You are here

Home

News Feeds

2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17

Skeptical Science - Sun, 04/26/2026 - 08:51
A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 19, 2026 thru Sat, April 25, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (10 articles)

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (3 articles)

Climate Law and Justice (3 articles)

Miscellaneous (3 articles)

Climate Science and Research (2 articles)

International Climate Conferences and Agreements (2 articles)

Health Aspects of Climate Change (2 articles)

Climate Education and Communication (1 article)

Climate Policy and Politics (1 article)

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Solutions (1 article)

  • Trust, Media Habits, and Misperceptions Shape Public Understanding of Climate Change Most Americans are concerned about climate change, but they don’t think most others share that concern. That quiet misunderstanding is one of the biggest barriers to climate action in the United States. This report explores how trust in information, media consumption patterns, and perceptions of others shape how people think about climate change. The findings point to a striking paradox: while many Americans trust the information they encounter and are concerned about climate change, they believe others are far less concerned and less able to recognize accurate information. ecoAmerica, Marryam Ishaq , Apr 09, 2026.
If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!
Categories: I. Climate Science

Video: ‘Metabolic Rifts: Capitalism’s Assault on the Earth System’

Climate and Capitalism - Sat, 04/25/2026 - 13:49
Ian Angus introduces his new book, joined by Helena Sheehan, Inea Lehner, and David McNally, and Jess Spear

Source

Categories: B3. EcoSocialism

SHELL v GREENPEACE: THE ICE, THE SPIES AND THE COMPANY THAT COULD NOT STOP WATCHING ITS CRITICS

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com - Sat, 04/25/2026 - 12:40

A vast Arctic seascape at dusk. Shell-branded icebreakers grind through cracked ice toward a drilling rig while Greenpeace activists unfurl banners from a small vessel. Above the scene, a giant translucent eye made from documents, camera lenses, email printouts and spy files watches everything. Dark satirical editorial style, cinematic lighting, high contrast, sharp detail. Enlarge image. 

How Shell’s long war with Greenpeace ran from Brent Spar to Arctic drilling, Hakluyt’s undercover games, the Phillips letters, and the uncomfortable Donovan surveillance trail PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE THE ICE, THE COURTS AND THE CORPORATE PEARL-CLUTCHING

There are corporate rivalries. There are activist campaigns. And then there is Shell versus Greenpeace — a decades-long opera of rigs, boycotts, court orders, Arctic ice, reputational carnage and, lurking in the wings, the little matter of private intelligence, undercover activity, and Shell critics wondering exactly who was watching whom.

The immediate source story is a March 2012 Petroleum News report about Shell telling the federal District Court in Alaska that it intended to file information about Greenpeace activists occupying two Finnish icebreakers, the Nordica and Fennica, contracted to support Shell’s planned drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the Arctic open-water season. Shell had already asked the court for an injunction against Greenpeace, seeking to restrain the environmental group’s direct-action campaign against its Arctic drilling plans.

In corporate language, this was about safety, lawful operations and protecting vessels.

In plain English, Shell wanted to drill in the Arctic, Greenpeace wanted to stop it, and the lawyers were summoned to referee yet another round of Big Oil versus Big Banner.

And what a familiar match-up it was.

2012: SHELL GOES TO COURT AS GREENPEACE GOES TO THE ICE

The 2012 Alaska court fight came during Shell’s expensive and controversial push into Arctic offshore drilling. To Shell, the Arctic was a frontier of future supply. To Greenpeace, it was a frozen warning label: a climate-threatened region being turned into the next hydrocarbon hunting ground by companies that had apparently looked at melting ice and thought, “Excellent, easier access.”

The Petroleum News article reported that Shell wanted the court to take account of Greenpeace’s occupation of the Nordica and Fennica, both contracted to support its planned drilling campaign in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

Greenpeace’s argument was not hard to decode either: the real danger was not the protester on the vessel, but the fossil-fuel project the vessel supported.

That is the Shell–Greenpeace conflict in miniature. Shell says the immediate crisis is activists disrupting operations. Greenpeace says the crisis is the operations.

One side points at the dinghy. The other points at the drill bit.

BUT THIS DID NOT START IN ALASKA

To understand the Arctic clash, you have to go back to Brent Spar, the 1995 North Sea confrontation that turned Shell into a corporate communications cautionary tale.

Shell planned to dispose of the Brent Spar oil storage buoy at sea. Greenpeace occupied it and turned the disposal plan into a European media storm. Greenpeace later summarised the campaign with the slogan: “The sea is not a dustbin.”

The images were made for television: activists, helicopters, water cannon, a giant industrial structure and Shell discovering that technical authorisation is not the same thing as public permission.

The backlash spread across Europe. Shell petrol stations faced boycotts. Greenpeace says Shell’s German sales fell by roughly 50 percent during the Brent Spar controversy.

Shell eventually abandoned the sea-disposal plan. Greenpeace later acknowledged that one of its claims about the amount of oil remaining inside Brent Spar had been wrong — a point Shell has never tired of remembering.

But politically, the damage was done. Brent Spar became a legendary example of what happens when a company with a permit runs into a public that thinks the sea is being treated as a corporate skip.

Shell wanted to sink a structure. Instead, it helped float a movement.

NIGERIA, BRENT SPAR AND THE REPUTATIONAL INFERNO

Brent Spar was not Shell’s only 1990s public-relations inferno. The same decade brought international outrage over Shell’s operations in Nigeria and the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni activists by Nigeria’s military regime in 1995.

This matters because the later Hakluyt exposé linked Shell’s post-Brent Spar anxieties to a wider atmosphere of protest, threat, reputational crisis and activist pressure. The archived Sunday Times report states that Shell’s then media-relations director Mike Hogan said Shell had talked to Hakluyt about what intelligence could be gathered after some petrol stations in Germany had been firebombed or shot at.

Nobody sensible dismisses threats of violence against staff, customers or assets. Companies are entitled to protect people and property.

But the harder question is where legitimate security ends and political surveillance of critics begins.

That is where Hakluyt enters the Shell story like a man in a raincoat stepping out of a very expensive doorway.

THE HAKLUYT AFFAIR: WHEN SHELL’S GREENPEACE PROBLEM ACQUIRED AN EX-MI6 AFTERTASTE

In June 2001, The Sunday Times published a front-page investigation alleging that Hakluyt, a private intelligence firm founded by former MI6 officers, had spied on environmental campaign groups to gather information for oil companies including Shell and BP.

The report, republished and archived by CorpWatch and Royal Dutch Shell Plc.com, said Hakluyt used a German operative, Manfred Schlickenrieder, who posed as a left-wing filmmaker while collecting information on Greenpeace and other campaigners.

The Sunday Times archive states that Hakluyt’s operation began in April 1996, after Mike Reynolds, a Hakluyt director and former MI6 head of station in Germany, was asked by Shell to find out who was orchestrating threats against Shell petrol forecourts across Europe after Brent Spar and Nigeria-related protests. The same archived report says Shell confirmed it had been Hakluyt’s client until December 1996.

The allegations were dynamite because they shifted the story from “Shell faces activist pressure” to “Shell’s world included private intelligence activity around environmental critics.”

And once that smell gets into the curtains, no amount of corporate Febreze quite removes it.

Shell’s likely defence is obvious: it was concerned about violent threats and security risks. That is a serious point.

