G1. Progressive Green

For years, Canadian officials and oil industry backers have pitched carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the solution that would allow Alberta’s oil sands — and the nation’s proposed west coast pipeline — to proceed with a lower climate impact. Now, in a speech at this year’s Canada Strong and Free Network (CSFN) conference in Vancouver, keynote speaker and former British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell warned the costly, troubled technology has failed to deliver, undercutting a central justification for billions in public subsidies and new oil infrastructure.

This reporter was there in person at the April 24 CSFN gathering. Formerly the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, the CSFN self-describes as supporting “conservative and libertarian activists and ideas in Canada”. Imagine a MAGA-adjacent gabfest featuring speakers mostly cheerleading extractive industries or fear-mongering about First Nations rights. My already low expectations were not exceeded. 

However, there was an unexpected utterance of truth from Campbell, who was the first elected leader in North America to bring in a carbon tax. And what does he think about the technology being touted to clean up ballooning emissions from the Alberta oil sands and justifying a new pipeline to the BC coast? 

“It’s time to take off the blinders. Carbon capture and storage is something we’ve talked about in Canada for more than a generation, more than 25 years,” he told the conference. “We’ve invested billions of dollars trying to convince ourselves that carbon capture and storage will work. It doesn’t work. It costs money. And that money is money that we take out of other potential productive resources that we could have for Canadians.”

Campbell was certainly not suggesting that fossil fuel extraction be scaled back. His comments instead pointed out that pretending to solve emissions problems with expensive and ineffective carbon capture and storage is an unwise waste of scarce public resources. This unusual truth-bomb from a public figure stands in stark contrast to the theater playing out in Alberta and Ottawa, where CCS is being heavily promoted and backed by billions in public money as a panacea for oil sands climate costs. 

Even a Pathways Alliance co-founder is now publicly coming out against the CCS project in a recent Globe and Mail op-ed, equating long-delayed efforts by the oil patch to limit its massive carbon emissions with a cash-strapped household wasting money on a vacation or meal deliveries. Is Big Oil now pivoting away from a marquee carbon capture project it never intended to build?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

Meanwhile the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney claims that the $20 billion CCS project  being promoted by the Pathways Alliance will make “Alberta oil among the lowest carbon intensity-produced barrels of oil in the world.” This multi-billion-dollar boondoggle has been offered as a “grand bargain” between Ottawa and Alberta to facilitate a new bitumen pipeline outlined in their now-overdue memorandum of understanding.

This confident public posturing was made despite internal briefing notes accessed by DeSmog showing Pathways had “…few front end engineering (FEED) studies done and initial cost estimates based on very limited project information”.

DeSmog previously reviewed 12 large scale CCS projects around the world and found “a litany of cost-overruns and missed targets, with a net increase in emissions.” Only 50MT of CO2 are sequestered each year by CCS, representing a mere 0.1 percent of global greenhouse gases. 

A recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature showed that a shortage of suitable geological formations worldwide limit CCS to mitigating only a puny portion of dangerous emissions. And even if injecting all production emissions underground was somehow perfectly effective, it would do nothing to alleviate the other 80-90 percent of downstream tailpipe greenhouse gases.

Such shaky fundamentals have apparently had little impact on government enthusiasm for throwing billions in public money towards dubious CSS schemes. The federal government has committed to covering half of the $20 billion estimated cost of the Pathways CCS project in tax credits, and the Alberta government is pledging to shovel billions more towards the highly profitable members of the Pathways Alliance. 

Pathways Alliance companies — recently renamed as the Oil Sands Alliance —  include Canada Natural Resources Ltd, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil, MEG Energy, and Suncor, representing 95 percent of Alberta’s bitumen production. These giants enjoyed $37 billion in combined profit in 2023 and will reap billions more in windfall profits with oil above $100 per barrel due to Trump’s war on Iran. 

A ‘Generous Transfer Provision’

A good yardstick of whether the Pathways project is credible is revealed in action, not words. Despite years of public spin and lobbying by Pathways members, the largest bitumen producers still stubbornly refuse to pony up any of their own money towards beginning construction even as Canadians struggle with historically high prices at the gas pump. 

If carbon capture is so safe, why has the oil patch lobbied to wash its hands of long-term CCS liabilities? In a system unique to Alberta, the province assumes the long-term risks associated with CO2 storage once a closure certificate has been issued, a concession to the oil industry described as one of the most “generous transfer provisions” of any CCS scheme in the world. 

Documents obtained by the Narwhal also revealed that Pathways Alliance president Kendall Dilling asked Ottawa for “assurance that the Pathways pipeline, hub and capture projects would not require a federal review under the Impact Assessment Act.” 

In Alberta, regulators allowed the largest CCS project in the world to be broken into over 120 separate proposals to avoid triggering a provincial environmental assessment. Does this kind of maneuvering inspire confidence? 

Not for local residents facing risks of a potentially deadly CO2 leak from a pipeline rupture, as occurred in Sataria, Mississippi where 49 people were hospitalized in 2020. Rural Albertans living close to the proposed 600 kilometre CO2 pipeline from the oil sands to Cold Lake have recently come together in an unlikely alliance of farmers and Indigenous leaders opposed to the Pathways project called “No CO2 Pipelines.” 

“Thousands of Albertans like me live directly in this project’s ‘hazard zone’”, said Penny Fox, No CO2 Pipelines co-founder, in a press release.  “In an explosion, people in our communities are facing anything from breathing issues to brain damage to instant death. So I have one question for the Prime Minister: if you wouldn’t live next to this pipeline, why should we?” 

“We’re talking about hundreds of kilometers of pipeline that pass directly through areas where we live, hunt, fish and exercise our treaty rights”, Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said. “This project endangers our people, our land, our water and wildlife. And yet there has been no consultation, no information sharing, and no formal environmental assessment.”

Gordon Campbell makes a good point. The Pathways project will cost the taxpayers billions and do nothing to contain the vast majority of ultimate oil sands emissions. Other Canadian industries have managed to cut greenhouse gases by one quarter since 2005, while bitumen producers have seen their emissions explode by 143 percent over the same period. 

Why should highly profitable oil industry laggards still expect public handouts before cleaning up their own mess? 

The post Former BC Premier Gordon Campbell: Carbon Capture ‘Doesn’t Work’ appeared first on DeSmog.

FDA finds toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in baby formula but won’t set enforceable limits Monica Amarelo May 5, 2026

WASHINGTON – The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were found in baby formula sold across the U.S., according to test data recently released by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The findings underscore an urgent and long-overdue need for legal limits on PFAS in food. One year ago, the Environmental Working Group urged the FDA to develop action levels for PFAS in food. 

Monitoring without action does not protect children. A PFAS action level would let the FDA take legal action to remove products from the market if they exceed that limit.

The FDA tested 312 infant formula samples from 16 brands for 30 PFAS compounds as part of its Operation Stork Speed initiative. Five PFAS compounds were detected. 

PFOS was most commonly detected, found in half of all samples at concentrations ranging from 0.51 to 6.0 parts per trillion. PFOS is one of the most toxic and well-studied PFAS and the Environmental Protection Agency says it’s likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

The FDA characterizes these levels as low and concludes the infant formula supply is safe.

“No safe level of PFAS exposure has been established, and that is especially true for infants,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG chief science officer. 

“PFOS bioaccumulates in the body and it damages the immune system, including reducing the effectiveness of vaccines in babies and children. Detecting it in half of all formula samples and characterizing these findings as a proof of safety is not a conclusion the science supports,” said Andrews.

“Formula is the sole nutrition source for millions of American infants and toddlers. The FDA’s safety claim is not acceptable, given these detections of a known cancer-causing chemical. The agency must set enforceable PFAS action levels for food, as other nations already have done."

“Congress gave the FDA the authority to set limits on contaminants in infant formula. The agency has chosen not to use it,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at EWG. 

“Every day the FDA delays setting enforceable PFAS limits is another day American infants are exposed to toxic PFAS with zero legal protection. That is a policy choice, and it is the wrong one,” he said.

Not just trace contamination

PFOS was phased out of U.S. manufacturing under pressure from the EPA after evidence emerged of significant health hazards. It was used in 3M’s Scotchgard and widely deployed in firefighting foam at military bases and airports, contaminating groundwater systems across the country. 

EWG’s PFAS contamination map documents PFOS in the drinking water supply of nearly half the nation’s water systems. 

The EPA regulates PFOS in drinking water at a maximum contaminant level of just 4 parts per trillion, set because of PFOS’s classification as a carcinogen. 

The FDA has established no equivalent limit for infant formula, so infants and toddlers may continue to be exposed to PFOS in food, as well as in tap water.

“Most of the formula samples the FDA tested were powdered, and most parents mix powdered formula with tap water,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG. “Depending on where you live, your tap water may be contaminated with PFAS.

“That means babies could be getting a double dose – PFAS already present in the formula powder, and additional PFAS from the water used to prepare it. That compounding exposure is exactly why we need enforceable limits, not just monitoring,” she added.

The FDA findings closely mirror Consumer Reports’ 2025 investigation, which found PFAS in almost all of the 41 popular baby formula brands it tested, including Enfamil, Similac and Bobbie. 

Consumer Reports also identified PFOS as the most concerning compound detected. 

Two independent investigations, the same alarming result – and still no enforceable federal standard for PFAS in food.

Food may be the primary route of PFAS exposure

For millions of Americans, food – not drinking water – is the main route of PFAS exposure. These chemicals enter the food supply through multiple pathways federal regulators have failed to close.

“PFAS are clearly infiltrating our entire food system as a direct result of regulatory failure,” said Andrews. 

“PFAS-containing pesticides are being applied to crops. Biosolids contaminated with PFAS are being spread on farm fields. Contaminated water is being sprayed on food crops. Every one of these pathways is preventable, and every one of them remains legal,” said Andrews.

“We need to ban all nonessential uses of PFAS, starting with these agricultural applications, before the contamination gets any worse,” he added.

Stakes are highest for the most vulnerable

PFAS exposure, with its health stakes, begins before birth. 

PFAS are toxic at extremely low levels. They are known as forever chemicals because once released into the environment, they do not break down and can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. 

PFAS readily cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that the developing fetus faces direct prenatal exposure. 

When PFAS are detected in the infant formula that millions of American babies depend on as their sole source of nutrition, the exposure does not begin at the first feeding. For many infants, it has already been accumulating for months.

A recent study also links prenatal PFAS exposure to premature birth, low birth weight and infant mortality. The full range of documented harms extends further still: thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, reduced fertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding. 

Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness. 

The impact on infants and toddlers is especially pronounced. “Babies are not small adults when it comes to chemical exposure – they are categorically more vulnerable,” said Stoiber. 

“Babies’ bodies are smaller, their organs are still developing, and their immune systems are not yet fully formed. When PFAS accumulate in an infant’s body, the proportional impact is far greater than it would be in an adult exposed to the same amount.

“Parents are often limited in the type of formula that is available to them and the FDA’s testing did not disclose the brand names tested. The FDA must act to protect all children,” she added.

“The administration says it wants to make America healthy again,” said Faber. “Here is a straightforward way to start: Set enforceable limits on PFAS in baby formula today. 

“The science is clear, the authority exists and the harm has been documented. American families cannot wait any longer for the federal government to do its job,” he added.

