You are here
Green News
Indigenous groups warn Amazon oil expansion tests fossil fuel phase-out coalition
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 frontierCampaigners 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.
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 scrutinyIndigenous 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.
Among Flowering Plants, Thousands of Evolutionary Oddities at Risk of Extinction
A new study identifies thousands of flowering plants belonging to rare and ancient lineages that are in urgent need of protection.
Developing countries must hold the pen to script the fossil fuel transition
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 MartaThe 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.
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 controlHistory 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”.
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 toolFor 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 agendaThe 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.
The solution to urban heat is much, much simpler than you think
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 SimonThe 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.
EU warns on solar geoengineering but research debate grinds on
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.
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 researchGiulia 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 testMary 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 moratoriumThe 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.
Trump is trying to kill a carbon tax on global shipping. He may not succeed.
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.
Aden: a city in the crater
”It’s Deja Vu All Over Again”: How New Mexicans, Advocates Repeatedly Fight Back A Push to Allow Oil and Gas Waste in New Mexico Waters
Earlier this year, environmental advocates in New Mexico waited patiently for the outcome of a battle they’ve now relived three times in less than a year.
Victory
On February 7, 2026 after a nearly 5-hour long hearing, by a 5-4 vote, the State House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources Committee decided to table a bill that would have forced New Mexico to adopt rules and permit the use of oil and gas wastewater for a variety of purposes outside of the oil fields.
Oil and gas wastewater, or produced water as the industry terms it, contains varying amounts of salts, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, carcinogens, and radioactive materials. This wastewater is part rock and salt water from underground and part chemicals and additives from the drilling and fracking processes. As a result, any use outside of the oil field can pose dangerous risks of contamination to New Mexico’s waters.
HB207, as originally introduced, required the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC), the state’s water pollution control agency, to authorize the discharge of treated oil and gas wastewater to New Mexico’s rivers and streams along with a variety of uses outside of the oil field, including road spreading. Roadspreading is the dumping of the wastewater on roads for use as a dust suppressant. This practice, in particular, has come under heavy scrutiny recently as studies of wastewater show it to be both less effective at dust control than commercial alternatives and potentially pose risks to human health and the environment.
Just last year, the WQCC decided these were not risks worth taking.
A through process: prohibiting wastewater discharge
In May 2025, the Commission completed a thorough rulemaking process to prohibit discharges of produced water to surface waters and groundwater (see Earthworks and partners’ comment supporting the draft rule prohibiting discharge). The rulemaking lasted 18 months and included thousands of pages of evidence and testimony from experts, scientists, and non-profits. Based on all of the available evidence at the time, the commission decided to prohibit reuse of oil and gas outside the oil field finding, “insufficient evidence exists at this time to ensure that discharges of untreated or treated produced water are protective of human health or the environment.”
The rule adopted last year did, however, allow for certain pilot projects to proceed.
These non-discharging pilot projects allow the Commission to compile additional evidence and fill in needed data gaps to more conclusively decide whether treatment is adequate to prevent contamination. The rule also sunsets after 5 years, meaning the potential for reuse could be revisited in a few years after compiling more evidence from pilot studies in a way that does not risk contaminating New Mexico’s water resources. In other words, the commission declined to put the cart before the horse and decided to allow more time to answer some unsettled questions about the effectiveness of the treatment process.
The oil and gas industry demands a second-look
Before the ink could dry on this rule, an oil and gas industry-aligned group called the WATR Alliance filed a petition asking the WQCC to revisit the decision and allow the discharge of treated oil and gas wastewater. Having just finished a lengthy year and half long legal process, the WQCC was back answering the same question again. This time, though, the petition failed for a different reason. After initially agreeing to hear the petition, the WQCC reversed its decision.
The commission voted to vacate the decision to advance the petition due, in part, to “the appearance of impropriety.” This decision followed a public outcry after the Santa Fe New Mexican revealed emails between the governor’s office and commissioners, including one from a staffer in Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office urging commissioners to get the rule “over the finish line,” which advocates argued tainted the process.
Not long after this second attempt failed, HB 207 was introduced. This represented a third attempt to loosen restrictions on the handling of oil and gas waste in less than a year.
‘A formidable resistance’
Despite the late introduction of the bill during the short thirty-day legislative session, community members and environmental advocates quickly formed a formidable resistance. Led by groups like Amigos Bravos, Western Environmental Law Center, Citizen Caring for the Future, Wildearth Guardians and with support from Earthworks, they compiled factsheets, answered questions from legislators, packed the committee hearing, and provided impassioned public comments, which featured dozens of contributers, including Earthworks state policy manager.
In the end the committee ultimately decided not to move forward with the bill. In the face of relentless pressure from industry and the governor’s office, a group of dedicated advocates prevailed again and again (and again).
But the fight continues
Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there. A couple of weeks after the 2026 legislative session ended, WATR Alliance submitted yet another petition to allow reuse of treated produced water outside of the oil field. The WQCC is expected to vote on whether to schedule a hearing on the latest petition on May 12th, and the dedicated advocates fighting to protect New Mexico’s precious water resources from contamination of oil and gas waste byproducts will have to relive this fight at least one more time.
The post ”It’s Deja Vu All Over Again”: How New Mexicans, Advocates Repeatedly Fight Back A Push to Allow Oil and Gas Waste in New Mexico Waters appeared first on Earthworks.
How controlled burns can help save taxpayers billions
For decades, the U.S. Forest Service has actively managed public lands to reduce wildfire risks by clearing underbrush and trees, or employing prescribed burns — something Indigenous nations have practiced for centuries. Scientists have generally lauded the ecological benefits of what is also known as “fuel treatment.” Now, they say there’s another reason to support this approach: It saves money.
According to a study published today in the journal Science, every dollar that the agency spent on such tactics avoided $3.73 in smoke, property, and emissions harm. “A lot of people have suggested that there could be potential economic benefits,” said Frederik Strabo, the lead author of the paper and an economist with University of California, Davis. “But it’s been a pretty understudied area.”
The study analyzed high-resolution data from 285 wildfires across 11 Western states between 2017 and 2023 that burned through areas where the Forest Service had reduced the fuel load. On average, the treatments decreased the total area burned by 36 percent and cut the amount of land burned at moderate to high severity by 26 percent. Researchers then modeled the economic benefits of those reductions.
The paper estimated that fuel treatments prevented $1.39 billion in health and workforce productivity losses tied to wildfire smoke, $895 million in structural damage, and $503 million in carbon dioxide emissions. Overall, that amounted to an average savings of about $3.73 for every dollar the government spent. The research also found that larger treatments — those covering more than 2,400 acres — were the most cost effective.
“It’s a significant number, but when you compare it to the total cost of wildfires it’s small,” caveated Strabo, noting that the cost of the worst disasters can reach hundreds of billions of dollars. But he also said the boon could be even greater than calculated. The research didn’t, for example, examine any savings or benefits for the multibillion dollar outdoor recreation industry. “We’re only capturing a specific subset of benefits.”
Morgan Varner, the director of fire research at the conservation nonprofit Tall Timbers, called the work “the missing link for a lot of fuels treatment research,” and said that data like this can be extremely helpful in guiding decision-makers. “Studies like this round out the story and provide more evidence for the benefits of these treatments.”
David Calkin, who until last year was a Forest Service research scientist, also applauded the analysis, calling it “novel.” But he does not find the math entirely convincing, and questions the notion that such an intangible public good can, or should, be assigned a monetary worth. “A lot of the values of fuel management are non-market,” said Calkin, who wasn’t involved in the study. Ecological benefits, for instance, can be hard to quantify, as can things like public recreation access.
“I’m not trying to reduce the importance of fuel management and the value of it. It’s just highly uncertain,” he said. “I worry about trying to monetize the value of treatments on public lands.”
One issue Calkin notes is that such work on federal lands may not significantly mitigate the costliest fires, which ignite near communities and destroy homes and buildings. “The best way to protect a structure is at the structure itself,” he explained. That means the study could be overestimating the amount of property damage that clearing and prescribed burns avoid.
Strabo disagrees, saying that an unpublished portion of the analysis found that fires that interacted with fuel treatments accounted for a disproportionately large share of structure losses and suppression costs. “That suggests [those fires] were often among the more economically consequential wildfires,” he said, pointing to the 2021 Caldor Fire near Lake Tahoe as an example. “The fire still caused substantial damages, but treatments helped prevent it from becoming even more catastrophic.”
One thing the paper explicitly didn’t account for was the smoke and carbon dioxide emissions that intentional fires produce. “We’re finding that’s not a non-trivial amount in our research,” said Mark Kreider, a Forest Service researcher. Because wildfire is unpredictable, he explained, you inherently have to treat more of the landscape than will actually encounter flames. How to best factor those emissions in is part of Kreider’s ongoing work, but he says it could potentially even flip an analysis like the one in Strabo’s paper. Still, he said, that doesn’t undermine the core point that fuel treatments are effective.
“It’s very clear,” he said, “that on the whole they are very beneficial.”