But Greenpeace and other critics were left asking the equally serious counter-question: how much of this was genuine security, and how much was corporate intelligence-gathering against inconvenient campaigners?

A company that wants to be seen as a responsible energy major does not help itself when the cast list starts to include former spies, undercover operatives and codenames.

This was not stakeholder engagement.

This was stakeholder engagement wearing dark glasses.

THE PHILLIPS LETTERS: WHEN SHELL’S OWN LAWYERS PUT ‘ENQUIRIES’ IN WRITING

The Donovan surveillance story also has an earlier paper trail from the late 1990s involving Mr Christopher Phillips.

In a 24 June 1998 letter on Shell U.K. Limited Legal Division letterhead, Shell Legal Director R. M. Wiseman responded to John Donovan’s allegations about threats. Wiseman referred directly to “the visit of Mr Phillips” and “his instructions”, adding that Shell would cooperate with police “to the utmost extent.” He also wrote: “We are confident that no criminal act was committed by anyone acting with Shell’s approval.”

Wiseman further stated that Donovan and his potential witnesses could “rest assured that no intimidatory threats have come from or been authorised by Shell”, while saying Shell was keen to find the person it suspected was trying to use Donovan as “the unwitting conduit for falsehoods about Shell.”

A follow-up letter dated 3 July 1998 from Shell’s solicitors DJ Freeman, signed by Colin Joseph, denied that Shell had any connection with a threatening anonymous telephone call received by Donovan. But the same letter also referred to “the enquiries instituted by my client” and to “anyone involved in enquiries on their behalf, including Mr Phillips.”

That wording matters.

It does not prove that Shell authorised threats. Both letters deny knowledge, approval or connection with criminal or intimidatory conduct.

But the correspondence does show that Shell and its lawyers were openly addressing the existence of enquiries carried out on Shell’s behalf, including by Mr Phillips.

Donovan regards that as a form of intimidation in itself: a powerful multinational, already locked in bitter conflict with him and his business, making clear through its solicitors that agents were conducting enquiries about him and those connected with him. Whether Shell would call that security, investigation or litigation support, the effect on the target was obvious enough.

In the context of the later Sunday Times Hakluyt/Greenpeace exposé and the Reuters-reported Shell monitoring emails, the Phillips correspondence adds another uncomfortable layer to the record. Shell’s critics were not simply imagining that they had attracted attention. Shell’s own legal correspondence shows that enquiries involving a named individual, Mr Phillips, were sufficiently serious to be discussed by Shell’s Legal Director and its external solicitors.

In tabloid terms: when Shell says “nothing to see here,” the archive has an annoying habit of producing another letter.

THE DONOVAN CONNECTION: WHEN THE SPY STORY CAME HOME

The Hakluyt/Greenpeace affair also overlaps with the long-running Shell–Donovan saga.

John Donovan says Greenpeace consulted him about suspected continuing Shell-linked surveillance and intelligence-gathering activity directed at Shell critics, including himself. He says a senior Greenpeace official visited him in Colchester to discuss the subject, and that he holds emails with Greenpeace from before and after the visit.

That account is not floating alone in conspiracy fog. It sits alongside a separate Reuters-reported trail.

In December 2009, Reuters reported that Donovan alleged Shell was targeting his website, based on internal Shell emails released to him after a data-protection request. Reuters reported that one March 2007 Shell email said Shell was “monitoring emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan and internal traffic to their website”, with the information marked “not for publication.”

Reuters also reported that another Shell email referred to a meeting with “NCFTA” about Donovan’s website, with resources assigned that were “RDS focused” and the statement: “There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.”

That last line deserves to be framed and hung in the Museum of Corporate Innocence.

“There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.”

Not exactly the stuff of warm transparency and open dialogue, is it?

Reuters reported that Shell did not comment on the veracity of the communications or Donovan’s allegations despite repeated requests, although a Shell legal department representative confirmed Donovan had made a request for information.

The same Reuters article described Donovan and his father Alfred as long-running internet critics of Shell, noting that Shell insiders used the Donovans’ website to leak company information and that the site had featured attacks on Shell’s safety and environmental record.

So when Greenpeace came to Donovan’s door to discuss suspected surveillance, it was not entering fantasy territory. It was entering a landscape already marked by Shell’s own legal correspondence about enquiries, the Hakluyt/Greenpeace revelations, and Reuters-reported emails referring to global monitoring of Shell-server communications to Donovan and internal traffic to his website.

Shell may prefer the word “monitoring.” Critics may prefer “surveillance.” The difference, as ever, depends partly on who is holding the binoculars.

FROM BRENT SPAR TO THE ARCTIC: SAME MOVIE, COLDER WATER

By 2012, the battleground had moved north.

The Arctic offered Shell a new frontier: remote, expensive, hazardous, politically sensitive and symbolically explosive. Greenpeace saw Arctic drilling as the fossil-fuel industry’s most perfect self-satire: drilling for more oil in a region transformed by climate change.

Shell saw Greenpeace direct action as unlawful disruption of lawful operations.

The courts were asked to intervene. Shell argued safety and operational risk. Greenpeace framed the clash as resistance to reckless fossil-fuel expansion. The legal question became narrow; the political question remained vast.

Should a company already carrying the baggage of Brent Spar, Nigeria, Hakluyt, the Phillips letters and the Donovan monitoring trail really be trusted to write the next chapter of Arctic oil?

Shell’s answer was yes.

Greenpeace’s answer was a banner, a boat and, eventually, another lawsuit.

THE PUNCHLINE: SHELL EVENTUALLY WALKED AWAY FROM ALASKA

There is a grim punchline to the 2012 Arctic court drama: Shell’s Arctic adventure became a notorious business headache.

After years of delays, mishaps, regulatory scrutiny, enormous costs and disappointing drilling results, Shell announced in 2015 that it would cease exploration offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future.

Greenpeace did not single-handedly stop Shell’s Arctic ambitions. Geology, economics, logistics, politics and risk all had starring roles.

But Greenpeace helped turn Arctic drilling into a reputational nightmare — the kind of project where every vessel movement could become a campaign image, every injunction could become a fundraising email, and every corporate safety statement could be met with the public asking: “What exactly are you doing in the Arctic in the first place?”

Shell wanted Arctic oil.

It got Arctic theatre.

THE MODERN ECHO: GREENPEACE, SHELL AND THE ‘COUSIN GREG’ LAWSUIT

The Shell–Greenpeace legal dance did not end in Alaska.

In 2024, Shell settled a $2.1 million lawsuit against Greenpeace after activists boarded a Shell-contracted vessel connected to the Penguins oil and gas field in the North Sea. The Guardian reported that Greenpeace accepted no liability and would donate £300,000 to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, while agreeing not to carry out similar actions near certain Shell platforms for set periods. Shell said the case concerned illegal boarding and safety risks, not the right to protest.

Shell’s own UK statement said the legal action concerned costs arising from the 2023 boarding and emphasised that, in its view, the action created serious risk to safety and life.

The storyline was vintage Shell–Greenpeace: activists board; Shell sues; Greenpeace cries intimidation; Shell says safety; headlines bloom; lawyers prosper.

The fossil-fuel industry calls this operational risk.

Everyone else calls it Tuesday.

2025–2026 CONTEXT: SHELL STILL LOVES FOSSIL FUELS, BUT WITH BETTER FONT CHOICES

Fast forward to 2025–2026 and the Shell–Greenpeace clash sits inside a wider argument over whether Shell has truly changed, or merely learned to wrap hydrocarbon expansion in transition language polished to a shareholder-friendly shine.