What parents can do right now

No parent should have to navigate this alone. Until the FDA establishes enforceable PFAS standards in infant formula, here are practical steps to reduce your baby’s exposure:

• Use filtered water when preparing powdered formula. A reverse osmosis system provides the most effective PFAS filtration. Countertop pitcher filters have also shown meaningful effectiveness in EWG testing. 
• Check EWG’s PFAS contamination map to see whether your local water supply has documented PFOS or other PFAS contamination.
• Make your voice heard. Contact the FDA and your elected representatives and demand enforceable PFAS limits in infant formula. The FDA’s Operation Stork Speed is an ongoing testing program. Sustained public pressure from parents is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the regulatory action.

###

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

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Children’s Health PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 5, 2026

Hosted by Covering Climate Now

Thursday, May 7 12:00 p.m. EDT

REGISTER

In April, a climate denial conference hosted in Washington, D.C., and boasting US Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin as a keynote speaker signaled a new era in US politics: from a slow but growing embrace of climate science in federal policy to outright rejection of the scientific consensus.

Join Covering Climate Now for a special webinar, with DeSmog reporter Rei Takver alongside Manon Jacob, Climate Digital Investigation Reporter for Agence France-Presse, and Maxine Joselow, Climate Policy Reporter for The New York Times, as they explore how the Trump administration’s overt embrace of climate denialism in Washington is creating a permission structure for more denial at the highest levels of government in the US and beyond.

Rei will discuss her story, co-published with The Guardian, “Climate Deniers Expected More Resistance to Trump’s Fossil Fuel Blitz,” which covers Donald Trump’s assaults on the legal foundation for U.S. regulations on global warming emissions, and how climate deniers have been celebrating what they claim is the “silent” acquiescence of billionaires, Democrats, climate activists and even reporters to the president’s aggressive pro-fossil fuel agenda.
 
“In my 26 years of being focused on climate, I’ve never seen anything like this. Trump is gutting everything they ever stood for,” Marc Morano, a long-time climate denier, said in January at the “World Prosperity Forum,” a five-day event in Zurich, Switzerland, Rei reports.

The World Prosperity Forum’s sponsor was The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has been at the forefront of spreading climate disinformation for decades, and was also a contributor to Project 2025, the policy blueprint for President Trump’s second administration.

“Billionaires are silent. Democrats in Congress have been silent. Climate activists. There has been no push-back on this,” Morano said — and he may have a point, according to some experts who research the climate denial movement.

Join in on Thursday, May 7, at 12:00 p.m. EDT for this virtual conversation about the Trump administration’s embrace of climate denialism, what that could mean for the future of US climate policy, and how to cover it

You won’t want to miss it.

Register and submit your questions here.

The post Event | How Climate Denialism Is Evolving With Trump in Office appeared first on DeSmog.

A prominent ultra-conservative think tank with a long history of climate denial and close ties to the Trump administration is questioning whether all Americans should be allowed to cast ballots in elections. 

“Look, I’m going to say something very controversial: Not every adult over the age of 18 should have the right to vote,” Jim Lakely, communications director of the Heartland Institute, said during an early April episode of the group’s In the Tank podcast. 

Heartland was a contributor to Project 2025, the policy blueprint for Trump’s second term.
 
 “We did not have universal suffrage when the framers of the Constitution founded this country. It varied a little bit state-to-state, but basically you had to be a white man. You had to be an owner of property, and a certain amount of property, and that pretty much was only white men,” Lakely said. “We’re never going back to that, of course, and I wouldn’t actually argue for that. But there’s something to be said for the way they set that up on purpose, and it was because they wanted only people who have a stake in the country — mainly the people paying taxes to support the government — should have the franchise and be able to select the direction of the government.”

Lakely’s comments, which DeSmog has quoted in full at his request, came just days before Heartland hosted a two-day conference in Washington, D.C. keynoted by Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zeldin has been floated to replace Pam Bondi as Trump’s attorney general. 

Zeldin praised the Heartland Institute, which has long been at the forefront of spreading climate disinformation and strongly backed the EPA’s recent repeal of the “endangerment finding,” the Obama-era determination that under-girded the federal government’s authority to limit climate-heating air pollution.

It was time to “celebrate vindication” of the group’s decades of anti-climate campaigning, Zeldin said.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

All Americans should be worried that a top Trump cabinet official openly lauded a group that questions universal suffrage, said climate scientist Michael Mann, the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. 

“Heartland’s authoritarian, anti-democratic agenda is now exposed for all to see,” Mann told DeSmog in email. “The assault on climate action and the assault on democracy are one and the same, an effort to advance the authoritarian agenda of fossil fuel interests and the politicians in their pay.”
 
 When approached for comment, the EPA told DeSmog: “Administrator Zeldin is doing something genuinely different at EPA, refocusing the agency on its core mission of protecting human health and the environment and exercising its statutory authority as written, not as expansively reimagined in prior years. Administrator Zeldin will continue advancing President Trump’s agenda on behalf of the Americans who elected him to do exactly that.”

‘Reduce the Franchise’

During the podcast, Heartland senior fellow S.T. Karnick backed up Lakely’s comments about voting. “The original plan in America was that votes would go one vote to each property-holding family,” Karnick said. “That has been hacked away at throughout the decades and for a two and a half centuries now.”

“Now, can you go back?” he added. “Well, anything’s possible, but it wouldn’t be the same country we’re living in in any way to start to reduce the franchise.” Karnick said that an alternative solution would be to “repeal the doggone 17th Amendment,” the 1913 addition to the Constitution that established the direct election of U.S. senators, and return to having senators elected by state legislatures. “It would be a way of pulling away from the popular votes,” he said.  

Heartland Research Fellow Linnea Lucken and Editorial Director Chris Talgo also appeared on the podcast.

During the Heartland podcast, Lakely made the false claim that the use of mail-in ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic created “quite a bit” of “easy natural election fraud,” saying that “if you could go to the grocery store, if you could go to a BLM [Black Lives Matter] march, you can get in line at your local polling place and vote and participate in the election.” When DeSmog approached Lakely for comment about this last claim, Lakely responded: “I stand by that.”
 
 Zeldin, a longtime Trump supporter, has previously endorsed similar claims. Following Trump’s loss of the 2020 election to Joe Biden, Zeldin — then a House member representing New York’s 1st Congressional District — “sided with Republicans who were amplifying doubts about its legitimacy,” according to The New York Times, and shared ideas with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on how to discredit Biden’s win. On January 6, 2021, Zeldin voted against certifying the election results.

The following year, while running as the Republican candidate for governor of New York, Zeldin was disqualified from getting his ticket an additional ballot line for the Independence Party, because nearly 13,000 of the petition signatures his campaign submitted to the state elections board were photocopied duplicates.
 
 Soon after taking over the EPA in 2025, Zeldin promised that the agency would begin “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” Since then he has revoked billions in climate funding, slashed thousands of EPA staff, and rolled back dozens of clean air and water protections.
 
 In his Heartland keynote address, Zeldin argued that these rollbacks were “what the American public voted for” when they re-elected Trump. 

The EPA chief praised the Heartland audience for being “right there on the front lines” of opposition to the endangerment finding. “I appreciate all of you for having the thoughtfulness years and decades ahead of your time.”

Attorney General Zeldin?

If Zeldin replaced Bondi, he would oversee the Justice Department’s defense of his EPA actions in court, including lawsuits by states and environmental groups over the endangerment finding repeal.

“The Supreme Court, in my opinion quite correctly, would say that the EPA should not be putting forth trillions of dollars in regulations without there being a vote in Congress,” Zeldin said in his speech, adding that members of Congress are “the ones who, as recently as this upcoming November [mid-term elections], put their name on the ballot, go before the people, and the American public will decide who in this republic will represent them.”

Zeldin’s record of election denial would fit right in at the top of the current Justice Department.

Since Trump took office, the department has shifted from enforcing voting rights laws — including scrutinizing whether states are conducting fair elections and prosecuting threats against election officials — to investigating alleged voter fraud. Most of the lawyers working in the Voting Section of the agency’s Civil Rights Division have left, according to reporting by Wired, and many of their replacements have ties to election denial groups.

Right now, Trump’s cratering approval ratings with voters paint a grim picture for Republicans in the November elections  — but as part of his efforts to manipulate the mid-terms, the Trump Justice Department has been openly coming to their aid. 

Under former AG Bondi, the department began collecting voter data from cooperative states — and suing dozens of states to get more — apparently hoping to direct purges of the rolls. The FBI in January raided an election office and seized 2020 voting records in Fulton County, Georgia, which Trump lost, although It’s well-established that voter fraud is very rare in the United States, and didn’t happen in 2020.

A number of red states have already answered Trump’s call to create more House seats for Republicans by redrawing their election districts. Now more are on the way because in late April the Supreme Court’s conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, handing down a ruling that effectively lets states redraw their election districts in ways that weaken the voting power of Blacks and other minorities.

Within hours of the decision, several southern states began taking steps to create election maps that will increase the number of Republican House seats.

Badge of Dishonor

The Heartland Institute, which has denied that humans are driving climate change, calling it a “delusion,” has boasted of its “strong” ties to “big individuals” in the Trump administration.

During Trump’s first term, as DeSmog reported at the time, Heartland advised the EPA on staffing and policy decisions. “They recognized us as the pre-eminent organization opposing the radical climate alarmism agenda and instead promoting sound science and policy,” said Tim Huelskamp — a former Republican congressman who was then leading Heartland — in 2018.
 
 Heartland also advised a member of the administration’s National Security Council, longtime climate denier William Happer, on how to discredit the fact that burning fossil fuels was driving dangerous levels of global heating.

When Trump announced in 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, he invited Heartland’s then-CEO Joseph Bast to attend the announcement at the White House.

The Heartland Institute received at least $676,000 between 1998 and 2007 from U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil. It has received donations from Republican donors in the Mercer family, as well as foundations linked to the owners of Koch Industries – a fossil fuel giant and a leading sponsor of climate science denial.

“What a badge of dishonor it is to be a keynote speaker at this plutocrat-funded propaganda event masquerading as a ‘conference,” Mann said to DeSmog, referencing Zeldin’s ties to the group. “Polluting interests can only advance their agenda of a fossil fuel-dependent America by keeping Republicans in power.”

The post Heartland Institute Podcast Questions Whether All Americans ‘Should Have the Right to Vote’ appeared first on DeSmog.

Peer-reviewed EWG study finds produce washing options can reduce pesticide residue Anthony Lacey May 4, 2026

• All methods of washing fruits and vegetables reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely and depends on the pesticide, produce and method.
• Soaking produce in a solution of baking soda or vinegar solution was more effective than soaking or rinsing in water, on average.
• EWG scientists recommend improvements to how pesticides are monitored in food and in people to further reduce exposure.

WASHINGTON – Affordable, simple household practices can reduce pesticide levels on fruits and vegetables and help consumers lower their daily dietary exposure to potentially harmful farm chemicals, a new peer-reviewed study by Environmental Working Group scientists finds.

The study builds on EWG’s pesticide consumer guidance in the annual Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ and its comprehensive research on pesticides exposures. 

“Fruits and vegetables are essential to a healthy diet, but they can also increase exposure to pesticides,” said Dayna de Montagnac, M.P.H., associate scientist at EWG and lead author of the study. 

“Our findings reinforce the effectiveness of safe and accessible ways to reduce pesticide exposure while highlighting necessary improvements in research and monitoring to further reduce it,” she said.