Not everyone supports such tactics. Critics argue they can harm ecosystems, disproportionately target larger trees, and open forests to logging under the guise of fire prevention. Some opponents also contend that this approach is less effective against extreme fires, while others question whether public funds would be better spent hardening homes and communities.
The federal government’s approach to forest management has shifted since President Donald Trump returned to office. In 2022, the Forest Service released a 10-year wildfire plan that increased forest management and prescribed burns. The Trump administration, which has announced plans to radically remake the agency, has placed greater emphasis on fighting wildfires than preventing them. According the Forest Service, in 2025, the agency reduced vegetation on about 1 million fewer acres than in 2024.
A Forest Service spokesperson attributed most of that decline to elevated wildfire activity in the Southeast. The agency also called 2025 “one the most successful wildfire years in recent history.” But critics worry it is moving away from proactive forest management.
“The takeaway that I really got from this article was that it provides further evidence that the administration’s current policy of full suppression in Western wildfire situations is misguided,” said Heather Stricker, a climate and lands analyst with the Sierra Club. While that approach might sound protective, she said a large body of research shows that it can often backfire. “This paper reiterated a lot of that previous research, but then took it a step further to quantify the cost savings.”
The Trump administration has also announced plans to increase logging on federal lands. This has added to long-standing fears from environmental groups that instead of thoughtful, well-managed fuel treatment, the government could resort to clear-cutting. Even the paper notes this resistance. “Public pressure and risk aversion,” it reads, “skew wildfire management resources toward fire suppression rather than prevention.”
Strabo is hopeful that by adding to the range of evidence supporting forest management, his paper could help guide policymakers. “We could have these economic and ecological benefits if we scaled it up,” he said. “It’s a critically underfunded public good.”
This story was updated to include a response from the U.S. Forest Service.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How controlled burns can help save taxpayers billions on May 7, 2026.
Why Fears Are Growing Over the Fate of a Key Atlantic Current
Scientists are increasingly worried that a vast system of ocean circulation, which delivers warmth to northern Europe and impacts climate globally, is at risk of collapse. Mounting evidence suggests it may be nearing a tipping point, though the research is far from certain.
Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry
As global oil prices rocket due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, traditional jet fuel has become hard to come by and has nearly doubled in price, leading airlines across much of the world to raise ticket prices or cancel flights.
While greener fuels produced from plants or green hydrogen remain more expensive, the cost gap has narrowed and experts told Climate Home News that this could boost demand in the struggling sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) industry.
Matt Ridley, sustainability and innovation director at the OneWorld airline alliance told Climate Home News that “higher jet fuel prices narrow the green premium, reinforcing the role of SAF in cutting lifecycle emissions while reducing exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.”
Marie Owens Thomsen, chief economist and sustainability lead at the International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade group for airlines, said the world is currently seeing “the highest jet fuel prices that we’ve ever had in the history of jet travel”.
The problem predates the war but has been worsened by it, she said, adding that as demand for oil-based products like diesel has declined because of the electrification of road transport, many of the oil refineries that produce jet fuel were struggling to make a profit.
The crisis could “wake people up” to the problem of depending on “oil monopolies in the Middle East”, she said, adding that ramping up SAF production is critical for energy security.
“Khaki is the new green”Some in the military sector seem to be taking note. Rheinmetall, a long-term supplier of the German air force, has partnered with a company called Ineratec which is developing technology to produce e-SAF based on hydrogen. And during the Biden administration, the US Department of Defense invested $65 million in an American e-SAF startup called Air Company.
Summing up the changing reasons for interest in SAF, Marcella Franchi from SAF producer Haffner Energy told the SAF Investor Summit in February that “khaki is the new green”. Speaking before the US bombed Iran, she gave the example of Canada, which she said is pursuing SAF production to avoid reliance on oil-based jet fuel from its “very unsettling neighbours”.
Since conflict has flared in the Middle East, Susan van Dyk, a former academic turned SAF consultant, told Climate Home News that a temporary narrowing of the cost gap is not, by itself, enough to make SAF take off. But the energy crisis may push governments to support SAF, she said.
The European Union and the UK have both mandated that, from January 2025, fuel suppliers at their airports must blend at least 2% SAF with oil-based kerosene. The blending requirement will gradually increase to reach 32% in the EU and 22% in the UK by 2040.
But, at least before the latest oil crisis, the EU and UK faced pressure from some airline and fossil fuel executives to water down these rules. The uncertainty these calls have created is damaging investment in production, SAF producers have said.
Book and claimSpeaking at the SAF Investor Conference in February, African airline executives and SAF producers said the design of the EU and UK mandates hinders non-European producers from contributing.
Under current rules, the SAF has to be physically delivered to planes at EU and UK airports to count towards the mandate, which favours SAF produced in or close to European airports – even though the raw materials to make it, such as waste oil, are often imported from regions like Southeast Asia.
Wakina Mutembei, Kenya Airways’ sustainability and innovations lead, told the conference that the EU and UK should adopt what is known as a book-and-claim system, where SAF supplied to planes outside of Europe can count towards a fuel supplier’s compliance with the EU and UK’s mandates.
Wakina Mutembei speaks at the SAF Investor conference in London (Photo: SAF Investor)This would be a “business opportunity”, she told the London audience, to use abundant Kenyan crops and used cooking oil and lower production costs “to produce SAF that is cheaper for the European market and the UK market”.
“If we are all complaining that the cost of SAF is higher, why not go to a market where it’s cheaper to produce it?” she asked, noting that this would create jobs in Africa and earn foreign currency.
Francis Mwangi, senior engineer at Kenya’s Civil Aviation Authority, told Climate Home News in an interview that if SAF is produced in Africa “you might find that, even relatively, the price might not be as far from the normal Jet A1 [oil-based jet fuel]”.
IATA’s Thomsen also called for a book-and-claim system, saying it “is definitely a way of making this teeny-tiny, bespoke, private-deal kind of market grow into a global market” by removing geographical constraints.
Shipping SAF long distances to be pumped into planes is inefficient, she said, adding that “without book and claim, this market will not scale”.
The post Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry appeared first on Climate Home News.
Close calls at Michigan’s dams are a climate warning to America
Flooding across northern Michigan last month pushed rivers to record levels, testing the limits of the state’s aging dams so severely that officials in one city nearly ordered evacuations as water threatened to spill over the top of a key barrier — a close call that highlights the growing risk that intensifying storms pose to similar infrastructure around the country.
Nationwide, the average dam is 64 years old and most were built for rainfall patterns that no longer reflect today’s changing climate. Thousands are classified as high hazard, meaning their failure could result in the loss of life. Dam safety experts say inspections are uneven and improvements often underfunded.
More than half of Michigan’s dams are beyond their 50-year design life, and the risks became clear as snowmelt and weeks of heavy rain swelled rivers. Rising water came within 5 inches of flowing over Cheboygan Dam in Cheboygan, a city of about 4,700 people, on April 16. In Bellaire, officials deployed about 1,000 sandbags to shore up a century-old dam.
“This needs to be considered not the worst we can experience. This needs to be considered as typical of the future,” said Richard Rood, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan who studies climate change.
There are about 92,000 dams in the United States. About 18 percent are considered high-hazard. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates repairing all of these aging structures will cost more than $165.2 billion. In Michigan, that estimate is $1 billion.
Communities facing these risks are left with difficult choices. Given the cost of repairing and upgrading dams to withstand stronger storms, removing them is often cheaper. That can reduce long-term risk and restore rivers to a more natural state. But it often faces resistance from property owners and communities with economies built around the reservoirs those dams created.
As floodwaters recede across Michigan, local leaders, dam safety advocates, and experts are renewing calls to bolster safety regulations and deal with aging dams.
Bellaire Dam in Bellaire, Michigan, on April 13, 2026.Austin Rowlader / IPR News
Bob Stuber, executive director of the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Commission, considers the April flooding a wake-up call and believes the solution is clear: upgrades where feasible and removal where it makes sense.
“I think every opportunity we have to remove an aging dam, we should take advantage of it because it’s not going to get better,” he said. “It’s just going to get worse.”
Officials in Traverse City came to that conclusion in 2024 and removed the Union Street Dam along the Boardman-Ottaway River as part of a decades-long restoration project that includes FishPass, which will allow key species to pass while blocking harmful invaders like sea lamprey. Engineers said that removal and upgrade most likely reduced flooding impacts when waters surged to near-record levels last month, falling just short of a 500-year flood.
“Upstream would have been under 2 more feet of water, which would have been quite devastating,” said Daniel Zielinski, a principal engineer for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. “We actually had a really great stress test of the system. It functioned really well.”
Removals are increasing across the country, according to data from American Rivers. Since 2000, more dams have come down than gone up, and that pace is accelerating as aging infrastructure, safety concerns, and environmental benefits reshape how communities weigh their value.
In northern Michigan, conservation groups like Huron Pines help dam owners make that decision. It has managed nine removals in the last 13 years and has seen growing interest after the recent flooding, said Josh Leisen, a senior project manager for the organization. Removal reconnects river ecosystems and eliminates the need for expensive upkeep of aging structures, he said.