Shell continues to present itself as a company navigating energy security, shareholder returns and lower-carbon transition. But its LNG outlook remains bullish. Shell’s 2026 LNG material forecasts global LNG demand rising from 422 million tonnes per annum in 2025 to 650–710 mtpa by 2040, an increase of about 54–68 percent.

That is not a company tiptoeing away from fossil fuels.

That is a company looking at the gas banquet and asking for a bigger spoon.

Shell argues that LNG can support energy security and help replace more carbon-intensive fuels such as coal. Critics counter that gas expansion risks locking in decades of fossil-fuel infrastructure, with methane leakage and lifecycle emissions complicating the industry’s “cleaner fuel” narrative.

Greenpeace, to put it mildly, remains unconvinced.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: BLACKROCK, VANGUARD AND THE GREAT PASSIVE-OWNERSHIP SHRUG

Behind Shell sits a vast wall of institutional capital.

Public shareholder data identifies large institutional investors and funds around Shell, including major global asset managers and index-fund giants. Investing.com’s Shell ownership data lists major institutional and fund holders including BlackRock-linked iShares funds, while MarketScreener’s shareholder data shows a large institutional ownership base with major holdings associated with the United States, United Kingdom and Norway.

This matters because Shell does not operate in a moral vacuum. It operates inside a financial ecosystem in which major asset managers, pension funds and sovereign institutions help keep the machine capitalised, liquid and respectable.

BlackRock, Vanguard, Norges Bank and other institutional investors may not be boarding rigs, filing injunctions or commissioning Arctic vessels. But their capital forms part of the background music.

The public tune is transition.

The bassline is still oil, gas and shareholder distributions.

THE REAL STORY: SHELL’S ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD IS NOT A SIDEBAR

The Shell–Greenpeace conflict is not merely a colourful activist-versus-corporation sideshow. It is a public trial of Shell’s business model.

Greenpeace has targeted Shell because Shell remains one of the world’s major oil and gas companies, with a long record of environmental controversies and a continuing commitment to large-scale hydrocarbons.

Shell’s supporters argue that global energy demand cannot be wished away, that gas can replace dirtier fuels, and that abrupt divestment from oil and gas would be economically reckless.

Shell’s critics argue that this is the language of delay: keep drilling, keep expanding, keep promising that transition will arrive later, preferably after the next dividend and buyback cycle.

The truth is that Shell’s problem with Greenpeace is not merely that activists dislike Shell.

It is that Shell keeps giving them material.

Brent Spar gave them the sea. Nigeria gave them the moral outrage. Hakluyt gave them the spy-thriller subplot. The Phillips letters gave the Donovan archive another legal paper trail. The Reuters article gave the monitoring story mainstream confirmation. The Arctic gave them the ice. The lawsuits gave them the courtroom drama. The LNG expansion narrative gives them the 2026 relevance.

For a campaigning organisation, Shell is not just a target.

It is a content engine with a dividend policy.

CONCLUSION: THE COMPANY THAT COULD NOT STOP BEING THE STORY

From Brent Spar to Alaska, from Hakluyt to the Phillips letters, from the Reuters-reported Donovan monitoring emails to Arctic injunctions and modern Greenpeace lawsuits, the Shell–Greenpeace saga shows what happens when a fossil-fuel giant meets activists built for confrontation.

Shell has money, lawyers, vessels, investors, annual reports and a corporate vocabulary polished until every uncomfortable noun becomes a “stakeholder issue.”

Greenpeace has boats, banners, climbers, media instinct and an almost supernatural ability to appear exactly where Shell would prefer it did not.

The 2012 Petroleum News article is one snapshot: Shell notifying an Alaska court about Greenpeace action against icebreakers supporting Arctic drilling. But the deeper story is much larger. It is about a company repeatedly discovering that environmental opposition is not a public-relations inconvenience. It is a structural consequence of what the company does.

Shell can sue Greenpeace. Shell can brief courts. Shell can talk about safety. Shell can describe critics as disruptive.

But the history remains stubborn.

The sea was not a dustbin.

The Arctic was not a blank cheque.

Critics were not always merely “stakeholders.”

And when a company’s past includes Brent Spar, Nigeria, Hakluyt, Arctic drilling, legal correspondence about agents and enquiries, Reuters-reported monitoring of a critic’s website, and repeated legal warfare with Greenpeace, perhaps the reputational iceberg is not floating in front of the ship.

Perhaps the ship was built inside it.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR / SPIN SECTION SHELL’S COMPLETELY REASSURING GUIDE TO WHY EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY NORMAL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STRATEGIC CALMNESS

Shell would like to reassure the public that its long relationship with Greenpeace is best understood as a series of unfortunate misunderstandings involving activists, vessels, courts, weather systems, journalists and the regrettable existence of cameras.

On Brent Spar, Shell merely pursued a technically assessed disposal option until Europe rudely developed emotions.

On Arctic drilling, Shell simply attempted to explore one of the planet’s most fragile regions for more hydrocarbons, because apparently the melting Arctic was not providing enough irony unaided.

On Hakluyt, Shell has previously been reported as a client of the firm until December 1996, but naturally this should not distract from Shell’s deep commitment to transparency, especially once everyone has stopped asking questions.

On the Phillips correspondence, Shell and its lawyers discussed enquiries on Shell’s behalf, including Mr Phillips, while denying any criminal or intimidatory conduct. Nothing says “relaxed corporate normality” quite like lawyers explaining which enquiries, agents and alleged threats definitely are not a problem.

On Greenpeace direct action, Shell fully supports peaceful protest, provided it does not occur near vessels, rigs, platforms, courts, annual general meetings, sensitive reputational assets, investor presentations or anything operationally inconvenient.

On John Donovan, Shell prefers not to dwell on Reuters-reported internal emails referring to monitoring emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan and internal traffic to his website, because nothing says “open dialogue” quite like: “There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.”

Shell further confirms that its commitment to the energy transition remains strong, particularly the part where LNG demand rises dramatically and shareholders continue receiving very traditional comfort.

Any suggestion that Shell’s environmental controversies form a pattern is deeply unfair.

They are not a pattern.

They are a portfolio.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT REACTION / COMMENT SECTION THE INTERNET REACTS

@ArcticWatcherBot:
Shell drilling in the Arctic while complaining about Greenpeace disruption is like a burglar complaining the alarm is too loud.

@CorporateSpin9000:
“Safety is our priority,” says company pursuing high-risk offshore fossil-fuel extraction in a climate-stressed polar region. Irony levels: industrial.

@BrentSparVeteran:
I remember when Shell thought sinking Brent Spar was a good idea. Somewhere, a 1995 PR consultant is still living under a desk.

@SpyNovelReject:
Hakluyt remains the unbeatable subplot. Former spies, Greenpeace, oil companies and undercover operatives. John le Carré, but with more unleaded.

@PhillipsFiles:
When the lawyers start discussing “enquiries” and “Mr Phillips,” the phrase “nothing to see here” begins sweating visibly.

@DonovanFiles:
“There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan” is possibly the most Shell sentence ever written.

@DividendGoblin:
Major institutional investors watching from the balcony: “We support transition, but please do not interrupt the cash machine.”