Pesticide residues on produce

The review, published recently in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Health, analyzed data from 47 peer-reviewed studies of 23 produce items and 79 pesticides. The findings point to safe and effective methods consumers can use at home to reduce pesticide residues and provide a starting point for more research and monitoring in this area of study. 

Last year, EWG published peer-reviewed research showing how the consumption of fruits and vegetables with higher pesticide residues is linked to measurable levels of pesticides in urine. Other recent publications have investigated the growing problem of PFAS pesticides, chlormequat and glyphosate. 

Studies of the general population show exposure to pesticides is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and neurotoxicity in children. 

Residues of these chemicals are often detected on produce and frequently appear in mixtures on every type of produce, except potatoes, with an average of four or more pesticides detected on individual samples, according to EWG’s recent analysis of Department of Agriculture pesticide testing data. 

Key findings

EWG scientists reviewed data that recorded pesticide concentrations of fruits and vegetables before and after rinsing or soaking them with water, baking soda or vinegar. Experiments where scientists rinsed their produce for more than two minutes were excluded to better reflect how people likely wash their produce at home.

Among the key findings:

• All washing methods reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely.
• Rinsing with water showed modest reductions, with a median of 30.2%, although reductions ranged from 0% to 94%.
• Soaking in plain water performed slightly better than rinsing, with reductions from 0.6% to over 99% and a median of 33.7%.
• Baking soda soaking substantially improved removal, achieving reductions from 0.2% to over 99%, with a median of 50.9%.
• Vinegar, or acetic acid, soaking was the most effective method overall, with reductions ranging from 8.6% to over 99% and a median of 54.2%.
• Baking soda and vinegar treatments outperformed plain water by more than 15 percentage points in median pesticide reduction across studies, likely because of how certain pesticides break down in alkaline or acidic environments. 
• Real-world effectiveness may be lower than what EWG’s study showed, since many studies used higher concentrations of baking soda or vinegar than a typical household would.
• Key factors influencing pesticide removal included the chemical properties of the pesticide, the washing method used, and the type and surface characteristics of the produce.

These findings confirm the role washing produce can provide in moderately lowering pesticide levels.

Where more work is needed

The study’s authors recommend that government agencies make it a priority to monitor stubborn pesticides, those that remain on produce even after household washing. 

They also suggest expanding biomonitoring of fruits and vegetables to include pesticides frequently detected in the U.S. food supply. 

Future research should explore what proportion of pesticide residues remain within specific produce items and to what extent these residues increase exposure. 

The authors also suggest study designs that are more realistic, such as testing for the effect of rinsing for just a few seconds as a baseline. Further experiments could then show how adding baking soda or vinegar, with incremental increases in concentrations and washing times, can compare to the baseline method.

What consumers can do

EWG recommends regularly washing and eating plenty of fruit and vegetables.

Washing produce in any way will always be better than no washing in reducing exposure to pesticide residues. The USDA’s Pesticide Residue Program rinses produce samples with cold water for 15 to 20 seconds before testing produce, reflecting the assumption that consumers do basic washing at home.

A quick rinse or soak works in a pinch. When feasible, the addition of baking soda or vinegar to soaking solutions can further reduce residues. Refer to EWG’s guide on washing produce for more guidance.

When possible, EWG recommends prioritizing organic produce for the most pesticide-heavy produce listed in its Shopper’s Guide. The guide features the Dirty Dozen™ list of the produce with the highest pesticide residues detected and the Clean Fifteen™ list of items with the lowest residues.

###

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

Areas of Focus Food Family Health Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 5, 2026

The post Elected Leaders: Hold Musk’s DOGE Accountable! appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

.entry-header{display:none;}

The post Tell Wells Fargo: Stop Union Busting and Corporate Greed appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Vermont Senate advances landmark ban on Parkinson’s pesticide Anthony Lacey May 3, 2026

Vermont’s Senate today gave its initial approval to landmark legislation that would ban the use and sale of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat, bringing the state to the cusp of becoming the first in the nation to enact such a prohibition.

The legislation, H. 739, would end Vermonters’ exposure to paraquat, an extremely dangerous weedkiller linked to serious health harms, including Parkinson’s disease. Despite these risks, the U.S. still allows its use, even though more than 70 countries have banned it.

Vermont’s House passed a nearly identical measure in March and must now vote to concur with the Senate’s version, before sending the bill to Gov. Phil Scott (R).

“With today’s vote, Vermont is on the verge of making history by becoming the first state to ban paraquat,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. “Lawmakers in both chambers have recognized the urgent need to protect public health. The House should act swiftly to send this bill to the governor’s desk.”

Horsfield thanked Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike for their work on the bill, led by Rep. Esme Cole (Windsor-6) and Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden-Central District). “They have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market,” he added.

Paraquat has been extensively studied for its links to Parkinson’s disease and other serious illnesses, and even small amounts of exposure can pose significant health risks, including death. The chemical can travel through the air for more than two miles and persist in the environment, raising concerns for rural communities and agricultural workers alike.

If enacted, the legislation would position Vermont as a national leader at a moment of growing momentum to phase out paraquat.  At least 12 other states have introduced similar bans, and California is considering new regulatory restrictions. These efforts are clear signs of escalating concern over the chemical’s well-documented health risks.

“If signed into law, this bill will prevent needless exposure to a chemical tied to a devastating disease and set a powerful precedent for states across the country to follow,” Horsfield said.

###

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

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Paraquat Vote puts state on brink of being first-in-nation to prohibit toxic herbicide paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 6, 2026

In mid-April, Indigenous leaders from British Columbia traveled to Ottawa to protest against the federal government’s aggressive support for fossil fuel expansion.

Mark Carney’s Liberal government is fast-tracking multiple LNG projects in British Columbia, including the recent approval of Enbridge’s $4 billion natural gas pipeline expansion.

Securing Indigenous support for fossil fuel projects has been a cornerstone strategy of Canada’s oil and gas sector in recent years, with companies promising considerable benefits on the one hand while highlighting Indigenous involvement as an aspect of corporate responsibility on the other.

Not everyone is on board however, and Indigenous communities have been some of the most vocal opponents of major Canadian energy projects, including Union of BC Indian Chiefs representative Kitisha Paul, who argued at the Ottawa protest that fossil fuel expansion is causing the “deterioration of our land, our water.” 

Kai Nagata, an energy campaigner with the B.C.-based environmental non-profit Dogwood, has spent years working with Indigenous communities on the front-lines of opposition to new oil and gas infrastructure, a role that’s included deep research into the benefit agreements offered by industry as well as the foreign investors set to cash-in from new gas pipelines and export terminals. In an extensive Q&A with DeSmog, Nagata illuminates some of the tensions around promises of Indigenous participation in new fossil fuel projects, and the ways in which these supposedly “nation building” projects are tied to the U.S. and the MAGA movement.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

To what extent are Indigenous communities participating in the development of new fossil fuel infrastructure in British Columbia?

Coastal GasLink, a gas pipeline built across Northern BC, has zero percent Indigenous equity ownership. Sixty-five percent of the pipeline is owned by KKR, which is a New York private equity firm, and 35 percent remains with TC Energy Corporation.  

The LNG Canada terminal in Kitimat has zero percent Indigenous ownership, as it’s owned by Royal Dutch Shell and a consortium of Asian oil companies, some of which are state-owned.

The financing for these projects came from U.S., Canadian, Japanese and some Chinese banks. So the investors, the shareholders, the owners, and indeed many of the senior project staff and people involved in engineering and building the thing are not even Canadian, let alone Indigenous. 

The only LNG project that has Indigenous ownership right now in BC is Cedar LNG. So the Haisla Nation has a 50 percent stake in the terminal, but they’re buying the gas from Coastal GasLink, which is owned by KKR. And KKR also has a midstream infrastructure partnership with Pembina Pipelines, which is the Haisla’s partner on Cedar LNG. So they’re not outside the orbit of KKR by any means.

With Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline (PRGT) or the Ksi Lisims project, which are being advanced by this Texas company [Western LNG] with Wall Street investors, they’ve really been at pains to make it seem like this is an Indigenous-owned project. That’s how it’s been pitched by the provincial government. And that’s just not true.
 
 (Author’s note: filings with the BC Environmental assessment office show Western LNG is the primary owner and operator of the Ksi Lisims project).

Companies are riding this wave of concern over the poor treatment of Indigenous people historically in Canada and the need to make that up to them.They’re calling this ‘economic reconciliation’: here’s an opportunity for a small number of your governing elite to cash in, with hopefully some long-term benefits for the broader population on your reserve or in your nation.

Can you speak more to the kinds of agreements companies have signed with Indigenous communities?

Every deal is different, and they’re all secret. So that’s the first sign they might not stand up to scrutiny.

During the initial negotiations around the PRGT, which was back in 2014, you had band councils and hereditary chiefs signing impact benefit agreements. That was the same era as Coastal GasLink. Prior to that era of projects, the older model involved people from industry coming into Indigenous communities and saying “you people need to get out of the way now, the bulldozers are coming.”

Recognizing that that approach carried material risk for projects, the energy companies started crafting impact benefit agreements. They follow a similar template, basically an Indigenous community gets some limited financial benefits upfront. They get a promise of ongoing financial benefits, often very modest, but in return, they have clauses that are pretty draconian, like you have to prevent any of the members of your Indigenous group from speaking out against this industry or this project, and that can include on social media.

How do you get people to agree to that?

If your chief and council signs a closed-door deal with a pipeline company, it may contain clauses like your band members can’t shit talk this project on Facebook. That came out of a leaked benefit agreement that was signed with Coastal GasLink.

The chief and council weren’t sure if it was a good idea. So they put it out to a plebiscite and the community voted against it. Then they said there were ‘problems with the process’, so they took it to an in-camera vote. The council was split down the middle, so the chief himself passed the tie-breaking vote.

It actually came down to one guy—the band chief—after a democratic majority of band members rejected the deal. And the deal contained disparagement clauses. If community members disparaged the industry, the community could be held financially liable. I would characterize that as coercive. That’s not a deal anyone should sign. But when you have no leverage and when you’ve been dealing with the effects of poverty for 150 years, there’s a lot of immediate needs that these projects promise to fulfill.

Like what?

Kitselas First Nation recently signed an impact benefit agreement with Western LNG, the company developing the PRGT pipeline. They’re going to find some spaces for child care on the reserve, so that more people can go to work.

But childcare is a provincial responsibility. Except for First Nations. So you have a situation where they’re being deprived of services the non-Indigenous population receive from the provincial government, and are then forced to sign very one-sided deals with industrial projects to fund those basic social services.
 
 You create a situation where it feels like a pretty good deal if the pipeline goes through and you get a little revenue and maybe some childcare too. Obviously you’re gonna take the deal where you get something instead of nothing.

What are the risks of pursuing these projects for Indigenous partners?

There’s some really big risks around LNG right now, like what’s happening in global markets in Asia and Europe. Who carries those risks? Which investors are first in line to be paid? Which creditors are first to line if things go wrong? You might be the last in line to recoup your investment depending on the structure of the deal.

The trend is that the lawyers and the industry consultants—the people who jump from project to project around the world and arrange these big financing deals—they get paid right away. They don’t stick around to build the project. And I’m concerned by the fact that this current crop of LNG projects are all backed by Wall Street, because Wall Street doesn’t know anything about building pipelines or operating energy infrastructure.