“There are costs associated with repair and there are risks associated with having a dam,” Leisen said. “Even if it seems to be in good condition, you get extreme weather events like we just had.”
Removing dams is not always straightforward. Beyond the technical challenges, many communities are reluctant to give up the lakes and waterfronts those structures create.
“There’s this emotional attachment to that impoundment,” said Daniel Brown, a climate resilience strategist at the Michigan-based Huron River Watershed Council.
In other cases, dismantling isn’t practical. Some dams provide electricity or drinking water, linking them to local economies and infrastructure. “[Removal] is not really something that’s on the table because they are connected in this very practical way,” Brown said.
Still, Brown said, there are limits to how much aging structures can be adapted to a warming world. “[A dam] is this very long-term, huge, expensive infrastructure that you’ve put on the landscape that’s going to stay there. And that is not how climate change or nature or rivers behave,” Brown said.
Dismantling dams, like upgrading them, can come with steep costs. The Boardman-Ottaway River project — which removed three dams in the largest removal effort in state history — cost $25 million. Huron Pines is managing the removal of Sanback Dam in Rose City next month, at an estimated cost of $4 million.
Half of the expense is funded through a grant program from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, or EGLE, launched in response to the 2020 Edenville Dam failure which overwhelmed the downstream Sanford Dam. The twin catastrophes forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and flooded ecosystems in a disaster that investigators later found was avoidable. The $44 million state program funded several dam removals, upgrades, and engineering studies before it ended last year.
Neil Hawk and his wife Dawn take a rowboat out to a residential part of Sanford, Michigan, to inspect the damage to their neighborhood following extreme flooding throughout central Michigan in May 2020.Matthew Hatcher / Getty Images
Federal funding is available through programs administered by agencies such as FEMA or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But those resources fall short of the estimated $165.2 billion needed to address the issue, and some are at risk of elimination.
State governments regulate roughly 70 percent of the dams in the United States, with the federal government regulating hydropower dams and providing funding and guidance. This means inspection standards, regulations, enforcement, and resources can vary widely.
In Michigan, about 1,000 dams fall under state oversight, while 99 hydroelectric dams are overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The remaining 1,500 are smaller barriers that don’t fit the criteria for state regulation, according to the Michigan Dam Inventory.
Now, state officials are renewing calls for more money and stronger regulations. “Dam safety may be an issue that isn’t partisan,” said Phil Roos, director of EGLE.
Proposed state legislation would bolster inspection rules, address private ownership, update design standards, and create more funding opportunities for upgrades or removals. “It’s so important to our state that we can come together, and whether it’s passing the legislation that was proposed, or improving procedures, or ultimately funding,” Roos said.
Michigan state Senator John Damoose has expressed concern about private dam ownership since the close call at Cheboygan Dam, which is under both state and private control. About 75 percent of the dams Michigan regulates are privately owned.
“Somebody made a point, ‘Well, we can’t have private companies owning these things.’ I tend to believe in private ownership but they might be right,” Damooose said during a Traverse City roundtable discussion on dam safety.
It’s not just a Michigan issue. Most dams in the United States are privately owned, meaning responsibility for maintenance, upkeep, and potential failure falls on individuals, not governmental agencies, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
Climate change is expected to bring more frequent and intense storms. As the world warms, the atmosphere holds more moisture, fueling more intense precipitation, according to Rood at the University of Michigan.
Recent flooding “has shown an incredible vulnerability,” he said. “[Dams] are either going to have to be removed or reengineered. Or they’re going to become a set of slowly unfolding failures.”
Luke Trumble, chief of dam safety for Michigan, said the state is already dealing with conditions that many dams were never designed to withstand.
“It’s a little bit of a misconception that if we fix the dam issue, there’ll be no more flooding,” Trumble said. “There’s still going to be flooding on rivers whenever we get rain like this, or rain on snow.
“What we can do with dam safety legislation is help ensure that flooding is not made worse by a dam failure,” he said.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Close calls at Michigan’s dams are a climate warning to America on May 7, 2026.
ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN
Joie Chowdhury is senior attorney and climate justice and accountability manager at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Jule Schnakenberg is director of World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ).
A resolution that will come before the UN General Assembly (UNGA) later this month brings a reckoning for multilateralism: will governments stand behind international law or not?
On May 20, UN member states will consider a resolution to welcome and operationalise the International Court of Justice’s historic Advisory Opinion (ICJ AO) on states’ obligations in respect of climate change, which clarified that they have binding legal duties to prevent and repair climate harm.
Translating that clarity into action should be straightforward. That the resolution is instead contested exposes efforts to evade responsibility. Those most responsible for the crisis will often be the first to resist accountability – that’s predictable, but it’s not acceptable.
At a time when multilateral cooperation is under strain, the resolution’s backing by a strong majority of countries, or its passing by consensus, holds power. It would send a clear signal: governments remain committed to the rule of law and to collective action to protect the climate, a shared foundation on which all life depends.
State of playLed by Vanuatu, with support from a core group of diverse countries including the Netherlands, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Barbados, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Jamaica, the Philippines and Burkina Faso, the resolution, now open for co-sponsorship, has already secured broad cross-regional backing – especially from countries at the sharp edge of climate change.
The final text of the draft resolution faithfully reflects the full breadth of legal obligations articulated in the advisory opinion. It affirms the imperative of a just transition away from fossil fuels, the stability of legal entitlements for countries facing sea-level rise, and the duty to provide full reparation for climate-related harm under international law. It also underscores the centrality of equity and provides for structured follow-up for implementation, including a report on ways to do that from the UN Secretary-General.
While the final resolution text could have gone further on critical justice dimensions, it reflects a carefully balanced outcome, integrating diverse perspectives emerging from the genuine engagement of over a hundred states.
Vanuatu pushes new UN resolution demanding full climate compensation
In negotiations, resistance tracked a familiar set of arguments to protect fossil fuel interests and evade accountability. Many of the usual suspects – polluters with disproportionately high historical and current responsibility for the climate crisis, including major oil producers – have engaged actively, but with the aim of weakening the authority of the Court’s opinion, or references to fossil fuels in the resolution.
There is still time for things to shift. For the incoming COP presidencies of Australia, Türkiye and Ethiopia, and European states that profess their climate leadership, positioning on this resolution is a litmus test of their commitment to ensuring that climate action accords with the law.
Closing the accountability gapClaims from countries with a disproportionate share of emissions that the resolution duplicates existing processes, particularly under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), miss the point. The climate treaty regime has yet to deliver accountability. It has not delivered on ambition, nor on the imperative to phase out fossil fuels, and certainly not on tackling loss and damage. The draft resolution text explicitly seeks to ensure coordination, coherence and complementarity with existing processes, while closing the accountability gap.
Assertions that the resolution “reinterprets” or “goes beyond” the advisory opinion similarly ring hollow. This is standard UN practice: General Assembly resolutions give effect to legal norms clarified by the Court. The text does not create new law; it reflects existing obligations in the Court’s own terms.
ICJ ruling expected to shape US climate lawsuits in defiance of Trump
It is also important to be clear: the advisory opinion itself stands as the most authoritative clarification of international law on climate change. Its weight or persuasiveness does not depend on this resolution. Since its delivery, it has been taken up by courts and policymakers worldwide. What is at stake is not whether states will act, but whether they will do so in good faith or under mounting pressure.
Consensus carries weightThe advisory opinion carries exceptional legitimacy: requested through a resolution adopted by consensus, following legal proceedings with record participation, and delivered unanimously. Against this backdrop, there is no credible basis for opposing a resolution that seeks to welcome and advance the AO.
Consensus would send a powerful message of states’ commitment to climate action and the rule of law, but the resolution does not require unanimity to pass. As precedents show, including the Ghana-led General Assembly resolution recognising the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity, global majority support can carry decisive weight, even in the face of resistance from powerful states.
From the outset, the ICJ advisory opinion process has been driven and deeply shaped by youth leadership, and responding to their call now requires completing the task the General Assembly set for itself in 2023 by requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ.
A vote for climate justiceIn a powerful poem, Pacific environmental advocate Dylan Kava writes:
“….They call it negotiation.
We know it as survival.
While they draft options
our coastlines disappear…”
The survival and dignity of people facing escalating climate harm is not a matter of political convenience. It is a matter of existing law; a matter of political responsibility, moral courage and actual leadership.
We urge all member states to support the resolution as presented on May 20, with a view to adoption by consensus. History will not judge those in power by how forcefully they defended the status quo, but by whether they rose to meet a crisis that threatens us all.
The post ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN appeared first on Climate Home News.
The possibility of peace
Even Chameleons Can’t Hide From Climate Change
Why don’t more people talk about chameleons?
These amazing reptiles come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and colors, and are known for their color-shifting abilities and unique eyes, which can look in two different directions at once.
But not enough human eyes are paying attention to chameleons, and they now represent one of the world’s most at-risk species groups. According to experts as many as 50% of the 200-plus recognized chameleon species are endangered, critically endangered, or vulnerable to extinction.