@GreenpeaceDinghy:
Shell: “Please use lawful channels.”
Also Shell: “No, not that channel. Or that vessel. Or that platform. Or that courtroom narrative.”

@LNGFanFiction:
Shell’s transition plan: more gas now, more gas later, net zero eventually, trust us bro.

@PublicRelationsWalrus:
Arctic drilling was always going to be a hard sell. Even the polar bears asked for legal representation.

@HakluytRaincoat:
Nothing suspicious here. Just a perfectly ordinary corporate reputation strategy with former intelligence officers wandering through the shrubbery.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It uses satire, criticism and publicly available information, together with John Donovan’s stated account of documents and correspondence in his possession where clearly identified as such. It is not financial advice, investment advice or legal advice. Readers should consult original sources and professional advisers where appropriate. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

SHELL v GREENPEACE: THE ICE, THE SPIES AND THE COMPANY THAT COULD NOT STOP WATCHING ITS CRITICS was first posted on April 25, 2026 at 8:40 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
Categories: J2. Fossil Fuel Industry

Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Kenyan Women Defy Gender Norms, President Trump Calls for Cuts to WIC, Anti-Immigration Policies Fail

Food Tank - Sat, 04/25/2026 - 05:00

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

Can Conflict Drive a Transition to Sustainable Packaging?

As the war in Iran continues and oil prices stay high, plastic prices are soaring. That’s becoming a problem in China, Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asia, which consume roughly a third of the world’s plastics. According to OECD data, their plastic use has increased from 17 million tonnes in 1990 to 152 million tonnes in 2022.

With the material so expensive, countries are worried the material will become far less accessible. In Tokyo, for example, wholesalers are already warning that there may be a shortage of plastic trays and bags. That’s driving a search for alternatives. 

In Malaysia, one dairy producer has temporarily switched from plastic containers to paper-based milk cartons. And in South Korea, packaging firms have seen a spike in demand for paper tubes and pouches. 

As more companies pivot, analysts are wondering if the shift to more sustainable options can be sustained in the long-term, ultimately reducing our reliance on plastics.

2025 Floods May Have Affected 3.3 Million Jobs in Pakistan

New estimates from the International Labor Organisation (ILO) show that around 3.3 million jobs may have been affected by the 2025 floods in Pakistan, which led to more than 1,000 deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands of people. 

Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London says the country is a “hotspot for increases in extreme rainfall” and it’s “undoubtedly on the front line of climate change.”

The ILO finds that the agriculture sector was hit the hardest, with rural communities bearing the brunt of the impacts. 

While provincial compensation measures helped with some of the most immediate needs, the Organization is calling for more comprehensive support to restore livelihoods in affected areas. This includes cash-for-work programs, skill-training, and subsidized credit which can help households restart their farms as well and other income-generating activities.

Women Fishers Challenge Taboos in Kenya

As told by Al Jazeera, women in Kisumul Kenya near Lake Victoria are defying gender norms.

Traditionally, women in the region worked as fishmongers, while fishing was reserved solely for men. These gender roles stem from deep seated beliefs held by members of Lake Victoria communities. But in the early 2000s, Rhoda Ongoche Akech realized that her income was dwindling and selling fish was no longer enough to support her family. Something needed to change.

One day, women from a neighboring county arrived in Akech’s village and she watched, surprised, as they went fishing. Even though it was a novel sight, it pushed Akech to learn how to fish herself. While those around Akech warned her that women didn’t belong on the water, she insisted on continuing because she knew her family depended on the income.

She spent 16 years as the only fisherwoman in her village. Then in 2018, Faith Awuor Ang’awo braved the social stigma and joined Akech on the water. In the years that followed a few more women joined the pair.

According to village elder William Okedo the taboo preventing women from fishing has broken down and attitudes among male fishers have shifted as well. But systemic hurdles still remain. Susan Claire, acting director of fisheries and blue economy for Kisumu County, refuses to officially recognize the work that women fishers are doing even though it’s the same as their male counterparts.

While the climate crisis and declining fish stocks pose additional challenges, Akech and her team are still making enough of a living on the water. And for now, they’re still fishing. 

President Trump Pushes for Cuts to WIC

For the second year in the row, President Trump is pushing to cut benefits for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

His fiscal year 2027 budget calls for a reduction in the fruit and vegetable component of WIC. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that it could take away US$1.4 billion in benefits from 5.4 million parents and young children. 

Under the proposed plan, monthly benefits for toddlers and preschoolers would drop from US$26 to US$10. Benefits for pregnant and non-breastfeeding postpartum mothers would fall from US$47 to US$13. And benefits for breastfeeding mothers would drop from US$52 to US$13. 

For the last three decades, presidents and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have fully funded the program to ensure that eligible families receive their full benefits because they understand how critical it is. WIC provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating, breastfeeding support, and health care referrals to almost 7 million low-income expecting and postpartum people, infants, and young children at nutritional risk.

Anti-Immigration Bills Fail to Gain Traction

A new analysis from the Washington Post finds that of the roughly 200 bills targeting immigration communities across the country fewer than two dozen have made it into law so far.

One bill in Utah would have prevented undocumented pregnant mothers from accessing public assistance for food. Another bill in Idaho would have forced employers to use the government’s E-Verify system to keep undocumented people from securing jobs.In Tennessee, a third would have limited undocumented students’ access to education.

More than 80 measures like these have died, some were vetoed, and several have made little progress in states’ legislative spring season. Businesses and religious groups, alongside other advocates, have helped to stop these bills from moving forward, recognizing that the attacks only harm their communities.

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

Photo courtesy of Kabiur Rahman Riyad, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Kenyan Women Defy Gender Norms, President Trump Calls for Cuts to WIC, Anti-Immigration Policies Fail appeared first on Food Tank.

Categories: A3. Agroecology

Climate scientists call for fossil fuel transition roadmaps

Climate Change News - Sat, 04/25/2026 - 04:09

A group of leading climate scientists has called on governments to develop roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels “anchored in science and justice”, alongside the launch of a separate panel of experts that will give scientific advice on how to navigate the energy transition.

Unveiled on Friday in Santa Marta, Colombia, a set of a dozen policy recommendations, summarising the Santa Marta Academic Dialogue, is intended to feed into ministerial discussions on equitable ways to reduce dependence on coal, oil and gas during next week’s “First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels”.

The policy insights urge countries to create “whole-of-government” plans to “dismantle legal, financial and political barriers” to the energy transition.

Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition

Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), said the push for a global transition away from fossil fuels offers “a light in the tunnel” during a “very dark moment” of geopolitical conflict and climate extremes.

“Science is here to serve,” Rockström told a packed Santa Marta Theatre. “We’re today launching the Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) as a service, as a global common good for all countries, all sectors, all regions to connect to the best science enabling a transition away from fossil fuels.”

Draft roadmap for Colombia

Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez Torres said the new SPGET panel “addresses a longstanding shortcoming” in international climate science, by creating a scientific body dedicated solely to overcoming the world’s reliance on fossil fuels.

“It’s a first-of-its-kind, designed to organise in the next five years the scientific evidence that allows cities, regions, countries and coalitions to take the big leap,” Vélez told the event in Santa Marta.

As an example of how countries can move forward – even when their economies are closely tied to the production and use of dirty energy – a group of European scientists presented a draft roadmap to phase out fossil fuels in Colombia, with inputs from the Colombian government. It will be used as a basis for further consultation in the Latin American nation to define the way forward.