But they do know how to ride a bubble.

They know to make money into other money, and they know how ruthlessly exploit a dying industry. Don’t forget, what we call ‘private equity’ today used to be called ‘leveraged buyouts’. And that may sound high-minded and complicated financial stuff, but really it’s just the same core business it was 40 years ago: either you turn around a troubled asset, or you fire all the workers and sell off the parts.

Vulture capitalism is a key component of private equity.

What happens when Indigenous communities resist projects, like in the case of Wet’suwet’en Hereditary chiefs and land defenders opposing the Coastal GasLink project

Pipelines in particular come with a whole playbook and a set of actors which are very practiced in operating in conflict zones and sites of recent political or environmental upheaval.

The companies that are building PRGT include Bechtel, which is a major U.S. military contractor, and one of the biggest privately-owned companies in the world. They manufacture weapons, build defense installations, and they do oil and gas work in shall we say the ‘imperial borderlands’, contested spaces. They’re deeply integrated with the U.S. security state and with U.S. foreign policy. And they have a playbook for dealing with the ‘restive local tribes’ or any other local community that might give the Americans a hard time over their globe-spanning infrastructure.

We saw an example of this with the Wetʼsuwetʼen when they contested Coastal GasLink. The company that bought the pipeline, KKR, has its own internal intelligence division, which is run by David Petraeus, who’s the former CIA director and was prior to that a top-ranking general who literally wrote the U.S. Armed Forces manual on counterinsurgency warfare.

And if you read his book, you see there’s a lot of familiar tactics that we saw adapted to Northern BC. We saw veterans of the War on Terror step in and take control of a physical space in a way that was new to people covering Canadian resource extraction projects.

You had American, British, Belgian, South African mercenaries essentially working as private security for the pipeline who were really directing the actions and collecting intelligence and evidence for the police who just got called in to do the hands-on stuff and make the arrests.

I would characterize what we witnessed there as a corporate counter-insurgency.

Do you view Indigenous participation in new fossil fuel projects part of the marketing scheme or a guarantee against another Wetʼsuwetʼen crisis?

Both the federal and provincial levels of government are doing all they can to de-risk these projects and entice these very small communities with limited fiscal capacity to invest in these multi-billion dollar projects which include loan guarantees and other kind of bespoke deals around transmission line access and that kind of thing. 

They’re bending over backwards to make these projects work because they know that [between the] combination of Indigenous ownership and the green branding around electrified LNG terminals, most people in Vancouver who see one news article will think “oh, a First Nation has decided to build a gas terminal in a place I’ve never visited. Sounds like they’re trying to protect the environment and it’s good to see native people get a stake in these projects after being on the sidelines for so long, good for them.”

In the case of the Haisla nation that has ownership over Cedar LNG, It’s up to them to determine whether these projects benefit their community, but we do need to consider how much information—and the quality of the information—the public, Indigenous or otherwise, has when making these decisions. In the small towns of Northern BC, there’s really no media scrutiny to speak of. The energy companies send their press releases to the local newspaper, the focus of which is how many jobs will be created, but there’s really no scrutiny of what the impact will be. And many of these decisions are happening behind closed doors anyways. We only find out the terms if they leak.

What was the calculus for investors in wanting to develop these projects?

Apollo Global Management invested in Western LNG and the development of the Ksi Lisims terminal back in 2018. They got in on the ground floor at a time when there were low LNG prices worldwide. There was a down cycle starting in about 2015, 2016, where we saw a huge wave of these projects get canceled because the markets weren’t there yet. The prices didn’t take off until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and that’s what kicked off the current gold rush.

Some of these people had the idea of using an emerging technology—modular floating LNG terminals—as a way to both lower the risk and lower the cost. The floating terminals are basically converted LNG bulk carriers, which can be moved around the world and hooked up wherever they’re needed. Instead of building a massive onshore terminal, the floating terminals are built in Korea and they can be hooked up in series to expand capacity.

Apollo saw the potential in that, not just the export terminals, but there are equivalent facilities that are built on ships for the import of LNG, which Apollo also invested in, in the same year. They really saw the opportunity for vertical integration in emerging markets where people need access to reliable electricity. And this is the cheap modular way to do it.

Leon Black is the former CEO who made that call and who got Apollo Global Management to be the first major Wall Street backer of the Ksi Lisims project, and it’s the only project that Western LNG has ever developed. The company was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Texas, but it’s only ever existed to develop this project in BC.

You have talked about how the backers of the Ksi Lisims project are tied to the MAGA movement, can you tell me more about this? 

Steve Schwartzman, who runs Blackstone, (the other major investor in this project) is a top-10 donor to Trump. He’s bankrolling the MAGA movement. He’s a major advisor and donor to Trump, who is steering and financing what I would characterize as like an authoritarian political movement that is taking over institutions in the U.S. and openly wants to annex Canada for its resources.

It puts the question of Indigenous ownership in perspective, given the players. I really don’t think that they have the best interests of local people in their minds as they’re structuring these deals. They’re not here on a charitable project. The reason why they would empower the companies that they’re invested in to strike these deals with local First Nations is to give them the kind of political cover they need to get permits and authorizations and the loans.

The post How Canada’s LNG Push is Benefiting Trump and Shortchanging Indigenous People appeared first on DeSmog.

Kursk II is one of Rosatom’s most important nuclear construction projects within Russia. Four of the most advanced and powerful units in Rosatom’s history—VVER-TOI reactors with capacities of up to 1,250 MW each—are being built there.

But this site is also the Russian nuclear power plant closest to the border with Ukraine. Likely for this reason, Rosatom is carrying out construction under conditions of limited transparency—either not publicly disclosing key construction milestones or doing so with significant delays and inconsistencies. This has led to confusion even at the level of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

To read the rest of this article, click here.

The post The curious, secretive case of the Kursk II nuclear power plant’s weird data appeared first on Bellona.org.

Two months ago, everyone was still wondering whether the First Conference for Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels would carry the relevance it promised in Brazil. Would governments around the world care enough to show up after the excitement of COP30 had faded? In a world that seemed to be sinking into new wars with global consequences?

Paradoxically, the escalating aggressions by the United States and Israel in Southwest Asia (Middle East) have shown the world exactly why we need to leave behind our dependence on fossil fuels. Entire communities have been destroyed, families buried under rubble, children killed, livelihoods erased, all in a region whose political fate has been shaped for over a century by the control of oil and gas. People in Palestine, Lebanon, and across the region are paying with their own lives for the world’s thirst for fossil fuels.

These are not abstract arguments. They are the bombs that fall, the blockades that starve, the occupations that endure, all because fossil fuel wealth concentrates power in the hands of those willing to use violence to protect it. Not only do fossil fuels poison our planet, they fuel instability, deepen inequality, and tie our futures to volatile and unjust energy systems. Moving beyond fossil fuels is no longer a distant goal. It is a shared necessity.

The response? Fifty-seven countries representing roughly a third of the global economy came together, signaling that the transition is not only possible but already underway.

But what truly defined this conference was not just who showed up at the governmental level. It was who was finally let in.

Indigenous peoples from around the world, trade unions, youth groups, academics, Afro-descendant communities, peasant associations, women and diverse identities, activists and NGOs, among others, engaged for the first time in a participation mechanism that actually listens to their voices and puts their demands on the table.

And beyond the high-level spaces, communities were building, not just speaking. During both days of the Peoples Summit, 350.org with 32 organizations across Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and the Caribbean Islands a Fair of Alternatives, showing that futures beyond fossil fuels are already here. Community leaders hosted a panel within the Peoples Summit space, and their voices fed into the final declaration.

Frontline communities from all around the world had a voice on the Santa Marta conference

 

It was no small thing to see Indigenous women leaders from Putumayo and Bolivia connecting over their shared concern about an energy transition being carried out without consultation in their territories, one that threatens to bring extractive models for copper and lithium that would gravely affect their environments and communities. But ready, too, to share models of community energy generation through biodigesters they have built themselves. Because communities around the world have not sat around waiting for their governments to act. They have thought of solutions and carried them out.

That same spirit drove the Popular Assemblies we co-organized in three territories in Colombia and Ecuador, where affected communities named the crisis in their own terms. Two of the communities that led these Assemblies — Cesar sin Fracking and Alianza Libre de Fracking — attended the high-level Conference, including Yuvelis Morales Blanco, now a winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize. 350.org also held an organizing space toward a common Latin American campaign against fracking and LNG with leaders from Colombia, Argentina and Mexico.

These connections between communities were perhaps the most powerful thread running through the conference. Activists from across the world linked militarization and the climate crisis in a country with more than 60 years of armed conflict, where multinationals like Glencore and Drummond have used armed groups to displace and kill local communities, seize their lands and waters, and leave surrounding populations in misery and fear. The Climate Justice Flotilla traveled across Caribbean islands still under Dutch colonial rule to bring their voices to this space — possibly the first time Aruba and Curacao had representation at a conference like this, even as the Netherlands, their colonial power, co-hosted while opposing a fossil fuel transition treaty.

During the Santa Marta conference, activists and local communities blocked the entrance of one of the main coal ports in Latin America.

 

It was also no small thing to see these same activists blockade one of the largest coal ports in Latin America with solar panels — Drummond’s port in Ciénaga. The action put the demands of affected communities front and centre: making polluters pay for the loss of land, biodiversity and life, and the need for a just transition. For local communities, doing something like this would mean enormous security risks — just weeks earlier, armed groups had kidnapped 25 fishermen from the community most affected by Drummond. But these young people from around the world used their foreign origins as a kind of shield, standing in solidarity with the communities of Ciénaga, Santa Marta, and all of Colombia affected by this multinational. Those same solar panels used in this action will now go to the communities most harmed by that coal port.

So what did governments actually deliver?

Let’s be clear: they could have been far more ambitious. The world is on fire, sometimes literally, and the political outcomes of this conference reflect cautious, small steps that do not match the urgency communities are living every day.

Governments from 57 countries meet at the First Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Conference, in Colombia

 

That said, the fact that this conference happened at all, that it finally named fossil fuels as the root cause of climate chaos and created a dedicated space to address them outside of the pressures of formal COP negotiations, is itself a significant victory. Five concrete outcomes came out of the high-level segment:

1. Continuity. A second conference has been announced for 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, with the main event taking place in Tuvalu. And who better than our brothers and sisters from the Pacific nations, on the frontlines of climate chaos, to carry forward what started in Santa Marta and remind the world of the urgency?
2. A coordination group has been established to ensure continuity between conferences, bringing together countries leading different alliances and initiatives on the fossil fuel transition, including the co-hosts of the first and second conferences.
3. The outcomes will be handed over to the COP30 Presidency, shared ahead of the intersessional meetings in Bonn this June and formally presented at London Climate Action Week, with plans to bring them to the UN Secretary-General during New York Climate Week. The intention is to feed these results into the second Global Stocktake, making sure this process does not live in isolation from the UNFCCC.
4. Three workstreams have been launched to identify concrete opportunities for cooperation: one focused on national roadmaps guided by the Science Panel, another on economic dependencies and financial architecture, and a third on aligning fossil fuel producers and consumers toward trade systems free of fossil fuels. These workstreams will remain open for countries to join or lead.
5. A Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition will anchor the entire process in evidence rather than politics. Academics and scientists from around the world joined forces to ensure that science guides the process of leaving fossil fuels behind, and to help countries develop roadmaps aligned with the 1.5°C trajectory and to dismantle the legal, financial, and political barriers standing in the way.