On the eve of the third annual International Chameleon Day on May 9 — an occasion to call attention to these animals’ amazing abilities and underrecognized plight — I sat down with Dr. Christopher Anderson, chair of the IUCN/SSC Chameleon Specialist Group, to talk about what’s threatening these diverse reptiles, what we need to do to help them, and why they’ve eluded media and scientific attention over the past few years.
Let’s start with an observation: The word “chameleon” is part of our culture — I mean, everyone understands the word, everyone thinks they know what it means — but I have found almost zero news coverage about chameleons over the past two years. There’s been a little bit of coverage of research about their eyes or their tongues, but almost nothing about their conservation.
That is exactly true. And I think it’s one of the biggest shortcomings that we have as far as awareness about chameleons.
Like you mentioned, chameleons have fascinated naturalists, the public, and researchers for centuries. Aristotle wrote about chameleons and a lot of their unique behaviors. If you ask somebody on the street about a chameleon, they have a picture of what a chameleon is in their head because of a lot of those unique features.
Oftentimes people are a little bit squeamish or have some concerns or fear of reptiles — snakes in particular. But generally, when people hear about chameleons, they’re like, “Oh yeah, chameleons are great.”
The question there is, why have chameleons not fostered some of that attention that we see with turtles and tortoises, various snakes, and other groups? If you look at zoological institutions, most zoos will have a chameleon or a couple of chameleons on display, because they are fascinating and they really are important to most collections to be able to display. But most zoological institutions have not really focused on any type of major or large-scale projects with chameleons, in large part because they are difficult to capture, and delicate and difficult to display.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)
So while a lot of zoos have many different turtle and tortoise species, or boas, or iguanas, or crocodilians, and so forth, and are very engaged with conservation efforts in those groups, chameleons have never really benefited from a lot of that attention. If you look at species survival plans or programs that zoological institutions have within reptiles, you see a number of iguana species, numerous turtle and tortoise species, crocodilian species, and so forth. There’s not a single chameleon species that has gotten that focus or attention.
The other thing is, if you look at the number of researchers that are working with crocodilians or turtles and tortoises, and iguanas — not to keep pointing the finger at a few different groups — there are lots of people that study those, even though there’s a lot fewer crocodilians or iguanas than there are chameleons.
But there are actually very few people that specialize in chameleons. I think that that has really been a disservice to even our understanding of where chameleons are as far as their conservation is concerned.
It’s not that they’re not threatened, or that there aren’t numerous species that should be covered, or even that there’s no interest. It’s just that there’s just not enough work that’s being done to really highlight it.
Right. So is that the goal of International Chameleon Day? What do you hope this species awareness day will accomplish?
Yeah, that’s a huge part of one of the goals that we’re hoping to get across with International Chameleon Day. There’s a huge potential, I think, to engage the public, educate them about the conservation status of chameleons, encourage awareness, as well as broader benefits that that could have for different animal groups that live in similar types of environments.
And who knows, maybe in the long run we can actually encourage other people to start focusing on chameleon conservation and increase the number of people that are working with them.
So what’s threatening them? You mentioned that they’re very sensitive animals, and it seems that a lot of them have evolved in particular microclimates or microhabitats. Can you tell us how they’re threatened by climate change or other factors?
We all kind of have an inherent image in our mind of what a chameleon is. But one of the things that fascinates me about chameleons is how diverse they are. There are 236 species that are described in science. And those 236 species are extremely diverse in their biology, ecology, natural history, anatomy, and so forth. They range in size from very small animals that are less than an inch in total length to species that, in total length, are well over two feet. We have species that give live birth, species that lay eggs. We have species that live upwards of 20 years and species that live outside of the eggs for a matter of three or four months.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)
They’re hugely variable, and a lot of that variation and that species diversity is highly specialized to local microhabitats and very small areas. We have a lot of local endemism with chameleons where there’s a species that lives in a certain elevational band on a single mountain, or a single type of vegetation, or habitat in a very small area. That’s where lot of that diversity occurs, in very small, limited-range habitats.
When you have species that have that limited range, they can be very prone to local disturbances potentially wiping out a population or a significant portion of their distribution.
Most of the major threats that we have for chameleons relate to habitat alteration. That can be from clearing of the habitat for subsistence farming, timber harvesting, charcoal production — particularly in Madagascar, that’s a major issue. We see a lot of local effects from surrounding communities altering the habitat that these species live in.
But there’s other threats that we see with chameleons as well. One of those is harvesting for the pet trade, both illegal and legal. Chameleons for the last 30-40 years have been heavily traded in the international exotic pet trade. Some of that is legal and some of that is sustainable, but much of it is not sustainable or even illegal for some species and some regions.
We also see there’s some looming effects of climate change that are impacting chameleons, making the conditions at local habitats potentially unsuitable. Climate change is also doing things like accelerating dangers from fire and increasing the duration of the dry season, which increases the amount of vegetation that fires can consume if they get started.
And similarly, as habitats become smaller and smaller, you have these boundary effects around the edge of habitats where those boundary areas can be more prone to fire and so on.
Changing of a lot of the durations of the wet seasons and dry seasons, increases in temperature and aridity — all of that is going to play into some of these fire issues and so forth. That could affect a lot of these populations, even in protected areas.
Have you seen some of this in the wild? I found a paper you wrote about the Chapman’s pygmy chameleon in Malawi that seems to be suffering specifically from some of these problems.
Exactly. So, you know, I first traveled to Madagascar many years ago. I have not been back professionally recently, but I traveled there for ecotourism. And one of the things that I was shocked with was the amount of erosion and clear-cut forests and habitat alteration that I was seeing. And that’s not slowed down. If anything that’s accelerated in recent years.
That’s a huge issue. I’ve seen it in Cameroon. I’ve seen it in Kenya. I’ve seen it in Tanzania. I’ve seen it in South Africa. Anywhere you go where there are chameleons, we see a lot of those types of issues.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)
I also have noticed over the years that there seem to be shifts in the wet season. When I was in Madagascar almost 25 years ago now, the beginning of the wet season was starting at the end of December, beginning of January. Now that period has shifted. People are now going in February or March to be there when the rain has started and when you can see a lot of that biodiversity.
We’re seeing a lot of shifts. Madagascar over the last few years in particular has gotten a lot of attention for some of the massive fires that they’ve had, particularly in the southern portion of the country, in the central highlands, and the southwestern regions. And those are going to have massive effects on local populations.
There’s a lot of concern that as these fires extend into protected areas, areas that we thought were safeguarding these animals may not actually be safe havens for them.
I don’t want to generalize with a couple hundred species, but what do chameleons need to ensure their continued survival? What can people in the conservation community do to help?
Yeah, like you said, there’s a lot of diversity within chameleons. And some chameleons are doing quite well. They’re habitat generalists, they’re widespread. And those species aren’t really ones that are under a high probability of extinction.
But of chameleon species that we know of, a large proportion are threatened — about 78 species based on our IUCN Red List assessments are considered either critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. That’s about a third of the species that we have described.
But we also have a lot of species that are not evaluated yet. They’re relatively newly described species or we don’t have enough data yet. If we figure in these species that are not evaluated, or that we haven’t actually got enough information to evaluate them, we could actually have as much as 50% of the diversity of chameleons threatened with extinction. That’s huge. We’re talking about 120 species that just from what we know right now may be threatened.
Education, I think, is one of the huge things as far as what we can do right now to advance the awareness of the conservation status with chameleons. We need people to be aware of the threat status of these species. If they’re engaged with the pet trade, [we need to teach them] to make educated and sound conservation decisions and make sure that if they’re involved with keeping chameleons as pets or anything, they’re doing so sustainably and ethically and legally.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)
But in addition to that, we really need to reach out to local communities about the status of the environment around them, the species that live there, the importance of those species, and try and encourage sustainable practices in safeguarding of those animals.
That’s super challenging because a lot of the areas where these animals live are surrounded by communities that are struggling. Life in Madagascar and life in a lot of these places is not easy. They’re not generally doing mass agriculture that’s wiping out huge tracts of land. Most of it is subsistence agriculture that they depend on for their day-to-day survival.
So helping to provide resources and development that’s sustainable and helps these populations in a lot of these areas is potentially hugely beneficial to the conservation of lot of these animals as well.
This is kind of related to that, but do chameleons have any cultural value to the people who live near them?
This is actually an additional challenge that we face with chameleons and their conservation. What I mean by that is across most of the range of chameleons, there are a lot of local superstitions or taboos or what they call fady in Madagascar about chameleons. They have a longstanding, oftentimes negative connotation to local communities.
Across their range, people tend to think that they’re venomous, that if you touch them, you’ll die. They tend to think things like, if you have a chameleon in a tree in your village, it’s a bad omen. There are stories in northeast Africa saying if a camel steps on a chameleon, the vibrations will kill the camel. There are all kinds of variants on this common theme of not trusting chameleons or thinking that they’re dangerous that they’re bringing bad omens or so forth. So a lot of the time, the local communities don’t view chameleons in a particularly positive manner. When we’re talking about engaging these communities, just convincing them that they need to protect the chameleons is sometimes a little bit of a hard sell.