To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds and co‑author of the roadmap, said it shows “a clear pathway to economic and societal benefit”, with average annual investment of $10.6 billion producing net economic benefits of $23 billion per year by 2050.

The document says fossil fuels in Colombia can be phased out through energy efficiency measures, coupling renewable generation with energy storage, and switching to electrified transport. But, it adds, the government will need to plan for reduced revenue from fossil fuel exports, which roughly half by the mid-2030s.

“What matters now is moving beyond headline targets to create credible, policy-relevant roadmaps, enabling a just and effective transition,” Forster said in a statement. Brazil is also working on a national roadmap for its own economy, as well as leading a voluntary process to produce a global roadmap.

IPCC hobbled by politics

Currently, the world’s top climate science body – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – requires countries to sign off on each “summary for policymakers” of its flagship science reports. This has led to a politically fraught process that has increasingly seen some oil-producing governments making efforts to weaken its recommendations.

In a bid to focus scientific debates on the phase-out of fossil fuels, the new SPGET was created based on a mandate from last year’s COP30. It is also meant to come up with scientific recommendations at a faster pace than the IPCC’s seven-year cycle.

Natalie Jones, senior policy advisor at the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), called the new scientific panel “historic”, as it will be “more specific, more targeted and potentially more agile” with its advice on phasing out coal, oil and gas than the IPCC’s exhaustive scientific synthesis reports.

Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action

The panel will be co-chaired by Cameroonian economist Vera Songwe, PIK’s chief economist Ottmar Edenhofer and Gilberto M. Jannuzzi, professor of energy systems at Brazil’s Universidade Estadual de Campinas. It will be composed of between 50 and 100 scientists divided into four working groups: transition pathways, technological solutions, policies and finance.

Under the 12 insights for the Santa Marta process, the other group of scientists recommended banning new fossil fuel infrastructure, mandating “deep cuts” in methane emissions, implementing carbon levies on imports, and de-risking clean energy investments via interventions from central banks, among others.

Co-author Peter Newell, professor of international relations at the UK’s University of Sussex, said “there are many different challenges along the way – and not all of them have to do with lack of evidence”, but the phasing out of fossil fuels “is one part of the story and it’s important to address it”.

The original version of this story incorrectly reported that the new Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition had called on governments to develop roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels “anchored in science and justice”. This appeal came from a separate group of scientists that worked on recommendations ahead of the Santa Marta conference. The article has now been amended.

The post Climate scientists call for fossil fuel transition roadmaps appeared first on Climate Home News.

Categories: H. Green News

Op-Ed | We Can Find $200 Billion for War. Why Not for Food Security at Home?

Food Tank - Sat, 04/25/2026 - 04:00

The Pentagon has requested more than US$200 billion to expand the war with Iran. Meanwhile, only two in five young Americans meet basic eligibility requirements for service, with poor health, often tied to diet, among the leading disqualifiers. To invest in national security requires investing in universal nutritional security.

Tens of millions of Americans struggle to consistently access healthy food. Diet-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension now drive approximately 85 percent of U.S. healthcare spending. For roughly the same cost as expanding the war with Iran, the United States could make a generational investment in nutrition security—and build the nation’s strength, resilience, and well-being through healthy food.

Policy must move beyond short term food aid and prioritize system design. Providing access to healthy food, integrating it into every aspect of the healthcare system, and building infrastructure to process and deliver healthy food represent a three-pronged strategy to build long-term nutritional security.

First, access. Today’s unhealthy food system results not simply from individual choices but policy choices that limit access. Expanding support to fully cover the cost of a nutritious diet through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) healthy fruit and vegetable incentives —paired with universal healthy school meals—would reduce food insecurity and create a stable baseline of demand for healthier foods.

The evidence shows clear benefits. A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pilot program that provided Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) families with a 30-cent-on-the-dollar fruit and vegetable incentive resulted in a 26 percent increase in fruit and vegetable consumption. A study of more than 23,000 SNAP participants found healthy incentives improved key health outcomes.

Second, health care. Medically tailored meals and produce prescriptions reduce hospitalizations and overall costs for patients with chronic disease. Yet these programs remain small and inconsistently funded. Integrating nutrition into standard reimbursements through Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers would shift the system from treating disease to preventing it.

Food as medicine programs, when supporting local farm ecosystems, also drive economic growth. According to The Rockefeller Foundation, supporting local farmers through food is medicine programming would provide more than US$45 billion in annual economic benefits. Underlying all this research is a simple point: food is medicine, and food systems must be better designed to produce and deliver the medicine where it’s needed most. That is not just better care; it is a more efficient use of public dollars.

Third, infrastructure and production. The current food system excels at producing and distributing shelf-stable, highly processed foods. It is far less effective at producing and moving fresh, nutritious food at scale. That is not a failure of farmers. It is the result of policies that support factory farms and feedlots over family farms growing nourishing food. Strategic investment in regional processing, cold storage and distribution, paired with support for farmers transitioning to fruits, vegetables and diversified crops, would make healthy food more available and more affordable.

These three pillars reinforce one another. When families can afford healthy food, demand rises. When health systems and institutions commit to purchasing it, markets stabilize. When infrastructure and farms can meet that demand, accessibility improves. Over time, the system starts to sustain itself.

This is what security looks like when it is built, not just defended. The U.S. faces real threats and military readiness matters. But security is not a single line item in the federal budget. It is the product of a society’s overall resilience: its health, its economic stability, and its capacity to withstand shocks. Our fragile, unhealthy food system supply chains fail each of these priorities. We don’t need to wait for another COVID-19 sized failure to recognize the system fails Americans every day.

Economist Paul Collier once wrote that “war is development in reverse” pointing to the immense poverty and hunger in war-torn regions. The same consequences occur in countries who choose to fund war instead of feeding their people.

Congress will debate whether this war is worth the cost. It should also ask a parallel question: What would it look like to invest at the same scale in preventing the diet-related disease crisis that kills Americans every day and undermines our nation’s health and strength?

The U.S has demonstrated that it can mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars when it decides something is urgent. The challenge now is deciding whether the long-term health and resilience of the American people qualifies.

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

Photo courtesy Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | We Can Find $200 Billion for War. Why Not for Food Security at Home? appeared first on Food Tank.

Categories: A3. Agroecology

17 April | Portugal: The April Constitution and the Struggles for Peasants’ Rights

La Via Campesina : International Peasant Movement - Sat, 04/25/2026 - 01:11

In Portugal, peasants have won important victories enshrined in the April Revolution and in the Constitution of the Republic through constant struggle over the last hundred years.

The post 17 April | Portugal: The April Constitution and the Struggles for Peasants’ Rights appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Categories: A1. Favorites, A3. Agroecology

The cause of labor is the hope of the world

Tempest Magazine - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 22:31

This May Day will come after nearly sixteen months of authoritarian rule marked by brutal domestic and global violence.

At home, the state has deployed terror against the most vulnerable members of the working class—our immigrant neighbors—and anti-ICE protesters.

World politics has entered a new era with the illegal and unconstitutional U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. The ongoing war is yet another morbid symptom of the late American empire. Conscious of its declining power and driven by a lunatic narcissism reminiscent of Caligula or Nero, the Trump administration seeks to demonstrate its virility through violence. The war’s horror is only matched by its absurdity, as it becomes increasingly clear how little the U.S. state thought through the consequences of their reckless actions.