Are these outcomes enough? No. Are they the kind of bold, binding commitments that the scale of the crisis demands? Not even close. But in a world where the largest historical emitter has abandoned climate action entirely, where wars rage over the very resources we need to leave behind, the fact that 57 countries sat down, opened the doors to movements and communities, and committed to a sustained process is not nothing. It is the floor, not the ceiling, and it is up to all of us to push it higher.

Communities everywhere will keep building the solutions their governments have been too slow to deliver. And the rest of us? We stay loud, stay connected, and keep showing up, because the transition has already begun, and it was never going to be led from the top.

Because if this conference showed anything, it is that the transition is not only about energy systems. It is about power. The power of who gets to decide. Who benefits. Who is heard. And for perhaps the first time at this scale, the answer is beginning to shift.

The Great Power Shift has started. Join us!

The post Santa Marta was just the beginning appeared first on 350.

This is a guest blog by Nicole Pita, Programme Manager at IPES-Food, the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, a global think tank and expert group guiding action for sustainable food systems around the world.

If you’ve been feeling like your grocery bills keep climbing, you’re not alone. In the United States, families are paying nearly 25% more for food than they did in 2020. In Germany, food costs 43% more than five years ago, while in Mexico and Brazil prices have jumped 42% and 50%. Now experts are warning of a looming food price crisis as a result of the global energy price spikes triggered by the US and Israeli war on Iran. 

Why is this happening? Ultimately, it’s because our food systems run on fossil fuels, and every time there’s a crisis – a pandemic, a war, a drought – we all pay the price. At the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) we have outlined this in our report, Fuel to Fork. 

Food systems consume 15% of global fossil fuels. Source: Global Alliance for the Future of Food. (2023). Power shift: Why we need to wean industrial food systems off fossil fuel.

 

How is our food connected to fossil fuels?

Food systems consume 15% of all fossil fuels globally. From chemical fertilizers and diesel tractors to long-distance transport and cooking gas, fossil fuels power every step of producing, processing, and consuming food. When oil and gas prices spike, food prices follow. 

Food, fertilizer and fossil energy prices are deeply interlinked.
Source: Levi, IMF Primary Commodity Price Index.

This fossil fuel dependence creates a triple threat. First, it makes food vulnerable to oil price spikes. Second, it drives climate breakdown, causing droughts and floods that destroy harvests. Third, a handful of corporations control the system and profit enormously every time there’s a crisis. 

This isn’t a new problem, but it’s getting worse. During the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions pushed food prices up. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, energy, fertilizer, and wheat prices soared, driving grocery bills higher. Each time, pushing millions of people into hunger, especially in the world’s poorest and most vulnerable regions.

Now, as war erupts in the Persian Gulf, it’s happening again. Global oil and fertilizer prices have increased by 50% since the war began. Food prices haven’t spiked yet – but they will. One-third of crude oil and one-third of fertilizers all normally pass through shipping routes now blocked by the conflict. Even if the war ended tomorrow, it would take months for supply chains to recover. 

The shocks of COVID and the Ukraine war accounted for nearly half of all grocery price increases in the US and 35% of price increases in the EU over the past five years. During 2021-2022 alone, 45 million more people went hungry because they couldn’t afford food.

There’s another reason food keeps getting more expensive: the fossil-fueled climate crisis. Droughts in the US Midwest and Canada destroyed harvests in 2022. Floods in India and South Asia pushed up rice prices in 2023 and 2025. The climate crisis is affecting crop production itself, making food harder to grow. The irony is that food systems produce one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, making them both a victim and a driver of the crisis.

A carefully designed system built to stay dependent on fossil fuels

Fossil fuel dependence in food systems didn’t happen by accident. Governments and funding institutions pushed farmers toward growing commodity crops for export using chemical fertilizers made from fossil fuels. Today, governments spend close to $800 billion per year supporting this chemical-intensive agriculture, while sustainable farming gets only a fraction of that support. 

And corporate lobbyists are spending hundreds of millions to keep it that way. In Europe alone they spend at least €343 million per year on lobbying – with fossil fuel and agribusiness firms increasing their spending since 2020. Companies like Shell and Bayer follow the same playbook: delay action, weaken regulations, protect profits. 

This fossil fuel-dependent system ends up being incredibly profitable for a few corporations. Just a handful of corporations control how food is produced, transported, and sold. They set the prices and we have no choice but to pay them. And when crises hit, they exploit the chaos.

During COVID and the Ukraine war, the largest fertilizer companies hiked prices far beyond their actual costs. Grain traders, food manufacturers, and retailers did the same. In the US, corporate profiteering accounted for 54% of food price increases between 2020 and 2021. During a food price crisis, while families struggled to afford food, these corporations posted record earnings.

These three problems feed each other. Fossil fuel dependence creates vulnerability to shocks. Climate chaos makes food scarce. And corporate concentration lets companies exploit both for profit. Breaking this cycle means completely reconfiguring the way we grow, process, and consume food.

A better, more affordable food system is already taking root

Another food system is possible – one that’s resilient to shocks, protects the climate, and works for people instead of corporate profits. Across the world – from Cuba to India to France – millions of farmers have already transitioned to agroecology, sustainable farming that doesn’t depend on fossil fuels or chemical inputs. These farmers build fertility naturally by planting beans that enrich soil, rotating crops, and composting waste instead of buying chemicals. Studies show these farms match or exceed conventional yields, can be profitable for farmers, and feed communities better. 

The transition takes time and farmers need support, but it makes farming systems more resilient rather than vulnerable to price shocks. It’s also clearly needed as part of the fight to tackle the climate crisis. 

The solutions exist, what’s missing is the political will. Governments have the tools to make food affordable right now while building a better food system for the future. Here’s what must happen:

• Tax the corporations that profit from crises. Windfall taxes on fossil fuel and agribusiness firms could immediately bring down costs for consumers and farmers.
• End the subsidies that keep us locked into dependence. Stop giving billions to fossil fuel corporations and chemical-intensive agriculture. Redirect that money to renewable energy and sustainable farming.
• Invest in local and regional food systems that don’t depend on long, fragile supply chains vulnerable to shocks, as outlined in our IPES-Food report Food from Somewhere. 

If we want to stabilize food prices, we have to break food’s dependence on fossil fuels. Otherwise, every new crisis will keep showing up at the checkout.

Ending fossil fuel addiction isn’t just about climate – it’s about making food affordable.

Governments won’t change course unless we demand it. Tell your leaders: End fossil fuel subsidies and tax polluters. Invest in renewable energy and sustainable, chemical-free farming. 

The post Out of Pocket: the real cost of fossil fuels on our groceries appeared first on 350.

The wars being waged right now in Iran, Lebanon, Palestine and Ukraine are not abstract. They are children pulled from collapsed buildings. They are families who fled their homes carrying nothing. They are entire neighborhoods reduced to dust by weapons manufactured far away, financed by governments that call themselves defenders of democracy. 

Ceasefires come and go, are announced and broken. But ceasefires are not peace – they are pauses in the same ongoing violence. What we are demanding is something far more urgent, far more real: a complete and permanent end to these wars.

As someone born and raised in Puerto Rico, an island that knows what it means to live under the shadow of militarization, colonial extraction, and disaster without accountability, I feel a deep, bone-level solidarity with the people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and Ukraine. We may be separated by oceans and languages, but we share the same wound: the wound of being considered expendable by empires that never asked for our consent.

The people of Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Ukraine and other war zones are not symbols or numbers. They are neighbors, parents, scientists, teachers, humans with lives and dreams. Their suffering demands that governments act, that arms supplies stop, and that the international community treat civilian life as non-negotiable – wherever those lives are lived.

Here in Puerto Rico, I learned that when the hurricane comes, whether it is María or military occupation or economic austerity, it is always the women, the children, and the poor who suffer most. The same is true in all of Palestine, in southern Lebanon, in Iranian cities and Ukrainian villages. And when the fighting drives up food prices and energy costs worldwide, it is working people, families already in debt, communities already stretched thin, who absorb that blow. 

This is the deal we were never asked about. That’s enough. Governments must stop hiding behind strategic interests and geopolitical calculations and start protecting the people whose lives hang in the balance. A permanent end to these wars is not a radical demand. It is the bare minimum of human decency.

Solidarity is not sympathy from a distance. It is the recognition that our struggles are connected, that no one is free while others are bombed into hunger and displacement. From Bayamón to Beirut, from San Juan to Kyiv, we stand together in demanding what should never have been in question: peace, dignity, and the right to a future.

Join the global call at https://350.org/they-profit-we-pay-fix-it-now/

The post End the War appeared first on 350.

As world leaders gather in Washington this week (April 13–18) for the IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings to discuss debt and economies, a global coalition of 130+ organisations has a clear message for them: the system is failing ordinary people and it needs to change now.

While people in Iran, Lebanon, and across the region are being killed, while families struggle to heat their homes and put food on the table, fossil fuel companies and arms corporations are posting record profits. This is a system working exactly as designed. For them, not for us.

From Bangladesh to Brazil, Zimbabwe to Japan, we are all watching the same thing unfold and but we’re also letting our representatives know through an open letter: enough is enough.

We stand unwavering in our demands

In just one month of war, over $100 billion was extracted from ordinary people through soaring energy prices. That same money could have powered 150 million homes with renewable energy. Instead, it padded the wallets of fossil fuel executives and weapons manufacturers.

The letter calls for four urgent actions:

• a complete and permanent end to the war
• windfall taxes on the corporations cashing in on the crisis
• investment in food security and homegrown renewable energy
• and cancellation of the crushing debt that leaves Global South countries with nothing left to protect their own people.

Ceasefires are not enough. Temporary pauses don’t rebuild homes, bring back the dead, or lower energy bills. The war must end and those who profited from it must be made to pay. Learn more here.

Why this moment matters

This represents a genuinely global movement. From trade unions to climate groups, from faith organizations to youth activists — the breadth of voices shows this is not a fringe position. It is the growing consensus of people worldwide who are tired of paying the price for a crisis they didn’t cause.

The connection between war, fossil fuels, debt, and inequality is not abstract. It shows up in your energy bill. In the price of bread. In the public services disappearing around you.

What you can do right now

Simple: share this letter.

Post it on Facebook. Send it on WhatsApp. Put it on Bluesky. The more people who see these demands, the harder they become for governments to ignore. Every share builds the pressure.

This war is their business. Our pain. Our movement.

Share now and help make these demands impossible to ignore.

Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp

Share on Bluesky

 

The post They Profit, We Pay. It’s Time to Fix It. appeared first on 350.

This is a guest blog by Lucia Simmons, Marketing & Communications Lead at the Carbon Literacy Project. The Carbon Literacy Project is an UN-recognised global initiative, delivered by UK charity The Carbon Literacy Trust, providing a day’s worth of accredited climate action training and certification. Over 155,000 people and 14,000 organisations across 47 nations are certified Carbon Literate. Find out more at www.carbonliteracy.com. 

Imagine waking up to find no water running from your taps. No water to drink. To flush the toilet. Wash your clothes. Your body. Your plates. That was the reality for Zofia, and thousands of other local home and business owners in the South of England in January this year, with no warning from the water company over supply failures. 

Water is part of our daily lives. We drink it, cook with it, clean with it, and grow food with it. We expect it to be there when we need it with a twist of a tap. Unfortunately, that won’t be our reality forever if we continue as we are. For many, it already isn’t. 