What we really also need to communicate to them is that they’re not dangerous, that they are harmless animals, that they’re interesting, and that they have value in their local community and in the environment around them. And that can be challenging because we’re trying to challenge and change generations of stories and stuff that have been passed on.
Wow. Are there any memorable encounters you’ve had in the wild with these animals, and can conveying those stories help influence other people?
You know, any time I’m in the field working with chameleons, it’s memorable for me. I am absolutely fascinated with them.
There’s a lot of different species that are very pretty, a lot of beautiful colors that they will express, and there’s some morphologies that are just incredibly intricate and impressive. Finding those species for the first time is always fascinating for me. There are so many species. I’ve never seen all of them in the wild, of course. Every time that I get out into the field and I can find a new species, it’s really exciting. Learning about the environment that each of those species lives in and seeing them in the field and kind of getting a little bit of a better understanding of them is always incredibly rewarding.
My wife and I teach a field course every other year. We bring students from South Dakota, where we’re based, to Kenya. We take them around to different habitats and we teach them about the local environments and so on. One of the things that we do is teach them how to find chameleons, and I teach them about the different species.
The students absolutely love this process of going out and looking for the chameleons. We’re in habitats where we’re looking at lions and elephants and rhinos — these megafauna that they’ve grown up idolizing, wanting to see in the wild. But then we go out and look for chameleons and they love it. The number of students that list that as among the most fun things that they did on these trips is really surprising.
That’s one of the things I really love about teaching that course, taking these students out and showing them these animals and giving them a chance to learn about chameleons firsthand — and appreciate that it doesn’t need to be one of these charismatic megafauna for them to get excited.
So what’s your favorite chameleon species — if you can even answer that?
There are so many species that I think are just fascinating, but I could give a couple that I think are just incredible — and I think some of those actually might surprise people, because they’re maybe not the most colorful species, for instance.
One of those species is the armored leaf chameleon. It’s a species from a drier area in Madagascar, the Tsingy de Bemaraha. It’s an endangered species, and it’s the largest species of the genus Brookesia, which are these miniaturized chameleons — you’ll often see pictures of them on a matchstick. But this is a species that has incredible ornamentation. They’re the only chameleon species that’s known to have osteoderms, these bones in the skin. They have these ornate projections off of their vertebral column that project out of their skins to create spines along their back. Overall coloration-wise, they’re just basically brown with a little bit of different hues of these drab colors, but they’re just incredibly intricate and interesting to me.
There’s a species in Tanzania, Trioceros laterispinis — one of its common names is the spiny-flanked chameleon. It looks kind of like those tree lichens that grow on branches. And it’s incredibly cryptic. You can just look at it and you can tell this is living in an environment that has a lot of those lichens and mosses. It’s beautifully evolved to live in that habitat.
Spiny-flanked chameleon. © Otto Bylén Claesson via iNaturalist (CC BY-NC)In both cases these aren’t species that are exhibiting bright pinks and blues and reds and greens or flashy colors, but there’s just something about them that I just find fascinating, because you could just see the way that they’re trying to conceal themselves and the way that they’re living in this environment and how they’re adapted to that place, that specific location. I just find that fascinating.
So what can we do to maintain the energy and interest of International Chameleon Day throughout the year?
Chameleons are exciting to the public. They’re interesting. People are intrigued by them. And I think that we really should try to harness that. I think, like you said, if we could see an increase in the coverage of chameleons — just generally, not only on International Chameleon Day, but across different times of the year — that that would go a long way to promoting our understanding and encouraging others to work with these animals in the future. Education about these animals and their local habitats doesn’t need to just be isolated to a single day. We can take advantage of opportunities as they come to educate local communities about the wildlife that they have around them and the value of some of these animals. That would be huge.
Trying to break down some of these longstanding prejudices toward these animals — that doesn’t happen overnight. It doesn’t happen if we’re just isolating that to one day a year. I think that International Chameleon Day is a huge benefit for trying to start those conversations and start those education programs and start those efforts.
But we really do need to continue those across the year at different times and try and promote those messages and get that information and that word out there more generally.
Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:This Month in Conservation Science: Trojan Seahorses and ‘Vampire’ Birds
The post Even Chameleons Can’t Hide From Climate Change appeared first on The Revelator.
Rural North Carolina fights back against PFAS contamination
For more than half a century, residents of Sampson County, North Carolina have watched their local landfill grow to nearly 1,300 acres, becoming the largest in the state. Garbage now arrives from far beyond the county line, traveling from all over the state. For locals like Sherri White-Williamson, the scale of the operation has become a source of concern. She grew up in the county, and was alarmed by potential for landfill chemicals leaching into residents’ groundwater and the impact it may be having on their health. “Many of the folks out around that landfill are on well water,” White-Williamson explained. “They are drinking in it, they’re bathing in it, they’re using it to water gardens and animals.”
She worked for years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working in its Office of Environmental Justice, where public outreach and education, and coordinating between communities and federal agency staff together with the community were part of her daily routine. Eventually, White-Williamson saw that kind of advocacy was missing in her own backyard. In 2020, she co-founded the non-profit Environmental Justice Community Action Network (EJCAN) to educate and empower communities to advocate for themselves on environmental issues.
Not long after its first meeting in October of that year, the group began working with residents of Snow Hill, a historically Black rural community near the Sampson County landfill. People described a range of environmental and public health worries. One concern that rose quickly to the top was whether the water — especially the private wells on which many households rely — might be contaminated.
Sherri White-Williamson outside of EJCAN’s headquarters in Sampson County, NC. Cornell WatsonOver the next few years, EJCAN partnered with UNC Chapel Hill and Appalachian State to do free well water testing through some small grants. “The community felt like they were seeing elevated levels of illnesses and [were] convinced what they were seeing was directly related to their proximity to the landfill, and the water that they’re drinking,” White-Williamson said, but there had been little formal research. “There’s never been a health impact analysis in that area, so it’s been all anecdotal,” she explained. The well testing became a first step toward gathering evidence that contaminants from the landfill might be harming residents.
The results were troubling. After four rounds of sampling at homes in the area, they found 13 percent of wells were contaminated with PFAS and other contaminants of concern. Short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the synthetic chemicals have been produced in the U.S. since the 1940s, and are used in water-repellent fabrics, nonstick cookware, and fire fighting foam, among other things.
PFAS are sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” because of how long they persist in the body and the environment. That includes “legacy” PFAS, substances such as PFOA and PFOS that were widely used for decades, but phased out during the 2000s. It also includes what researchers call “novel” PFAS, or newer chemicals developed as replacements. While initially thought to have fewer health risks, scientists are now questioning if these next-generation products are meaningfully safer. Because they are newer, far less is known about their impacts, according to the Center for Environmental and Health Effects of PFAS at NC State.
“We know that landfills are a common source of [PFAS], because folks have thrown away a range of consumer products,” said Courtney G. Woods, an environmental sciences professor at the University of North Carolina. According to a 2020 report in the academic journal Toxicology, there is mounting evidence that PFAS are implicated in “adverse health outcomes associated with exposure, including reduced kidney function, metabolic syndrome, thyroid disruption, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Residents raise red flagsResearch into Sampson County water quality dates back a decade, thanks to the work of the late Ellis Tatum, who lived in Snow Hill. In 2016, Woods and some of her students met Tatum at the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network Summit, a gathering of environmental justice organizations led by people of color. “He was convinced there was something going on with what was in the water,” explained White-Williamson.
Tatum invited Woods and some students to partner with his community. After convening neighborhood focus groups, Woods and a student began to test for legacy and novel PFAS, metals, and bacteria in Bearskin Swamp, located on the north side of the Sampson County landfill in Snow Hill. “There was a suspicion that bad things were going into the water from [the landfill],” White-Willliamson explained.
An exterior view of the Sampson County landfill where a constant stream of trucks deliver waste daily. Cornell WatsonOn this first research foray, Woods’ team didn’t detect significant contamination upstream of the landfill. But downstream was a different story. “We found elevated levels of legacy PFAS, as well as novel PFAS just near the landfill,” Woods explained. These include newer chemicals like GenX and Nafion, she explained, which some studies have linked to liver damage and other human health effects.
Some of these chemicals match those produced by Chemours, a PFAS manufacturing facility which has dumped in the landfill for years. “We did have some knowledge from Chemours’ permit, as well as knowledge from other folks that Chemours had been sending their industrial sludge for disposal at the Sampson County landfill,” Woods continued.
Bridging community concern with free water testingAfter Woods’ initial findings, EJCAN worked to establish further relationships with universities to expand water testing in the Snow Hill community. The collaboration marked a crucial step moving community concerns toward independent scientific verification.
The cost of at-home testing can be prohibitive to many households. According to Antrilli, costs for PFAS testing through private labs start around $380. “Considering the population in Sampson County, a lot of folks could not pay to have their water tested,” White-Williamson said.
