potential disruption to the food chain Read more
• Dec 9, 2024 News EU should push for global deal to curb solar geoengineering, advisors say Europe’s first scientific advice on the technology urges Brussels to prevent its deployment, leaving room for limited outdoor research Read more

The risks of carrying out SRM are widely acknowledged but climate campaigners and scientists remain divided on to what extent and how its effects should be researched, with some arguing that such work normalises it and encourages its deployment.

Experts on both sides of the debate welcomed the EU’s statement but made contrasting calls on what should happen next. A more pro-research group said the EU should encourage responsible research into SRM’s effects while more anti-research campaigners said the EU should prevent research that could lead to SRM’s deployment and agree not to use it.

Responsible research

Giulia Neri, the interim director of climate interventions at the Brussels-based think-tank Centre for Future Generations (CFG), which supports research into SRM, told Climate Home News that the EU’s statement sends “an important and timely signal on the need for rules governing SRM”.

She added that the fact it was issued by foreign – not climate – ministers shows “a growing recognition that SRM is a geopolitically relevant technology and not merely a climate-related issue”.

Her colleague, CFG adviser on climate interventions, Matthias Honneger added that the EU nations’ ministers in charge of research “might also consider how responsible public research under European oversight can help maintain Europe’s influence”.

This is especially important, Honneger said, as “private and global actors increasingly dominate what we know about this technology and its risks and benefits”.

A well-funded US-Israeli company Stardust claims to be developing the ability to carry out SRM and is seeking customers – including the US government – to pay for them to do so.

Impossible to test

Mary Chuch, who campaigns against geoengineering for the Center for International Environmental Law, also welcomed the foreign ministers’ statement.

She said it was right to emphasise “the risks of highly speculative geoengineering technologies, centre the precautionary principle and reinforce the longstanding moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity”.

How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets

But, rather than calling for more research, she and political scientist Frank Biermann called for the EU to join governments in Africa and the Pacific in calling for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering.

“As an immediate first step, the European Union must prevent research that could lead to the development and use of solar geoengineering technologies,” Biermann said.

Church said that solar geoengineering is “inherently unpredictable” and that it was “impossible to fully test for intended and unintended impacts without prolonged large-scale implementation”.

De facto moratorium

The council’s conclusion did not weigh in on the research debate, only resolving to engage in talks on the governance of research.

But European Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zaharieva said in 2024 that research should continue although it should be “rigorous and ethical, and it must take full account of the possible range of direct and indirect effects”.

Also in 2024, the Swiss government attempted to get countries at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to set up an expert group on SRM. But this failed due to opposition from the African Group, Colombia, Mexico and others, and Switzerland did not try again at the last UNEA in December 2025.

SRM is currently legal in most nations. But there has been a de facto global moratorium in place on geoengineering – which includes SRM – since 2010, when it was agreed by governments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, with exceptions for small-scale scientific research studies.

The post EU warns on solar geoengineering but research debate grinds on appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ninety percent of global trade is conducted by giant ships that crisscross the globe, delivering containers of jet fuel, electronics, clothing, and many other goods every day of the week. Seafaring trade on this scale has brought the cost of many products down dramatically, but those ships have historically run on a very dirty fuel — essentially the sludge left over from refining crude oil — causing the shipping sector to contribute about 3 percent of total carbon emissions worldwide. 

Last year, the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, the United Nations agency overseeing global shipping, was poised to adopt a plan to bring that down to zero. But that was before the Trump administration stepped in, threatening countries with visa restrictions, tariffs, and port fees if they supported the effort. As a result, the ambitious plan to decarbonize global shipping has been on the rocks for months. Alternate proposals that dispense with the core function of the original Net-Zero Framework, or NZF — a per-ton fee on greenhouse gas emissions above a certain threshold — seemed to be gaining traction, threatening climate progress in the sector.

But at a meeting of U.N. member countries last week, none of those watered-down proposals received much attention. Instead, a slim majority of countries expressed vocal support for the NZF, indicating that a narrow path to adopting the framework as originally intended still exists. 

“A genuine spirit of collaboration and optimism pervaded the negotiations,” said Em Fenton, a senior director at the U.K.-based climate group Opportunity Green, who attended the meeting in London. “There were people who did not want to see progress, but a vast majority of delegates in the room were working together.”