A UN report released at the start of this year declared that we’re now living in an era of ‘global water bankruptcy’. What does this mean?

Around the world, reservoirs and lakes are shrinking, floods and droughts are intensifying, and water supply is becoming less reliable. This isn’t random. Our burning of fossil fuels is heating the planet and disrupting the systems that keep water flowing. We are already paying the price.

How are water supply and fossil fuels connected?

Water systems depend on a naturally balanced cycle of evaporation, rainfall, and replenishment, and global heating driven by burning fossil fuels is breaking that delicate balance. 

Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn increase global temperatures. Hotter air pulls more moisture from land and water. This speeds up evaporation and dries out rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. 

Rainfall also becomes less predictable as the planet heats. Some places face longer droughts. Others see heavier downpours that overwhelm drains and flood homes, roads and green spaces. The same community can face both within a year. Nearly 1 in 4 people experienced drought conditions between 2022 and 2023 alone. The number of people exposed to floods around the world has risen by 25% from 1970 to 2020.  

Low water levels in Woodhead Reservoir, Derbyshire, England, in June 2025, following the driest spring in England since 1893. Image credit: Alastair Johnstone-Hack / Climate Visuals

Rising global temperatures are melting glaciers and increasing flood risks in the short term. Around 2 billion people rely on water from mountains and glaciers for drinking water, farming, and energy generation. As glaciers shrink and disappear, so does their water supply. Communities from the Himalayas in Asia to the Andes in South America are already living with severe water shortages.

Fossil fuel extraction also directly harms the local water. Mining and drilling pollute rivers and groundwater, leaving local communities without safe water and forcing costly treatment or replacement. 

Who pays the price for water losses?

When water supply becomes less reliable, everyday costs rise for all of us. Here are just a few ways how: 

1. Household bills creep up: Water companies have to do more, already energy-intensive work to treat and supply water, as climate change disrupts water sources. But, to preserve profits, they pass on those costs to consumers, showing up in our household bills. In New Orleans, US, water bills now average $115 a month, more than twice that of comparable Southern cities. This is partly because ageing infrastructure must treat drinking water from the Mississippi River for pollutants and saltwater intrusion linked to sea level rise.
2. Food gets more expensive: When drought reduces crop yields, food prices increase. Intense drought in Southern Europe from 2022 to 2023 severely reduced olive production, causing a 50% price increase in olive oil across the EU from January 2023 to January 2024. Agriculture uses around 70% of global water, so any disruption hits food systems quickly. 
3. Energy becomes less stable — and pricier: Water is needed to cool power plants and data servers. Power plant cooling is responsible for 43% of total freshwater withdrawals in Europe and nearly 50% in the USA. When water levels fall, energy supply becomes less stable and more expensive. Heatwaves in 2022 forced French Energy supplier EDF to reduce power output as high water temperatures and low river levels threatened cooling systems. The projected water and electricity demand from the many new AI data centres being built by big tech firms worldwide will make this even worse.
4. Flooding caused by unpredictable rainfall patterns, as well as sea level rise, sends costs spiralling: Homes are damaged. Insurance premiums rise or become unavailable. Taxes are spent on repairs. We are paying for all of this through bills, taxes, and lost income. Initial costs of the devastating floods in Valencia in 2024 were estimated at €31.4 billion.

 

Extensive flooding submerges agricultural land in Somerset, England. Image credit: Alastair Johnstone-Hack / Climate Visuals

 

The good news though? People are already aware and taking action.

Across the world, Carbon Literacy training is helping people to understand these connections and take action to reduce these costs.

An international cruise operator has reviewed water use across its fleet and identified ways to reduce consumption by 12% each year, with associated cost savings. At a beach resort in Kenya, staff are working to cut water use per guest by up to 15%. This reduces pressure on local water supplies and lowers operating costs. 

In Britain, a ballet company is installing water butts to collect rainwater for green spaces. This reduces reliance on mains water and cuts bills. Meanwhile, a racecourse grounds team is learning how to harvest and store rainwater. This helps manage dry periods and reduces both water costs and emissions linked to mains supply.

It’s not a fair share

Not everyone experiences this crisis in the same way. In wealthier areas, people can adapt more easily. The cost of higher bills might not be crippling; installation costs for new water-saving systems can be fronted.

Lower-income communities don’t have the same options. Around four billion people experience severe water scarcity for at least one month each year. When supplies become unreliable, the impacts are immediate. Crops fail. Jobs are lost. Health risks increase.

Communities in the Global South, which have contributed least to climate change, are facing the highest costs. Many depend directly on natural water systems for farming and daily life. When those systems change, there is little to buffer the impacts.

Water contamination also hits hardest where regulation is weaker. Communities living near extraction sites often face polluted water without the resources to fix it. For example, decades of oil spills and illegal oil leaks by fossil fuel giant Shell have contaminated the primary drinking water sources for the Agore and Bele communities in Nigeria, leading to poison levels 90 times higher than elsewhere in the country. This has rendered water unsafe for consumption and washing, forcing residents to buy water they cannot afford.

Who has the control? 

Governments continue to support fossil fuels through subsidies and incentives. At the same time, water infrastructure is often underfunded and unprepared for a changing climate. So fossil fuel conglomerates and private water companies keep the profits while communities pay the price. 

But we’re not powerless. We can all use our unique roles to drive change. In Wales, after completing Carbon Literacy training, one specialist advisor is requiring water companies to report on expected emissions linked to infrastructure proposals. This helps shift responsibility back to those driving the problem. 

Meanwhile, one Carbon Literate project manager is working to clean up water pollution from historic mining sites and bring low-carbon design and carbon management into all construction projects. This not only improves water quality in the short term but also reduces long-term costs for communities. 

With more awareness, we can hold those responsible to account, and share knowledge and best practice, so the burden does not fall solely on individual households or businesses. 

Action builds resilience

Across sectors, through Carbon Literacy training action plans, people are building solutions that make water systems more resilient.

Throughout Britain, local authorities that have embedded Carbon Literacy are working to improve drainage and reduce flood risk. Many projects focus on sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) that slow water flow and reduce pressure on infrastructure.

The Grey to Green Development in Sheffield, England, is the UK’s largest retrofit sustainable urban draining scheme (SuDs). Planting beds take rain and surface water back into Sheffield’s rivers. Image credit: Alastair Johnstone / Climate Visuals

One Carbon Literate engineer at a local council is designing developments with features like overland flow routes and water recycling systems. These reduce flood risk and make better use of available water.

One county council planning team is mandating that new planning applications include drainage systems that support biodiversity and community wellbeing alongside flood protection.

One district council enterprise team is creating short videos to show how local businesses are reducing operational costs through water-saving strategies, creating models that other businesses can adopt. 

Such actions are some practical solutions that protect homes and local businesses, reduce damage costs, and strengthen communities. Born from Carbon Literate people gaining the understanding, motivation and confidence to apply specialist skills they already have. 

Scaling up solutions

But more permanent solutions to protect our water already exist. What is needed is speed, scale and support for those bearing the brunt of the costs. 

• The most obvious one is switching to clean, renewable energy that reduces the emissions that are putting water under threat. More stable temperatures mean more predictable water systems. That means lower costs for households, businesses, and governments.
• Ending fossil fuel subsidies would free up resources to invest in water systems that can cope with a changing climate.
• Holding polluters accountable would reduce the financial burden on the public.

We are all paying for fossil fuels through higher bills, damaged homes, and growing uncertainty. But we all have agency and a voice to demand more action from our governments and big corporations. Together, we are harder to ignore than any of us alone.

 

The post Out of Pocket: the real cost of fossil fuels on our water appeared first on 350.

Your salary doesn’t stretch like it used to. The air in your city is getting worse. Politicians promise change, and then nothing changes.  At some point, most of us have the same thought: what’s the point? The status quo will never change because the forces behind it are too entrenched, too powerful, too far gone.

But history tells a different story. Every unjust system has looked permanent and untouchable until ordinary people challenged it. All major shifts in society start the same way: someone refuses to accept things as they are. They organize. Others join them. And they don’t stop.

Again and again, local citizens have come together through peaceful, nonviolent organizing — strikes, marches, sit-ins, boycotts, blockades — and changed the course of history. Here are seven moments that show that people power can change the rules: 

1. The US civil rights movement dismantled legal segregation

In 1950s America, segregation was the social custom and the law.  Black Americans were barred from attending the same schools, eating in the same restaurants, or even using the same restrooms as white Americans. Simple acts like even sitting in the “wrong” bus seat, could lead to arrest, violence, or worse. 

American civil rights activist Rosa Parks on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. © Bettmann Archive / Getty Images

On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks, a seamstress and activist,  refused to give up her bus seat to a white person in Montgomery, Alabama. She was arrested. Within days, 42,000 Black residents boycotted the city’s buses for 381 days. They walked miles to work. Racial segregation on public transportation was abolished soon after, in 1956. The Civil Rights Act followed in 1964 making discrimination illegal once and for all. 

2. The women’s global liberation movement rewrote the rules

Until 1974, women in the US couldn’t get a credit card in their own name. In the UK, a married woman needed her husband’s signature for a bank loan until 1975. In France, women couldn’t open a bank account or get a passport without their husband’s permission until 1965. These weren’t just “rules”, they controlled women’s everyday lives, locking millions out of economic independence, healthcare, and political power.

Women’s Strike for Peace-And Equality, Women’s Strike for Equality, Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, August 26, 1970. Photo: Eugene Gordon/The New York Historical Society/Getty Images

Until women themselves organized for change. In 1968, women machinists at Ford walked out over unequal pay, halting car production across the UK and forcing the government to pass the Equal Pay Act two years later. In 1970, tens of thousands of women marched in New York for the Women’s Strike for Equality demanding equal pay, free childcare, and abortion rights. And in 1971, Swiss women won the right to vote after decades of campaigning, one of the last countries in Europe to grant it. In 1975, 90% of Icelandic women refused to work, in offices, at home, everywhere, for a single day. The country stopped working. In 1979, the UN adopted CEDAW — the first international treaty to define discrimination against women and oblige governments to end it, now ratified by 187 countries. Women demanded these rights loudly, collectively, and across generations.

3. The anti-apartheid movement brought down a regime in South Africa

Apartheid was one of the most brutal systems of racial control ever built. Introduced in 1948, it dictated where Black South Africans could live, work, travel, and whom they could marry. The government enforced it with arrests, bans, torture, and killings.

Fed up with the system, ordinary workers went on strike. Then, in 1976, Soweto’s students marched against being forced to learn in Afrikaans and were met with live ammunition. Nelson Mandela,  the leader of the African National Congress, the liberation movement that had been fighting apartheid since 1912, was locked away for 27 years to silence the movement. But it didn’t work. In 1994, after years of internal resistance, international pressure, and hard-won negotiations, South Africa held its first democratic elections with Mandela becoming president. For the first time in decades, Black South Africans could vote, run for office, and access public services without restrictions. Segregation laws were dismantled, neighborhoods and schools were legally integrated, and the country began rebuilding a more equitable society. 