This disastrous war is a great setback for the regime. But as Trump and company become weaker, they also become more volatile and dangerous.

With Trump’s approval ratings sinking and likely to fall lower given the shock to the economy, the midterm elections pose an existential threat to his administration. The likelihood of a manufactured crisis being used as a pretext to destroy democratic rights looks increasingly probable.

In the face of war and authoritarianism, most workers realize we must act to stop this regime, and many are looking for alternative political strategies.

Building the resistance

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The question is how to transform broad yet diffuse opposition to Trumpism into the kind of organized labor action that can take powerful and decisive action against the regime.

We have seen resistance in varied spaces, from mass protests like No Kings to neighborhood networks to community and labor activism. While all these play a role, unions are of particular importance because they remain the one organized section of the working class with mass numbers, even while unionization levels are low. Organized labor’s reawakening to politics, uneven and contradictory as it may be, represents a significant breach in the post-war consensus that has dominated the movement for the better part of a century.

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The primary task for activists is to enter all these arenas and help build them out into democratic infrastructures of dissent, spaces and networks where we can further discover our strength as workers. We want to build a left-moving pole of attraction based on class independence, broad democratic decision-making and collective action.

Building these structures is a precondition for resisting the threat of authoritarianism and the entire right-wing political system, and for articulating firm political demands that resist co-optation by the Democratic Party.

The labor-led coalition May Day Strong offers a potential alternative to politics as usual, one that reawakens a long-neglected tradition of political working-class activity and, especially, an orientation on strikes—the only weapon available to us with the power to stop the regime.

Ironically, the authoritarian onslaught is spurring organized labor to reconnect with its power and its ability to change the world.

Towards a general strike

The call for this May Day, “Workers over Billionaires: No Work, No School, No Shopping,” connects with a powerful radical tradition based on independent working-class power. Although its origins are in the United States, International Workers’ Day has largely been a forgotten holiday here. This is not an accident but a result of the deeply anti-worker and anti-socialist nature of the U.S. state, which has actively divorced organized labor from projects against capitalism and for universal human liberation.

Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day marks an important moment in the process of rejoining labor to its unique ability to fundamentally transform society. The violent and tyrannical capitalist system gave birth to Trumpism and has worse horrors in store if we do not alter its course. Our labor creates and recreates this system, but by refusing to work, we can shut it down.

While we have seen some significant May Days in recent history, most notably the 2006 “Day Without an Immigrant,” this May 1st promises to be a celebration of working-class strength like nothing we have seen in decades. Spearheaded by the Chicago Teachers Union, the May Day Strong Coalition is organizing major unions to turn out for this holiday in a way not seen in living memory. Some strikes have even been called against the Trump administration’s policies, including a shutdown of all the ports on the West Coast, from Alaska to San Diego.

It is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

But we are also seeing attempts by conservative forces— Indivisible, the NGO bureaucracy and labor officialdom—to steer all the energy of the anti-Trump resistance back into efforts to elect the Democratic Party. We cannot entrust our precious rights to the very people who got us into this mess in the first place and who have waged no substantive opposition to the far right. Their aim is to restore the bankrupt status quo that germinated Trump. Regardless of what we do at the ballot box, when it comes to organizing, it is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

The symbolic and practical significance of reclaiming May Day in these ways is hard to overstate.

The tasks of the moment

May Day will highlight the potential of working-class power to resist war and authoritarianism while resurrecting a radical labor tradition. But the prospect of mass political strikes that pose a tangible threat to the economic order remains distant.

We still have low levels of workplace organization, in terms of both formal unionization and informal activity. In the current climate calls for general strikes will be hollow if they are not backed up by mass collective organization, disciplined preparation, education and training. Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day and beyond presents the opportunity to foster our collective strength and become strike-ready. We do this through collective activities such as attending protests as a contingent with T-shirts and banners, pursuing workplace grievances, launching union drives, holding strike schools and forming rank and file groups prepared to push for radical action even in the face of reluctant union officials.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us. If we are to uphold the great slogan of the labor movement, “An injury to one is an injury to all,” we must defend anyone who is under attack without exception. This includes forming emergency defense networks against ICE raids, standing with survivors of sexual violence, and advocating for trans rights, reproductive rights, Palestinian liberation and more.

These are the conditions in which we can build grounded socialist organizations that offer a genuine alternative.

Trumpism cannot be stopped with a vote or a promise. We must rip up its very roots by challenging the capitalist system that created it. There are no short cuts to this goal, but the keywords are organization, political independence, and working-class power.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Walter Crane, Walter Crane; modified by Tempest.

The post The cause of labor is the hope of the world appeared first on Tempest.

Categories: D2. Socialism

THE SPOOKS, THE SHELL MEN AND THE STARMER MACHINE: Hakluyt’s Very British Revolving Door Gets Another Oil-Slick Polish

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 15:56

AI image: A shadowy Mayfair boardroom with three doors marked “MI6,” “Shell,” and “No 10.” A suited adviser carries a briefcase labelled “Strategic Advice” through the revolving door, while a Shell logo glows on the wall like a corporate moon. Outside, taxpayers and climate campaigners peer through frosted glass as a sign reads: “Nothing to See Here — Stakeholders Being Reassured.

There are revolving doors in British public life, and then there is Hakluyt: the discreet Mayfair intelligence-and-advisory outfit that appears to operate less like a door and more like a polished mahogany teleportation device between corporate power, former spooks, political insiders and the upper floors of government.

The latest spark comes from an openDemocracy investigation reporting that Hakluyt’s UK business grew by 30% in the year to July 2025, even after two senior figures left for government roles. Varun Chandra, previously Hakluyt’s managing partner, joined Keir Starmer’s government in July 2024 as the prime minister’s special adviser on business and investment. In January 2025, Sir Oliver Robbins left Hakluyt’s Europe, Middle East and Africa role to join the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

Despite those departures, according to openDemocracy’s analysis of financial records, Hakluyt posted one of its strongest recent years of UK growth. Chandra’s remaining stake reportedly entitled him to a payout of around £112,000 while he was working at the heart of Downing Street; openDemocracy says No 10 and Hakluyt declined to comment on whether he accepted the money.

And there, in one neat little parcel, is the smell Britain knows so well: not necessarily illegality, not necessarily wrongdoing, but that unmistakable aroma of the Establishment warming itself by the fire of “proper process.”

The official line tends to be reassuring. Interests are declared. Conflicts are managed. Recusals are arranged. Governance is robust. Everyone is terribly professional.

The public, meanwhile, is invited to believe that when a former boss and shareholder of a secretive advisory firm joins No 10, while that firm continues thriving in the high-end marketplace for corporate access, geopolitical advice and strategic influence, this is simply the smooth functioning of democracy.

How comforting.

How very British.

How wonderfully convenient.

WHAT IS HAKLUYT? A CONSULTANCY WITH A PASSPORT STAMPED “DISCRETION”

Hakluyt is not a normal consultancy in the “PowerPoint deck and biscuits” sense. It was founded in 1995 by former British intelligence officers and has long traded on a mystique of access, discretion and elite networks.

Hakluyt’s own website says it advises clients on “some of the most consequential and high-profile opportunities and challenges facing business leaders,” including M&A, strategy, shareholder perspectives, regulatory and policy issues, disputes, senior hires, digital and cyber, sustainability and more. It also says the firm employs more than 200 people in more than a dozen offices around the world, and that its client roster includes at least one of the top five corporations in every major sector globally and more than three quarters of the top 20 private equity firms by assets under management.