In February 2021, EJCAN partnered with Appalachian State University to provide free testing of well water for bacteria and metals for residents. The non-profit sent out a notice to community members asking if they wanted to participate. “There was a fairly decent amount of response,” said White-Williamson. The initial round of testing included professor Rebecca Witter, who focuses on sustainable development, and biologist Shea Tuberty. Rebecca Witter worked to develop a protocol that could be used to derive community impressions of water quality, while Shea Tuberty and his students went door to door collecting samples, testing for bacteria, nitrates, and heavy metals.
Pictured from left to right are Dr. Shea Tubberty, Sherri White-Williamson, Danielle Koonce (Project Director, EJCAN) and Dr. Rebecca Witter during the first weekend of water testing in Snow Hill.Chris Lang
On subsequent research trips, the team was joined by Woods from UNC, who provided PFAS testing with support from the nonprofit Research Triangle Institute. After sampling about 250 homes, they found over thirty families had PFAS in their water.
As further rounds of testing were conducted, the respective labs mailed letters to residents with their results, as well as called to speak to residents who had concerning results. The scientists also held a meeting with residents, which White-Williamson attended, so that they could ask questions. Woods said the close communication “was absolutely instrumental” for both research and community organizing.
EJCAN holds a monthly community meeting that is open to the public, which Tuberty sometimes brings his class to attend, “just to be present and answer questions,” he said. “That’s been really useful, because we get more community buy-in when they realize we’re invested long-term.”
The results led White-Williamson to contact the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Waste Management. In November 2023, the department held a community meeting where people who lived closest to the landfill could request sampling of their private wells. State staff initially tested 30 wells, before expanding the effort, Vincent Antrilli Jr., the waste management agency’s environmental program supervisor, wrote in an email. From October 2023 through April 2026, the program had collected 241 samples—about 25 percent (61) of which had exceedences of PFAS for EPA drinking water standards.
Point-of-use filter systems like this one are common throughout the Snow Hill community. Cornell WatsonThe program also provides bottled water and home filtration systems designed to remove PFAS. “To date, 87 point-of-use filter systems have been installed or authorized statewide, including 37 in Sampson County,” Antrilli wrote.
EJCAN has supplemented this by distributing over 50 Clearly Filtered water pitchers, which remove PFAS and other contaminants like lead and arsenic. “We worked with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to identify a pitcher that seemed to be pretty efficient in removing a large number of contaminants from drinking water,” White-Williamson said.
A canceled grantEJCAN is still hearing from people who want their well water tested. “We really need thousands of water samples, and we’ve only done hundreds,” said Tuberty from App State.
For about six months, EJCAN, App State, UNC and the Department of Health and Human Services collaborated on an EPA grant application. “The grant would have been for a million dollars over the next three years,” White-Williamson explained. With that support, the coalition would have been able to test up to 250 homes a year and provide follow up support for the homes who had problems. “That would have gone a long way,” she said.
In February, they learned they’d been approved for the million dollar grant. But in April 2025, as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) slashed federal programs, the coalition learned the grant might be suspended. Only three days later, Tuberty said, they were told it would be spared. Then in early May, there was another reversal.
“Before we got a nickel of it, we got DOGE-d,” Tuberty said. “Most of the money was going to go to the community members to mitigate the problems that we identified, which would have been great.”
While the research to date has been supported by a number of smaller grants, Tuberty said, “you need that big money to make a significant impact.” The researchers hope another opportunity will present itself. “I don’t think any of us are giving up on it,” he said.
With federal priorities shifted, EJCAN is concerned about the unmonitored forever chemicals in their community. “These are hard projects to do, because the communities have just been burnt for so long, for so many decades,” Tuberty said. “They’ve just been overlooked over and over again.”
The Environmental Justice Community Action Network (EJCAN) is a North Carolina–based nonprofit that works to advance environmental justice in rural communities, particularly in Sampson County. The organization supports residents facing pollution and other environmental harms by providing scientific research, water and air monitoring, education, and advocacy. EJCAN also helps communities access legal and technical resources, empowering them to hold polluters accountable and push for cleaner air, water, and soil.
LEARN MORE toolTips('.classtoolTips10','A conductive and heat-resistant metal that forms a key part of many battery cathodes, which allow electric charges to flow. It is used in the lithium-ion batteries that power many EVs as well as solar energy systems and wind turbine components.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips12','An acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS are a class of chemicals used in everyday items like nonstick cookware, cosmetics, and food packaging that have proven to be dangerous to human health. Also called “forever chemicals” for their inability to break down over time, PFAS can be found lingering nearly everywhere — in water, soil, air, and the blood of people and animals.');
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Rural North Carolina fights back against PFAS contamination on May 6, 2026.
Rising Seas Could Encircle New Orleans by the End of This Century
Rising seas could render New Orleans uninhabitable before the end of this century, according to a new paper calling for a managed retreat from the city.
How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets
When Shell sold its onshore oil operations in Nigeria to the Renaissance Africa Energy Company last year, the divestment transformed the fossil fuel giant’s climate performance – helping it become the first energy major to report zero routine flaring.
One year on, gas flaring at some of these assets has increased significantly, while Shell has continued to benefit commercially from them, according to a new investigation by nonprofit group Data Desk, shared exclusively with Climate Home News.
Since March 2025, Shell has traded 8 million barrels of oil from the Niger Delta’s Forcados terminal, which was included in the Renaissance deal, Data Desk’s analysis of information supplied by commodities data firm Kpler found.
It is a similar picture at the Bonny terminal, where Shell’s operations were also transferred as part of its onshore exit. Shell is recorded as having traded 3 million barrels of oil from this facility, south of the city of Port Harcourt, since the deal went through.
Multimillion-dollar oil shipmentsUsing an average 2025 global Brent crude price of $69 per barrel, 11 million barrels of oil shipped from the two terminals since the completion of Shell’s divestment would be worth $759 million.
Shell chartered the tankers carrying the oil to buyers around the world – from Ivory Coast and South Africa, to Canada and Italy, the Kpler data shows.
“Whoever is running Shell’s old oilfields in Nigeria needs to get that oil to market,” said Neil Atkinson, former head of the Oil Industry and Markets Division at the International Energy Agency (IEA).
“So it may well be that while Shell no longer runs a facility, the firm that took it over may have an arrangement to continue selling oil through Shell, thereby making use of their connections and trade networks,” Atkinson said.
Shell’s shipping and chartering arm made a profit of £24.8 million (about $33 million) in 2024, the most recent date available, up from £17 million the year before.
Asked about Shell’s continuing ties to the two terminals, a Shell spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on trading activities or specific customer relationships.”
Renaissance did not address a question from Climate Home News about its ongoing commercial ties with Shell.
Environmental legacyThe new reporting raises fresh questions about how energy majors present their climate performance to investors and consumers, and the environmental legacy they are leaving behind after selling fossil fuel assets in countries such as Nigeria, where Shell has operated for nearly a century.
Many of Shell’s onshore oil fields had been in production for decades by the time the company sold its Nigerian onshore subsidiary over a year ago for $2.4 billion to Renaissance, a consortium of Nigerian companies and an international firm that aims to double oil production by 2030.
Six months after finalising the deal, Renaissance CEO Tony Attah said the company had already boosted output at Shell’s former fields by 100,000 barrels per day.
A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso) A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso)At the same time, gas flaring increased at most of the fields where the activity was detected, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data, despite Renaissance’s pledges to foster sustainable energy development and protect local communities.
Gas is a by-product of oil drilling. In places that lack infrastructure to process this gas, like the Niger Delta, it gets burned off instead.
Earlier this year, Climate Home News reported on the impact on local communities of increased gas flaring at several other fields in the Niger Delta since they were sold by Shell to different Nigerian companies in recent years.
Besides billowing out toxic chemicals that cause air pollution and wasting a potential energy source, global gas flaring is estimated by the World Bank to release the equivalent of 400 million tonnes of CO2 annually – higher than France’s greenhouse gas emissions each year.
Gas flaring renaissance?Comparing the year before the sale’s completion to the year after, satellite data shows daily flaring rose at 10 of the 13 Renaissance blocks where it was detected. Flaring fell at two blocks and was unchanged at one other, while five had no detectable flaring in the dataset.
The OML 32 block, located in the heart of the Niger Delta, was one of the assets that Renaissance took over last year. Here, average daily flaring was more than 20 times higher in the year ending March 2026 compared to the year before, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data from the Colorado School of Mines’ Earth Observation Group.
The Renaissance-operated OML 21 and OML 28 onshore blocks saw increases of 390% and 93%, respectively, in average daily flaring in the year after the sale’s completion.
A spokesperson for Renaissance said the company’s environmental management framework included a plan to reduce flaring.
“Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited has a multi-year gas flaring reduction strategy through its Flare Elimination and Monetisation Plan, developed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” the spokesperson said.
Shell’s spokesperson said it “cannot comment on operational matters relating to assets under new owners/operators”, adding that both the company and the Nigerian government had conducted “extensive due diligence” with regard to its divestments in Nigeria.
“Dodging accountability”Before the deal, Shell said three years ago that its remaining Nigerian assets accounted for about half of the total routine and non-routine flaring in its integrated gas and upstream facilities. Shortly after selling these assets, the company announced it had achieved zero routine flaring – five years ahead of a global 2030 target set by the World Bank.
Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun Sanni Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun SanniShell’s exit from onshore operations in Nigeria followed years of accusations of environmental harm, including oil spills. Residents of two Nigerian communities are currently taking legal action against the oil major in the UK and a trial at the High Court is due to begin next year.
Shell says the majority of spills in the Niger Delta were caused by theft and sabotage and it is therefore not liable.
According to Atkinson, Shell pivoted away from onshore oil fields that “might have become more trouble than they were worth” while remaining a major player in Nigeria’s oil industry.
Top green jet fuel producer linked to suspect waste-oil supply chain
The London-based company has invested billions in offshore gas development in the country. It has also retained a 25.6% stake in Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG), a liquefied natural gas producer based on Bonny Island.
As the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies seek to meet their climate targets, a strategic shift “to dodge accountability” by selling more problematic assets is under way, said Sophie Marjanac, director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project, an organisation that campaigns for the oil industry to cover the cost of its environmental damage.
“By dumping ageing, polluting infrastructure onto smaller operators, they leave behind contamination, and communities facing ongoing harm with little chance of justice,” Marjanac said.
The post How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets appeared first on Climate Home News.
‘Keystone Light’: These Wyoming oil tycoons are reviving the controversial pipeline
On the first day of his presidency back in 2021, Joe Biden revoked a key permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands into the U.S. The decision to kill Keystone XL was perhaps Biden’s clearest gift to the environmental movement.
But now, five years later, a family of Wyoming oil tycoons is bringing the Keystone concept back from the dead — and the Trump administration is signaling its support. Last week, President Trump signed a presidential permit for the so-called Bridger expansion pipeline, which would likely deliver oil from the carbon-intensive Alberta tar sands to a pipeline hub in central Wyoming, 647 miles away. From there, the oil could move through other pipelines to key refineries as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.
“Slightly different than the last administration,” Trump said at the White House last Thursday when he signed the presidential permit. “They wouldn’t sign a pipeline deal, and we have pipelines going up.”
The presidential permit gives the project the green light to transport oil across international borders, and it’s only the latest step in what appears to be a fast-tracked timeline for the revived tar sands pipeline. Last month, the federal Bureau of Land Management announced that it would begin conducting an environmental review of the project on an expedited schedule. (The Trump administration has shortened many of the environmental review processes required for pipeline construction.) Bridger Pipeline, the company behind the project, says it wants to begin construction next year and start moving oil in 2028.
The pipeline would carry at least 550,000 barrels of crude oil per day. That’s only about two-thirds of what Keystone XL would have carried, but it could expand to a peak capacity even larger than what was originally planned — more than 1 million barrels a day. The similarity between the new pipeline’s path and Keystone’s has led some opponents to call the successor “Keystone Light.” The Canadian portion of the new pipeline would be built by a company called South Bow, which was spun off from TC Energy, the company behind the original Keystone XL line.
Miles of unused pipe, prepared for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, sit in a lot outside Gascoyne, North Dakota, in 2014.Andrew Burton / Getty Images
The proposed pipeline would be one of the biggest new fossil fuel developments of Donald Trump’s second presidency. It comes at a time of growing oil production in Alberta and skyrocketing global crude prices due to the war the president is waging in Iran. The project is being pushed by the True family, a clan of oilmen with a long history of drilling in the Rockies — and a history of oil spills from pipelines across the region.
“We know that there is limited pipeline capacity to move Canadian crude oil, and we have extensive experience in the Rocky Mountains,” said Bill Salvin, a spokesperson for Bridger Pipeline, the True family pipeline company proposing the project.
The True business empire dates back to the 1940s, when a wildcatter named Henry Alphonso “Dave” True Jr. began exploring for oil in Wyoming. He and his three sons expanded their company into a network of almost a dozen corporations that includes a drilling company, a network of local oil pipelines, a trucking company, an oil trading company, an oil equipment company, a geothermal energy firm, and a real estate company called Brick & Bond, according to a Grist review of corporate records. They also invested in cattle ranching, becoming some of the state’s largest landowners. One of True’s sons, Diemer True, served for two decades in the Wyoming legislature.
This corporate expansion has given the four-generation True family outsize influence in a state that doesn’t produce much oil but neighbors the massive Bakken shale formation of North Dakota, which is served by some of the True family pipelines. The family name is synonymous with oil in Wyoming, and True family members have become prominent donors to the University of Wyoming and to a conservative legal foundation in the region. The Trues have also run afoul of the federal government: Several members of the family engaged in a 10-year dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over what the government said was a strategy to evade some taxes by shuttling ranchland purchases between different companies. (The case ended in a multimillion-dollar fine against the Trues, which was upheld by an appellate court in 2004.)
“They’re very prominent, and their business interests have spread all around the West,” said Phil Roberts, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Wyoming and an expert on the state’s oil industry. He noted that families like the Trues have shifted away from oil production as the state’s fields have declined, investing in pipelines and oilfield services to maintain their revenue.
“Those fields have gotten really worn out, so they’ve had to diversify,” said Roberts.
Tad True speaks during the third day of the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum in 2012. Mark Wilson / Getty ImagesTad True, the grandson of the True who first struck oil in Wyoming, has led the family’s pipeline business for most of this century, expanding its network to more than 4,000 miles across Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. He argued as early as 2006 that more pipeline development was needed in order for regional oil producers to remain competitive, and in a 2012 testimony before the House of Representatives he said that the Obama administration’s regulations were blocking the pipelines needed for the fracking boom that was then in full swing. True spoke at the Republican National Convention the same year, accusing Obama of “playing politics” with the Keystone XL pipeline, which the then-president had rejected the previous year. (While the pipeline was primarily intended to carry Canadian shale oil to American markets, it would also have included an “on ramp” for crude from True’s part of the country.)
True’s company, Bridger Pipeline, has a history of oil spills. In 2015, one of the pipelines it operated ruptured underneath the Yellowstone River after fast-moving waters eroded sediment and rock from the riverbed. At least 30,000 gallons of crude oil streamed into the river, contaminating the water supplies of Glendive, Montana. The town had to truck in bottles of drinking water after some residents noticed an odor in their tap water. Then, just a year later, another pipeline operated by one of the company’s subsidiaries leaked 600,000 gallons into a stream in North Dakota — almost enough oil to fill an Olympic-sized pool. Another pipeline broke several years later, dumping 45,000 gallons of oil onto ranchland in Wyoming. The company ultimately paid $1 million in fines to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the 2015 spill and $12.5 million for the 2016 spill.
In total, there have been at least 42 spills as a result of pipeline operations by True subsidiaries since 2010. According to data collected by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, more than a third of those spills had detrimental effects on the environment or people. The data shows that the Bridger Pipeline company alone is responsible for seven of those spills in just the last three years. The most recent spill took place in March near Guernsey, Wyoming.
“That definitely sets off some alarm bells,” said Kenneth Clarkson, communications director with the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. “It’s not acceptable to have one incident, and when we have this quantity, it’s definitely troubling.”
If the expanded Bridger pipeline ultimately carries tar sands oil from Canada, as appears likely, the environmental consequences of a spill could be dire. Given the thick, viscous nature of tar sands, operators mix a type of thinner — called a “diluent” in technical parlance — to help it flow through pipelines. In the event of a rupture, the diluent can easily evaporate, leaving behind a heavy, tar-like substance that sinks to the bottom of rivers and other waterways. That particular property of tar sands made cleanup of the Kalamazoo River particularly complicated after a different company’s pipeline burst in southwestern Michigan in 2010.
“We regret any spill from our pipelines,” said Salvin, the Bridger spokesperson. “Anytime oil gets out of the line, that’s unacceptable to us, so we do everything possible to keep the oil in the line.” He said that Bridger will employ “horizontal drilling” to tunnel under rivers and streams, which he said would reduce the risk of ruptures. Salvin did not say what type of oil the pipeline would carry, but confirmed it would be engineered for “mostly heavy crude” from Alberta; the Canadian portion of the pipeline will begin in the town of Hardisty, in the heart of Alberta’s oil sands.
He also said the company would use advanced technology to monitor for leaks. In the aftermath of the 2015 spill, when North Dakota’s then-governor Doug Burgum challenged Tad True to prevent leaks, True created an artificial-intelligence software called Flowstate that analyzes pipelines for potential ruptures. Salvin said the company now uses the software on all its pipelines and markets it to other operators as well.
Even though the new proposed pipeline is similar to Keystone XL in length and size, it will only cost $2 billion, far less than Keystone’s $8 billion price tag. That’s because its route will largely follow existing infrastructure and rights-of-way established by True Companies pipelines. Salvin said that the company has held a dozen landowner meetings and has secured surveying easements, or allowances to scout the land for construction, from 374 of the 376 private landowners along the pipeline route. Unlike Keystone XL, the route does not cross any federally recognized tribal lands.
“We’re very familiar with what happened with the previous project,” said Salvin. “Given that we have existing pipeline corridors that we have access to, that’s one of the reasons why this makes such commercial sense to us.” Salvin declined to offer details about the financing of the project, and such details are not publicly available because Bridger is a privately held company.