Young men protest in front of police photographers in Soweto in June 1976. Photo: Doing Violence to Memory: The Soweto Uprising

4. Standing Rock said no to a destructive pipeline in the US

The Dakota Access Pipeline was first planned to cross near Bismarck, North Dakota — a predominantly white city. Residents raised environmental concerns, and the route moved. This time, that meant crossing half a mile upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation’s only water supply, meaning any leak or rupture would contaminate the drinking water of thousands of people with oil, with no alternative source to fall back on. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe set up camp and refused to move. The protests became the largest gathering of Indigenous nations in over 150 years, with 300+ tribal nations standing together leading to the Obama administration halted construction in December 2016. The pipeline ultimately went ahead under Trump but Standing Rock changed what the world understands about whose land and water fossil fuels actually cost. The legal fight continues.

 

Women and children plant willow trees and corn along the pipeline route. Photo: Indigenous Environmental Network

5. Millions took to the streets to defend democratic freedoms in Hong Kong

When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997 after 156 years of colonial rule, the deal came with a promise: the city would keep its own laws, courts, and civil liberties for 50 years under the principle of “one country, two systems.”

By 2019, many people in Hong Kong felt that promise slipping away. A proposed extradition law would allow residents to be sent to mainland China to face trial in a legal system with no independent judiciary and conviction rates close to 100%. For many, it felt like the beginning of the end for the city’s freedoms.

In June 2019, over two million people took to the streets, in a city of just 7.5 million. They kept marching for months, despite arrests, tear gas, and escalating repression. Beijing eventually imposed sweeping national security laws. While the movement didn’t win all its demands, it galvanized a generation, forced international attention on Hong Kong’s freedoms, and inspired ongoing efforts to protect civil liberties.

Millions gather on the streets of Hong Kong. Photo: By Studio Incendo – Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protest, CC BY 2.0

6. Indian farmers defeated three unjust laws by a government that wouldn’t budge

Nearly 60% of India’s population depends on agriculture. The government’s  2020 farm laws, framed as market liberalisation, proposed to dismantle a guaranteed minimum price system protecting small farmers from destitution. In a country where farmer suicides are already a public health crisis, the stakes were existential. Farmers responded with one of the largest protests in modern history. They set up camps outside Delhi and blocked highways for more than a year, in the cold, the heat, the rain and through COVID. Women were on the frontlines and around 700 farmers died during the protest. In November 2021, the government repealed all three proposed laws. Organised, patient, collective power worked against a government that looked immovable.

 

Indian farmers protesting in the national capital. Photo: Randeep Maddoke

7. A global movement put the climate crisis on the agenda, and kept it there

Scientists had been warning about climate change since the 1980s. By the 2000s, the evidence was overwhelming: burning coal, oil, and gas was heating the planet and pushing ecosystems toward collapse. But governments were still stalling, and fossil fuel companies were still expanding. So ordinary people organized. In 2009, ahead of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, people in 181 countries took to the streets. In 2014, 400,000 people marched in New York — the largest climate march in history at the time. The following year, that pressure helped deliver the Paris Agreement, the first deal to unite nearly every country on earth around a shared commitment to limit warming to 1.5°C, the threshold beyond which climate scientists warn the consequences will become catastrophic and irreversible. Addressing the climate crisis and switching to renewable energy is now a priority on the global political agenda, because millions of people refused to stay silent.

But the fight is far from over. Today, climate disasters might still feel distant. Something happening somewhere else. But they’re getting closer. To our cities. Our homes. Our lives. And just like every movement before us, we have a choice: Watch them happen or change what happens next. See what we can do: 

 

The post 7 times ordinary people changed the world appeared first on 350.

War impacts us in many more ways than we realise. When conflicts erupt, people suffer immediately. Civilians lose their lives, families flee their homes, and communities are torn apart. But wars also send shockwaves far beyond the front lines: through our energy systems, our economies, and the climate.

Right now, we’re watching this unfold in real time. A few weeks ago, on 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched military strikes on Iran, triggering a rapid escalation across the Southwest Asia (the Middle East)*. Iran struck back at US bases, Gulf states, and oil infrastructure across the region — and declared the Strait of Hormuz closed to shipping. This region sits on more than half the world’s oil reserves. What happens there doesn’t stay there. Within days, the price of oil and gas across the world was in chaos, and everyone everywhere started footing the bill.

What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important?

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow strip of sea between Iran and Oman. It connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and rest of the world’s oceans. It is only about 33 km wide at its narrowest point: roughly the sort of distance you could cycle in an hour.

But its size is deceptive. The strait carries one-fifth of all the oil consumed globally every day, as well as large quantities of gas. Oil and gas from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE must pass through it before reaching the rest of the world. Any disruption like conflict, attacks, or blockades can instantly shake energy supply worldwide.

The Gulf of Oman connects the Arabian Sea with the Strait of Hormuz. Photo: picture alliance/dpa/NASA/The Visible Earth

Following the strikes on 28 February, Iran shut down the strait, not by a formal blockade but through military actions and threats which have made the strait too dangerous for most commercial vessels and caused major disruption to global oil shipping in March 2026.  Around 1000 vessels, including over 400 oil tankers, are currently backed up or waiting near the Strait of Hormuz. Oil traffic has dropped by approximately 70%. Roughly $20 million barrels of oil per day are now off the market, which around 20% of energy the world consumes. Iran also struck a major refinery in Saudi Arabia and a gas facility in Qatar, taking about 20% of the world’s natural gas supply offline.  

Analysts warn that if the strait stays closed, oil could spike to $150 a barrel. Every time that number goes up, your bills go up too. 

How this conflict is hitting our household bills

In the first week after the conflict began, Europe effectively paid around €1.4 billion extra for gas, according to new analysis by 350.org. Gas prices jumped from around €30 per megawatt hour to nearly €50 — a spike driven purely by market fear about supply disruptions. For households and businesses already struggling with high living costs, these spikes translate quickly into higher bills and deeper economic pressure.

Oil prices also spiked around 8% in a single day. By the end of that week, oil had surged 36% to over $90 a barrel. Diesel prices in Europe doubled. Jet fuel prices in Asia rose by nearly 200%.

Europe is not alone. Around 84% of the oil that flows through the Strait of Hormuz goes to Asia, meaning more import-dependent countries are now all facing supply disruptions. In India, restaurants are warning of shutdowns as governments ration gas. Thailand has suspended civil servant travel. The Philippines and Vietnam have introduced workplace measures to cut energy use. 

Fossil fuels are driving both this conflict and the climate crisis

While the conflict continues and fuel prices spike, the deeper crisis keeps accelerating. Fossil fuel-induced global warming has nearly doubled in pace since 2015 — rising from about 0.2°C per decade to roughly 0.35°C per decade. At this rate, the world could breach 1.5°C of warming within just a few years. New research also suggests sea levels may be significantly higher than previously estimated. All these changes will (and already) have significant impacts on our lives and livelihoods.

The fossil fuelled system driving geopolitical instability is the same one pushing us toward climate breakdown.

The real lesson from the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz shows us something we already knew but perhaps keep forgetting: fossil fuels are not just dirty. They are dangerous. They tie the price of heating or cooling your home to wars you have no say in. And they give enormous power to whoever controls the pipelines, the tankers, and the chokepoints.

Oil tankers pass through the Strait of Hormuz, prior to the conflict. Photo: REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

Renewable energy offers a fundamentally different way of powering our world. Locally-led solar and wind systems cannot be blockaded at sea. They do not spill into oceans. They do not tie your energy bills to conflicts happening thousands of kilometres away. And once built, renewables provide energy for decades while fossil fuels must be burned and re-supplied every day. They are a long term solution for stability and lower prices. 

Every step away from fossil fuels is a step away from the instability and wars that come with them.

*The conflict is first and foremost a human tragedy. As violence escalates in the region, we mourn the lives lost and stand with the communities whose homes and futures are being shattered.

SIGN OUR PETITION: NO BLOOD FOR OIL

 

The post All you need to know about the Strait of Hormuz appeared first on 350.

This is a guest article written by Mariel Vilella, Director Global Climate Program at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, which supports local environmental justice efforts around the world to end waste pollution and implement regenerative zero waste solutions.

Around the world, momentum is growing to tackle the waste crisis in ways that also confront climate change, protect health, and strengthen local economies. This shift reflects a simple truth: the future of waste is not burning, it is prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting.

Recent reporting by the BBC described waste incineration as the dirtiest form of energy generation in the United Kingdom, reinforcing long-standing scientific and community concerns. Far from being a clean solution, waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration accelerates climate pollution, destroys valuable resources, and locks cities into outdated systems just when a circular, low-carbon transition is most urgent.

Burning waste drives the climate crisis

Incinerators convert nearly all carbon in discarded materials directly into CO₂, releasing it immediately into the atmosphere. Plastics, derived from fossil fuels, are especially harmful: burning one metric ton of plastic waste produces about 1.43 metric tons of CO₂-equivalent, even when energy is recovered.

Rather than reducing emissions, WTE reinforces the same linear model responsible for environmental breakdown, resource extraction, overproduction, and overconsumption. It delays the systemic change required to meet global climate goals.

The WTE incineration industry often portrays criticism of their facilities as emotional or ideological rather than science-based. This is an old-fashioned tactic to undermine the real concerns people have and the growing body of scientific evidence showing just how problematic burning waste is.

Incineration plant converts the waste into ash, flue gas and heat. Source: Trish Walker/Flickr

Lock-in that blocks the circular economy

Large incinerators require enormous and continuous waste streams, often 100,000 tonnes or more every year for decades, to remain financially viable. The United Nations Environment Programme warns that such investments can create long-term lock-in, discouraging waste prevention, reuse, and recycling while even pushing municipalities to import waste to keep facilities running.

Several high-income regions that heavily invested in incineration, across Europe and parts of Asia—now face overcapacity, stranded assets, and slowed progress toward resource efficiency, often so-called circularity. These experiences show that burning waste is not a bridge to sustainability, but a barrier.

Toxic pollution and hidden costs

Incineration does not eliminate waste, it transforms it into toxic air pollution and hazardous ash. Between 25% and 30% of burned material remains as contaminated residues that must be landfilled under strict controls. Monitoring near incinerators has revealed dangerous dioxin contamination in soil, vegetation, and food sources, with public health authorities in parts of France warning residents not to consume locally produced eggs due to toxic exposure.

These burdens fall disproportionately on marginalized communities, raising profound environmental justice concerns. For example, in the UK, waste incinerators are three times as likely to be located in the most deprived and ethnically diverse areas, raising fears about air quality and the health of vulnerable people. This pattern is not unique to the UK; around the world, wealthier neighborhoods rarely have incinerators at their doorstep, while poorer communities bear the brunt of the pollution and risks.

Expensive energy that wastes resources

Despite being framed as energy infrastructure, WTE is inefficient and costly:

• Electricity generation efficiency typically reaches only 20–30%, meaning it produces power at less than half the efficiency of coal-fired and modern natural gas power plants.
• Incinerators contribute around 1% of Europe’s total energy demand.
• Valuable materials, and the energy embedded in producing them, are permanently destroyed.

In many lower-income countries (e.g. Ethiopia), high organic moisture content makes incineration technically unreliable, leading to failed or underperforming projects. Far cheaper and more effective climate solutions already exist.

A just transition means choosing zero waste

A truly sustainable waste and climate strategy must also deliver a just transition. In contrast to that, waste-to-energy incineration displaces the livelihoods of waste pickers and recycling workers, especially across the Global South, where millions depend on materials recovery for income, but also in the Global North, where reuse, repair, and recycling create far more employment than disposal.