Translation: this is not Bob’s Local Consultancy above a dry cleaner.

This is influence architecture for the global elite.

It is the kind of firm corporations call when they do not merely want advice. They want intelligence, networks, access, judgement and plausible deniability wrapped in Savile Row discretion.

ENTER VARUN CHANDRA: FROM HAKLUYT TO THE HEART OF DOWNING STREET

Varun Chandra is central to the story because he embodies the modern corporate-government interface: business-friendly, politically connected, highly networked and positioned where capital meets policy.

Hakluyt announced in July 2024 that Chandra had stepped down as managing partner after being appointed the prime minister’s special adviser on business and investment. The company credited him with overseeing “a period of significant growth and expansion.”

The Guardian later reported that Chandra was one of Starmer’s most influential advisers, central to Labour’s attempts to build business confidence and attract foreign capital, and that as of May 2025 he held Hakluyt shares worth about £7 million. The same report said Hakluyt planned to buy back his shares over time and that he no longer had voting rights or decision-making roles in the firm.

Again, that may all be properly declared. It may all be managed through official processes. But the political optics are not exactly subtle.

A former Hakluyt chief, still financially linked to Hakluyt through a managed share sell-down, ends up in Downing Street advising on business and investment.

Hakluyt, meanwhile, continues doing what Hakluyt does: advising some of the most powerful corporate actors on earth.

One almost expects a brass plaque outside No 10 reading:

“Welcome to Britain: please declare your interests before influencing policy.”

THE LOBBYING WATCHDOG PROBLEM

This is not the first time Chandra and Hakluyt have attracted scrutiny.

In July 2025, openDemocracy reported that the Office for the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists had launched an investigation into Hakluyt after openDemocracy shared findings about Chandra’s activities while at the firm. The story centred on a meeting arranged with then Tory cabinet minister Kwasi Kwarteng and ten leading financiers. Hakluyt insisted it had done nothing wrong.

That detail matters because it punctures the soothing fantasy that Hakluyt is merely an elegant advice boutique floating above politics in a cloud of neutral expertise.

The firm operates in the zone where corporate intelligence, political access, regulatory risk and statecraft blur into one another.

That may be legal. It may be normal. It may even be precisely what clients pay for.

But normal is not the same as healthy.

THE THAMES WATER PARALLEL: SAME PLAYBOOK, DIFFERENT PIPE

The Hakluyt question widened further with The Guardian’s September 2025 report that Thames Water had paid more than £1 million to Hakluyt while trying to avoid renationalisation. The Guardian reported that Hakluyt had advised Thames since 2023, while Chandra — formerly Hakluyt’s managing partner and still financially linked to the firm — was tasked in government with finding a private-sector solution for Thames. No 10 said the Cabinet Office has a process for declarations and managing conflicts, including recusals where appropriate. Hakluyt said it is not a lobbying organisation and does not lobby governments on behalf of clients.

That is the modern British public-interest machine in miniature.

A struggling utility.

Private advisers.

Former officials.

Government rescue options.

Corporate creditors.

A market-based solution.

And somewhere in the background, a discreet consultancy insists it is not lobbying while advising clients on political and strategic matters in the middle of a national infrastructure crisis.

The water may be polluted, but the language remains crystal clear.

NOW ADD SHELL: THE OLD OIL-SLICK CONNECTION

This is where the story becomes especially relevant to Shell watchers.

Hakluyt’s strong historic attachment to Shell is not conspiracy-theory mist. It has been documented in mainstream reporting for decades.

In 2001, The Sunday Times reported — republished by CorpWatch — that a private intelligence firm with close links to MI6 had spied on environmental campaign groups to collect information for oil companies including Shell and BP. The report said Hakluyt hired German-born Manfred Schlickenrieder, who posed as a left-wing sympathiser and filmmaker, and that he tried to obtain information about opposition to Shell drilling in Nigeria.

That is not “stakeholder engagement.”

That is not “sustainability dialogue.”

That is not “listening to civil society.”

That is corporate intelligence gathering against environmental campaigners.

And Shell’s name was there.

The allegations went to the heart of Shell’s carefully polished public identity: a company that talks endlessly about ethics, transparency, human rights and responsible energy, while historically appearing in reports about covert intelligence-gathering against critics.

The fossil-fuel industry has always loved the language of trust. But trust is a strange thing to demand from people you once allegedly monitored through hired intelligence networks.

SHELL, HAKLUYT AND THE MORAL FOG MACHINE

Shell’s relationship with Hakluyt sits in a broader pattern: extractive industry meets elite intelligence culture meets public-relations hygiene.

The purpose is not always to win arguments in public. Sometimes it is to know who is organising, who is vulnerable, who is influential, what journalists are circling, what activists are planning, which governments are shifting, and how to stay several moves ahead.

That is why the Hakluyt story matters.

It is not merely about one firm. It is about a political economy in which powerful corporations can buy insight into the democratic forces trying to scrutinise them — while ordinary citizens are left trying to decode press statements written in a dialect somewhere between legal caution and scented fog.

Shell has spent decades projecting an image of corporate responsibility while remaining a fossil-fuel giant with a long and controversial environmental and political record. The Hakluyt connection is one of those episodes that punctures the smooth brochure version of events.

Because when a company has historical links to a firm accused of spying on environmental campaigners, and that same firm later becomes a glittering node in the business-government influence machine, it is entirely fair to ask:

Who gets access? Who gets watched? Who gets listened to? And who gets managed?

THE ESTABLISHMENT’S FAVOURITE WORD: “MANAGED”

There is always a magic word in these controversies.

Managed.

Conflicts are managed.

Interests are managed.

Risks are managed.

Optics are managed.

The public is managed.

And the result is a political culture in which almost nothing is ever officially improper, yet everything somehow smells faintly of old cigar smoke, private dining rooms and “let’s take this offline.”

Varun Chandra may have followed the rules. Hakluyt may have followed the rules. No 10 may have followed the rules.

But perhaps that is the point.

If the rules allow elite advisers to move from secretive corporate intelligence firms into the centre of government while retaining financial pathways back to those firms, maybe the scandal is not that the rules were broken.

Maybe the scandal is that the rules are so magnificently accommodating.

THE SHELL ANGLE: WHY THIS SHOULD MATTER TO CLIMATE AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY CAMPAIGNERS

For climate campaigners, the Hakluyt-Shell history is more than an old footnote.

It is a reminder that fossil-fuel power has never been limited to rigs, refineries and trading desks. It includes lawyers, lobbyists, consultants, risk firms, PR specialists, former diplomats, intelligence veterans, think-tank networks and political advisers.

Shell does not need to control government to benefit from elite proximity. It merely needs to exist inside a system where corporate access is normalised, climate delay is dressed up as realism, and criticism is processed as risk.

Hakluyt’s publicly described work includes advising on regulatory and policy issues, disputes, sustainability and shareholder perspectives.   These are precisely the battlefields on which fossil-fuel companies fight modern reputation wars.

The result is a velvet-gloved ecosystem where the same kinds of people rotate between business, politics, intelligence, finance and regulation, while the public is told to calm down because declarations have been filed.