The project must still secure a number of state and local permits, but so far it isn’t having any trouble with the Trump administration, which has been aggressive in supporting new oil and gas development. The line cuts through Montana and Wyoming, including public land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, which is leading the federal government’s review of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the law typically requires the preparation of a detailed assessment of the project’s impact on wildlife and waterways, the bureau has suggested it might fast-track the pipeline’s review.
Past studies have found that it typically takes federal agencies more than two years to complete an environmental impact statement, but the Bureau has indicated in public filings that it intends to publish a final impact statement by next May and make a decision on the project, allowing the company to begin construction by July.
Though True family members do not appear to be particularly close allies of Trump himself, they have given more than $4 million to Republican candidates and political action committees since 1977, according to federal records. A combined $12,000 went to Trump’s unsuccessful reelection campaign in 2020, the only apparent record of True financial support for the president. Furthermore, six members of the True family appeared on a 2022 endorsement list for Liz Cheney, the Wyoming politician who lost her reelection bid after she voted to impeach Trump.
The business case for the new pipeline rests on a number of big assumptions. The existing pipelines from the tar sands are running near capacity, but the Bridger proposal assumes that production in Canada’s oil hub will continue to increase. Many forecasters aren’t so sure; even with prices high, current projections show that production growth is slowing and may peak in 2030 at around 3.5 million barrels a day, well under what the proponents of Keystone XL anticipated.
Second, the pipeline would only carry oil to central Wyoming, not all the way to the Nebraska refinery hub targeted by the original Keystone XL pipeline. Another company would need to build another pipeline across Nebraska in order for the crude to reach the major oil refineries on the Gulf Coast. (Salvin said Bridger is “exploring options” for that segment.) Third, it’s unclear if those refiners will even want as much of the heavy Canadian crude oil that the pipeline would offer, since imports of similar oil from Venezuela have started to tick up following Trump’s kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and subsequent negotiations with the country’s new leadership.
“To call this plan half-baked would be an insult to baking,” wrote energy lawyer and anti-pipeline advocate Paul Blackburn in a blog post last month. Blackburn is an advisor to Bold Alliance, the activist network that opposed the last Keystone XL proposal.
Many of the same activist groups that opposed the prior pipeline are getting ready to oppose this one as well. The Bold Alliance, which organized tribes and rural landowners against Keystone, has said it will litigate any attempt to extend a pipeline into Nebraska. Jenny Harbine, a managing attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, said her group is “keeping a close eye” to ensure federal and state agencies adequately consider environmental and safety concerns. The Bureau of Land Management and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which is coordinating its review with that of the federal government, closed an initial public comment period last week.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Keystone Light’: These Wyoming oil tycoons are reviving the controversial pipeline on May 6, 2026.
Democrats used to back energy-saving plans. Now they’re wavering.
There’s a strange trend afoot on the East Coast, where residents have seen some of the highest increases in electricity costs in the country. As part of efforts to relieve the pressure, some Democrats are planning to slash energy-efficiency programs. Because utilities fund energy-efficiency measures through charges to their customers, the thinking is that scaling the programs down will reduce people’s bills quickly. The irony is that energy efficiency is meant to do exactly that: lower people’s energy use, and thus reduce their bills.
“The cheapest, fastest thing you can do to help meet energy demand in this moment of increasing need for energy is energy efficiency,” said Mark Kresowik, senior policy director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEEE.
This emerging trend among Democrats, alongside a more established shift among Republicans, is the opposite of how politicians have reacted to similar situations in the past. In 1973, when Arab countries stopped exporting oil to the U.S. because it supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War, oil prices soared, drivers waited in long lines at gas stations, and electricity bills increased. In response, President Richard Nixon proposed measures to trim energy use, including reducing speed limits to 50 mph, and urged Americans to lower their thermostats in the colder months. It was the beginning of a decades-long, bipartisan effort to improve energy efficiency and reduce the country’s reliance on “foreign oil.”
The effort ended up saving Americans trillions of dollars. As regulations prompted manufacturers to make cars with better gas mileage, they trimmed fuel costs for Americans by an estimated $5 trillion over the course of decades (as well as preventing 14 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions). In addition, the efficiency standards that the government set on home appliances and plumbing still save the average household about $576 a year on their utility bills, while cutting national energy use by 6.5 percent. That’s according to data from the Department of Energy in January last year, before President Donald Trump took office.
Read Next How your showerhead and fridge got roped into the culture wars Kate YoderBut confronted with another oil crisis today, again sparked by a conflict in the Middle East, many politicians are taking the opposite approach. The Trump administration, along with Republicans in Congress, has attacked the Biden-era fuel economy standards for cars, along with rules requiring appliances to be more efficient. And some Democrats, previously reliable supporters of energy efficiency, are wavering in their support. The result is that as data centers gobble up electricity, and extreme weather and an aging grid further drive up prices, some politicians are weakening one of the best tools for lowering bills and protecting people from price swings.
In Maryland, for example, Democratic Governor Wes Moore is expected to sign legislation scaling back the state’s target to reduce emissions, which would cut the amount utilities have to spend on energy-efficiency programs and eliminate a surcharge ratepayers see on their bills. Politicians in the region are looking for anything to immediately decrease their constituents’ bills, and they don’t have a lot of options to address the drivers of rising costs. “Energy affordability politics are dominating the political agenda, and it’s very difficult to address energy affordability,” said Kelly Trombley, senior director of state policy at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit. But politicians can remove energy-efficiency surcharges with the stroke of a pen.
That helps explain why Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee, another Democrat, floated the idea of capping spending for energy efficiency rebates at $75 million a year, down from $95 million approved for this year. Fees, state mandates, and other charges tied to state policies reportedly account for a quarter of energy bills. Affordability concerns also prompted Democrats in the Massachusetts House to pass a bill that would cut $1 billion, out of $4.5 billion, from the state’s energy-efficiency budget. That bill appears to have a tough path forward, since the chair of the state Senate’s energy committee has signaled his support for Mass Save, a program that rewards ratepayers for buying heat pumps and making other energy-saving moves.
In Maryland, supporters of the legislation to cut energy efficiency spending say it could save residents $150 a year or more on their bills. “The thing about surcharges like this is, it is one of our most direct tools,” state Delegate Marc Korman, a Democrat, told Canary Media. “We don’t want to forsake all efforts at energy efficiency, but we want to try to provide a little bit of relief for some time if we can.”
To opponents, focusing on immediate savings misses the bigger picture, since it would hurt affordability in the long-term. An analysis from ACEEE found that the proposed legislation in Maryland would increase costs for the state’s electricity customers by a net $592 million.
“Unfortunately, cutting energy efficiency programs — it’s like trading in your car for one that gets worse gas mileage at a time when gas prices are going up, and it won’t do anything to address those real cost drivers that will only get worse,” Trombley said. “Energy efficiency is one of the only options customers have to insulate themselves from the volatility coming from things like natural gas or an aging grid susceptible to extreme weather.”
While the trend appears mostly limited to the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, there’s one recent example of Democrats opposing an energy-efficiency measure on the federal level. In January, 57 Democrats in the House voted with Republicans on a bill that would eliminate the Biden administration’s efficiency standards for manufactured homes, which haven’t been updated since 1994 and allow for poor insulation. It’s still awaiting a vote in the Senate.
Republicans have increasingly targeted energy-efficiency laws, a reversal from the days of presidents Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who signed the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act in 1987. These days, everything from dishwashers to laundry machines has been sucked into the culture wars. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have targeted efficiency standards enacted under the Biden administration, viewing them as symbols of Democrats interfering with “consumer choice.” Last week, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down Biden-era rules that would have restricted gas-powered commercial water heaters and consumer furnaces, siding with the natural gas industry and utilities.
Still, some energy efficiency programs have survived the Republican-dominated federal government. After the Trump administration threatened to eliminate Energy Star, a government program that puts its certification label on products that meet its efficiency standards, Congress passed a bipartisan spending bill in January that ensures continued funding. Congress also allocated $3 million more in funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides free energy-efficiency upgrades for low-income households, than it did last year, for a total of $329 million. Some Republican members of Congress have proposed a bill to extend tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act that were set to expire at the end of June — including incentives for constructing energy-efficient homes and supporting retrofits for commercial buildings.
And in the bigger picture, state spending on energy efficiency, especially in terms of assisting low-income households, has been on the rise. Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, signed a handful of pro-efficiency laws in April aiming to trim household bills by providing energy-saving upgrades to low-income families, some with bipartisan support. Also last month, Ned Lamont, Connecticut’s Democratic governor, announced a measure that’s supposed to save families about $30 a month by decreasing charges for public benefits on utility bills, with much of the reduction offset by contracts he negotiated with nuclear power plants that provide energy at fixed prices.
“We’re hopeful that there’s a pathway to strengthen and really recognize that you actually can’t have an energy affordability strategy without energy efficiency,” Trombley said.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Democrats used to back energy-saving plans. Now they’re wavering. on May 6, 2026.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.