By destroying recyclable materials and centralizing waste management, incineration replaces many community-based jobs with fewer capital-intensive roles. Zero waste systems do the opposite, expanding dignified work in collection, sorting, composting, reuse, and recycling while strengthening local economies and delivering rapid climate benefits.

This is why movements led by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and Zero Waste Europe are calling for:

• An end to new incineration projects
• Accountability for the toxic impacts of existing facilities
• Public investment in prevention, reuse, and recycling
• Policies that prioritize zero waste solutions and just transition for workers’ rights

Our campaigns and research make clear that burning waste undermines climate action, public health, and economic justice, while zero waste delivers benefits across all three.

Free plough on landfill site image, public domain CC0 photo. Photo: rawpixel.com

The global shift is already underway

Governments, cities, and communities are increasingly moving beyond incineration toward circular, low-carbon waste systems. Financial frameworks in Europe are withdrawing sustainability recognition from waste burning, while zero waste cities worldwide are demonstrating faster emissions cuts, more jobs, and healthier neighborhoods without destroying resources.

The path forward

Waste-to-energy incineration belongs to the past. Zero waste belongs to the future.

Choosing zero waste means:

• Cutting climate pollution quickly
• Protecting communities from toxic exposure
• Creating far more jobs and fairer livelihoods
• Breaking the cycle of extraction and waste

Most importantly, it ensures the transition to a low-carbon world is just, inclusive, and truly sustainable.

The solution is already in our hands.

The post Zero waste is the real climate solution, not waste incineration appeared first on 350.

Last week, TotalEnergies announced a donation of food and hygiene kits to communities affected by devastating floods in Mozambique. Framed as an act of corporate responsibility, the company presented this support as proof of its commitment to people facing climate-driven disasters.

But let’s be clear: this is not climate justice. It is climate impunity, disguised as generosity.

A small donation doesn’t undo the destruction

The company’s contribution, worth around $500,000, amounts to less than one dollar per person for the more than 700,000 people affected by flooding. Families who have lost their homes, farmland, livestock, and livelihoods are being offered symbolic relief from a corporation whose core business model is driving the very crisis destroying their lives.

TotalEnergies is leading a $20 billion liquefied natural gas project in Cabo Delgado, northern Mozambique. This project has already displaced communities, intensified insecurity, and locked the country into decades of fossil fuel dependence. Over its lifetime, the project is expected to produce 3.3 to 4.5 billion tonnes of carbon pollution  more than the yearly emissions of every EU country added together.It was suspended after violent attacks in 2021 and has now been restarted, despite serious human rights and environmental concerns.

At the same time, Mozambique is on the frontlines of the climate emergency. Floods, cyclones, droughts, and extreme heat are becoming more frequent and more deadly. Over 450,000 hectares of farmland have been destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of animals have died. Communities are being pushed deeper into poverty.

The aerial view of the flooded village in Mozambique after a cyclone. Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

$500,000 in humanitarian aid cannot outweigh the harm these projects cause. Limited investments in renewables or selective humanitarian gestures are often presented as evidence of transition, while overall fossil fuel expansion continues. This pattern, sometimes described as transition-washing, allows companies to preserve social licence while delaying the structural changes that climate science requires. And Mozambique is just one among many examples.  And yet despite overwhelming harm, the companies like Total, who are most responsible for fuelling this crisis continue to extract massive profits. This is the pattern we see everywhere: profits are privatised and protected, while the damage is socialised and borne by ordinary people

Climate disasters are not unexpected side effects of fossil fuel extraction. They are foreseeable, scientifically documented consequences of continued oil and gas expansion.

For decades, companies like TotalEnergies have known that their products destabilise the climate. They have funded misinformation, lobbied against regulation, and delayed action while expanding production. When a fossil fuel company offers emergency aid after a climate disaster, it is responding to harms that are built into its own business model.

Polluters must pay, not pretend

What Mozambique needs, and what communities across the Global South are demanding are not occasional donations, dependent on corporate goodwill. They need guaranteed, predictable, and adequate funding for loss, damage, and adaptation.

That is why 350.org and our partners are calling for binding climate levy and damage contribution mechanisms. These would require major polluters to pay, in proportion to their emissions and profits, into global funds that support communities before and after disasters. In other words: the costs must be upstreamed.

Instead of communities paying with their lives, land, and futures, polluters must pay as part of doing business.

This is the principle behind “Make Polluters Pay.” And it is the only fair response to a crisis they helped create. Today (19th of February) sees the opening of France’s first major climate trial against an oil and gas multinational, as proceedings begin at the Paris Court of Justice.

Since 2020, a coalition of advocacy organisations, Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, France Nature Environnement  alongside the City of Paris, has asked French courts to require TotalEnergies to drastically cut its greenhouse gas emissions and reduce hydrocarbon production. 

As one of the world’s largest historical emitters and among the top global oil and gas companies, TotalEnergies continues to plan production growth of around 3% per year, while maintaining the majority of its investments in fossil fuels until at least 2030. The company is linked to dozens of major new fossil fuel projects worldwide, despite clear scientific consensus that no new expansion is compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C.A ruling in this case could mark a turning point, helping shift climate litigation from a focus on governments alone to cases capable of reshaping the business models of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies. What the Paris court decides may influence similar cases far beyond France.

Beyond promises: ending fossil fuels for real

A genuine phase-out is not a distant net-zero pledge. It is a planned and enforceable decline in fossil fuel production, starting immediately and continuing year after year.

According to the joint analysis by 350.org and Observatoire des multinationales in “This is what a total phase-out looks like,” ending fossil fuel expansion requires more than voluntary commitments. It requires governments to reclaim control over companies whose business models depend on continued extraction.

That means binding regulation aligned with climate science, strict limits on new approvals, and mandatory production decline pathways. It means removing shareholder primacy from decisions that determine the fate of communities. And where companies refuse to comply, governments must be prepared to use public-interest tools — including stronger regulatory intervention or public control — to redirect corporate capacity toward renewable energy and climate repair.

Phase-out also means accountability for past harm. Transparency through independent climate and human rights audits, and enforceable contributions toward loss and damage, are essential. Stopping future extraction does not erase decades of damage already inflicted.

Responsibility means:

• • Ending new oil and gas projects
  • A binding production decline plan with annual reduction targets
  • Full transparency on climate & environmental impacts
  • Ending fossil fuel lobbying and political interference
  • Redirecting capital expenditure from fossil expansion to renewable energy at scale
  • Mandatory contributions into global loss and damage mechanisms proportional to emissions and profits
  • Respecting community land and consent rights
  • Supporting a just transition to renewable energy
  • Being held legally and financially accountable for climate harm

 

Locals stand outside TotalEnergies in Kenya to demand an end to fossil fuel projects. Photo: 350.org

Thats why 350.org has launched our petition, momentum is building to finally move beyond coal, oil, and gas. The shift now underway internationally recognises that voluntary corporate pledges are insufficient. Governments are increasingly acknowledging that fossil fuel phase-out must be coordinated, binding, and enforceable, not left to corporate discretion. More than 80 countries are now working together on concrete plans to phase out fossil fuels and accelerate clean energy. This is exactly the kind of leadership that communities on the frontlines have been demanding for decades.

A critical international meeting in Colombia this April could help turn these commitments into binding action. If governments step up, it could mark the beginning of the end for fossil fuels, while speeding up the affordable renewable solutions that cut energy bills, create jobs, and protect our shared future.

Some major emitters, including Canada, Japan, Indonesia, South Africa, and Türkiye, have yet to join this effort. They must do so.  The choice before us is stark. We can allow companies like TotalEnergies to continue profiting from destruction while offering token gestures in return. Or we can seize this moment to build a system where polluters pay, communities are protected, and clean energy serves the public good.

 

The post Greenwashing in plain sight appeared first on 350.

Crossposted from the Daily Observer
Written by Amanullah Porag, 350 Bangladesh Coordinator and Youth for NDCs Founder/Executive Director 

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s (BNP) victory in the country’s first democratic elections in 17 years was built on promises to restore democracy, stabilize the economy, and reform governance. But the new government has another urgent mandate: to protect people from a climate crisis that has driven at least 10 million Bangladeshis from their homes. For us, climate protection is a matter of national survival. With a staggering two-thirds of the country less than 15 feet above sea level, it is estimated that by 2050, one in seven people in Bangladesh will be displaced by climate change. For many years, I’ve worked with farmers who have lost their lands and homes because of encroaching sea waters. Most of them are forced to eke out a living in the sweltering streets of Dhaka, or else migrate abroad. We went to the polls hoping to correct past injustices-not just political corruption, but also systemic injustices that determine who suffers when floods destroy homes, when heatwaves turn factories into boiling rooms, when rising seas swallow farmland.

The BNP’s campaign manifesto included surprisingly clear environmental commitments: a “National Green Mission” that includes 25 million trees over five years, green jobs for youth, and a concrete target of 20% renewable electricity by 2030. Especially for a youth electorate starved of change, those green commitments matter. The question now is whether these promises will survive the BNP’s contact with power. A 20% renewable energy target by 2030 is not insignificant. If achieved, it can begin to transform an energy sector too long dominated by mega fossil fuel projects that have left people stranded with costly, unreliable electricity they can’t afford, and the country with debt it can’t pay. Unfortunately, the BNP also emphasized oil and gas exploration and refinery expansion as part of Bangladesh’s energy security measures. If the new government continues to lean into fossil fuels, it will fall prey to the same corrupt forces that doomed the nation. It should instead reform procurement, modernize grid infrastructure, and dismantle distortions that locked Bangladesh into expensive power deals.

Sure, planting trees is a good policy. But climate justice requires more. It means protecting coastal communities without displacing them for infrastructure projects. It means ensuring river erosion victims receive rehabilitation, not just temporary relief. It means designing urban heat action plans that protect workers and low-income communities. It means ending environmentally destructive projects that undermine long-term resilience. Bangladesh does not fall short on climate rhetoric, but on implementation failures. If the BNP wants to redefine governance, climate policy is where that promise will be tested most visibly. In its first 100 days, the new government must demonstrate its seriousness in addressing the energy and climate crisis that is eroding our capacity for progress.

First, it must audit all existing power purchase agreements and move to lower electricity prices. Second, it must revise the energy master plan, aligning it with climate science, economic rationality, and a just transition framework. Third, it must operationalize the national climate plan-moving beyond targets to delivery strategies, budget alignment, and accountability mechanisms. The greatest risk now is complacency. Governments often begin with reformist language but gradually slide into short-term stabilization politics, negotiated deals, and environmentally risky mega-projects justified in the name of development. We cannot allow that to happen again.

This is not yet a moment for antagonism. Youth activists, climate researchers, policy practitioners, and civil society are not adversaries of the newly elected government. Many of us have worked on climate governance and adaptation planning long before this election. If the BNP is serious about its green commitments, climate advocates stand ready to support with research, monitoring, implementation, and community engagement. But support does not mean silence. It means measurable progress, transparency, and accountability. It means speaking up when commitments drift.

The BNP’s victory reshaped the political landscape. Now it must decide whether it will reshape Bangladesh’s climate trajectory. This government has inherited more than power. It has inherited responsibility in one of the most climate-exposed countries on Earth. The elections are over-but Bangladesh’s climate test has just begun.

The post Climate change is a key challenge for Bangladesh’s new government appeared first on 350.