The Trump administration opposes the NZF on the grounds that it would burden American consumers and businesses. In public documents submitted to the IMO, the administration has drawn a hard line at penalizing carbon-intensive fuel types and the inclusion of an “economic element,” such as a tax or levy, in the framework. 

“The United States submits that the most appropriate path forward is to end consideration of the IMO Net-Zero Framework entirely,” it noted. 

But supporters of the weaker alternative proposals — which were submitted by Japan, Liberia, Argentina, Panama, and others — did not entirely derail the majority’s push to advance the original NZF. The path to adopting the net-zero plan is a long one — and there’s still time for talks to fall apart. Opponents of the framework can tank it by gathering support from one-third of member countries, or from a smaller group of countries if that group controls half of the world’s shipping tonnage, per IMO rules.

Just four countries — Liberia, Panama, Bahamas, and the Marshall Islands — account for roughly half of the world’s registered ships. Ships can be owned by a company in one country, operated by another, and registered — or “flagged” — in a third, much like offshore banking for tax purposes. As a result, these so-called flag countries have extraordinary leverage during IMO negotiations. Since some of these flag states have already voiced their opposition to the NZF, Eveylne Williams, a research associate with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said that “you’re kind of already in that neighborhood of the 50 percent blocking threshold.”

However, “cautious optimism is reasonable” at this stage, she added. “[The NZF] hasn’t been abandoned, but it’s kind of sobering to look at the blocking arithmetic still available.”

While key countries oppose the Net-Zero Framework, the shipping industry itself — the companies that actually own and operate the ships and make their profits from the delivery of goods — has largely backed the effort in the hopes that a single uniform global tax will put every company on the same footing, no matter where they operate. Shippers are already navigating European carbon regulations and want to avoid a patchwork of rules by different countries.

“Our industry needs the IMO as our global regulator,” said David Loosley, CEO and secretary general of BIMCO, a trade organization representing shippers, on LinkedIn after the meeting last week ended. “To arrive at implementable regulations at a global level, we need the backing of all member states. Without consensus, global regulations will be ineffective and will fail to provide a level playing field for a truly global industry.”

At the meeting last week, U.S. delegates distributed leaflets laying out their projections of the country-by-country economic effects of the Net-Zero Framework. One handout, summarizing the effects on Peru, led to nearly $800 million in compliance costs. But experts who examined the figures said the analysis was misleading and utilized outdated assumptions. 

“The data is a clear effort being made by a country acting in strong self-interest and using misinformation and exaggeration to the detriment of other countries’ interests,” said Fenton. 

A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

Fenton expects countries to continue engaging in bilateral negotiations and technical discussions in the coming months. Several finer points — such as the distribution of funds collected as a result of the framework’s fee — are yet to be decided. After the U.S. intervention last year, a vote to adopt the framework was delayed by a year. As a result, the earliest countries can vote to adopt the framework is November. Talks are scheduled for that month to get the framework — or an alternate proposal — over the finish line.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump is trying to kill a carbon tax on global shipping. He may not succeed. on May 8, 2026.

Perla Álvarez, from CLOC–La Via Campesina, and Raya Radwan, from the World March of Women Palestine, speak about the struggle for land and food sovereignty

The post Feminist Agrarian Reform: Transforming Society and Relations for All Humanity appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The journeys of migratory birds don’t just move through untouched wilderness—they span a patchwork of cities, towns, farms, and working lands that provide an important stopover on their...

Aden: a city in the crater Channel News brendan 8th May 2026 Teaser Media

A big battery project being proposed for construction by a group of farming landholders and a local renewables developer has been waved through EPBC approvals.

The post Landholder-led 4-hour big battery gets federal environmental all-clear in just over four weeks appeared first on Renew Economy.

Fortescue's green grid rides through bushfire-caused transmission failure with just solar and batteries and no spinning machines - defying conventional thinking.

The post “I thought this was impossible:” Fortescue green grid rides through transmission failure with no fossil fuels appeared first on Renew Economy.

Listed fund hopes to press go on its first big wind and storage projects soon, with an extension to the Victoria Big Battery likely first to go.

The post Fund nears financial close for wind and storage projects, with Victoria Big Battery extension first to go appeared first on Renew Economy.