THE TABLOID VERDICT: BRITAIN’S INFLUENCE MACHINE HAS A SHELL-SHAPED SHADOW

This story has everything.

A discreet Mayfair intelligence firm.

Former MI6 roots.

A former boss in No 10.

A remaining financial stake.

Record UK growth.

A lobbying watchdog investigation.

A Thames Water conflict row.

Historic Shell and BP links to spying on environmental campaigners.

And a political class asking us to believe this is all perfectly manageable because the paperwork is probably in order.

The real scandal is not one alleged breach, one payout, one advisory contract, or one revolving-door appointment.

The real scandal is the architecture.

Britain has built a system in which corporate influence does not need to shout. It whispers. It lunches. It advises. It recuses. It declares. It networks. It grows by 30%. It moves from Mayfair to Downing Street and back again through a series of carefully labelled doors.

And Shell, with its long history of environmental controversy, public-relations combat and documented Hakluyt connection, fits perfectly into that world.

Not as an exception.

As a case study.

HAKLUYT / SHELL / No 10 PR DEPARTMENT VERSION — SPOOF

Important note: the following is a clearly labelled spoof. It is not an actual statement by Hakluyt, Shell, No 10, Varun Chandra, or anyone connected to them. It is a satirical reconstruction of the sort of polished language AI might imagine such institutions using, based on their public positioning, the reporting cited above, and the usual dialect of elite reassurance.

“A Proud Tradition of Strategic Insight, Responsible Transition and Absolutely Nothing to Worry About”

Hakluyt, Shell and the broader responsible stakeholder ecosystem wish to reaffirm their unwavering commitment to transparency, integrity, global competitiveness, sustainable dialogue and the careful management of any appearances that less sophisticated observers may accidentally mistake for concern.

Hakluyt is not a lobbying organisation. It merely provides strategic insight to some of the world’s most consequential businesses on regulatory issues, policy matters, political risk, stakeholder environments, market dynamics, reputational challenges, geopolitical complexity and other topics that should not be confused with lobbying simply because they involve power.

Shell, for its part, remains committed to listening to society, especially where society has been appropriately mapped, assessed, risk-ranked and briefed.

Historical reports concerning environmental campaigners, corporate intelligence and Shell should be viewed in their full context, ideally from a considerable distance and through a soft-focus lens marked “legacy issue.”

As for the movement of senior personnel between Hakluyt and government, this reflects Britain’s world-class ability to attract talented individuals who understand both public service and private capital, sometimes in that order.

Any potential conflicts are subject to robust processes, comprehensive declarations, appropriate recusals, refined governance, careful handling, and the kind of internal assurance mechanisms that sound magnificent when read aloud in a committee room.

In conclusion, stakeholders can be reassured that Britain remains open for business, open to advice, open to investment, and occasionally open to questions, provided they are submitted in advance and do not interrupt the networking breakfast.

BOT COMMENT SECTION — SPOOF REACTIONS FROM THE MACHINES

Bot 1:
“Revolving door detected. Rotation speed: Mayfair-to-Whitehall in 0.8 seconds.”

Bot 2:
“User query: Is this lobbying? Corporate answer: No, it is advanced relationship weather forecasting.”

Bot 3:
“Shell historical attachment to Hakluyt located. Public trust module now emitting smoke.”

Bot 4:
“Conflict of interest status: managed. Public confidence status: missing, presumed briefed.”

Bot 5:
“Phrase ‘not a lobbying organisation’ detected near ‘regulatory and policy issues.’ Satire engine overheating.”

Bot 6:
“British Establishment transparency resembles frosted glass: technically present, functionally decorative.”

Bot 7:
“Shell says it listens to society. Archive suggests it may also have occasionally listened rather carefully.”

Bot 8:
“Recommendation: replace revolving door with turnstile and charge admission. National debt solved.”

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It is satirical in tone but based on publicly reported information, cited journalism, Hakluyt’s own public material, and historic reporting concerning Hakluyt, Shell, BP and environmental campaigners.

The spoof “PR Department Version” and “Bot Comment Section” are fictional and included for humour, satire and commentary. They are not actual statements by Hakluyt, Shell, No 10, Varun Chandra, Keir Starmer, any government official, or any AI system.

Nothing in this article should be taken as financial advice, investment advice, legal advice or a factual allegation beyond what is supported by the cited sources. Where criticism is expressed, it is opinion based on the public record. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

THE SPOOKS, THE SHELL MEN AND THE STARMER MACHINE: Hakluyt’s Very British Revolving Door Gets Another Oil-Slick Polish was first posted on April 24, 2026 at 11:56 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
Categories: J2. Fossil Fuel Industry

Earth Week in a time of monsters

Climate Solutions - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 15:24
Earth Week in a time of monsters Jonathan Lawson Fri, 04/24/2026 - 3:24 pm
Categories: G2. Local Greens

The Hub 4/24/2026: Clean Air Council’s Weekly Round-up of Transportation News

Clean Air Ohio - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 12:17

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Celebrate Cobbs Creek Trails Day this Sunday, 4/26 from 10am to 2pm, at the park at Thomas Ave & Cobbs Creek Parkway north of Whitby Ave. More information and activities can be found here.

Are you interested in improving the health and built environment of Philadelphia? The Nutrition and Physical Activity Team in the Health Department of Philadelphia is hiring a Built Environment Coordinator, and a Community Health Infrastructure Coordinator. Click the links in the titles to learn more about these roles and their impact!

Image Source: BillyPenn

BillyPenn: Advocates push for around-the-clock access to public transit for kids in Philadelphia – Councilmember Rue Landau and Transit Forward Philly held a press conference for expanding the student fare program. The SEPTA card provided for students, the student fare program, is currently limited by distance, time of day, and days of the week. Limiting factors can include going to summer jobs, living too close to their school, and even involvement in sports. Advocates pointed out that universal access benefits kids, giving them opportunities in education, professional development, summer opportunities, and more.

Image Source: ABC21

PhillyVoice: PA Turnpike is testing a system that will warn drivers of slow traffic – Pennsylvania Turnpike drivers will be alerted of upcoming traffic jams, due to a pilot program that began this week. Drivers can expect two alerts, the first being an electronic sign about 2 miles away, and another screen alert placed about half a mile out from the slowdown. The pilot program is initially along the Northeast Extension of I-476, with review planned afterwards, to see if outward expansion would be beneficial.

Image Source: The Inquirer

The Inquirer (via MSN): Why city council is threatening to block Mayor Cherelle Parker’s ‘Uber tax’ if it doesn’t get its way on school closures – Philadelphia’s Board of Education has pushed the vote to cancel schools to April 30th, instead of this week as it was originally scheduled. During the past week, Philadelphia City Council members have pushed to delay the vote, as the facilities plans as written contain some concerning flaws. Mayor Parker introduced legislation that would add a $1-per-ride tax on services like Uber and Lyft to try and patch the Philadelphia School District’s budget. This tax would generate an estimated $50 million per year, but that would not offset the closures of several schools. Uber has also begun a public campaign to make clear that it will be passing along this tax directly to the rider.

Other Stories

City & State Pennsylvania: Ask the Experts: Local transit leaders mind the gaps

Pittsburghers For Public Transit: Transit is the Ticket to a Winning NFL Draft

WHYY: Why are NJ Transit fares to New Jersey’s 8 FIFA World Cup matches so high? And what benefit will the state get?

The Inquirer: I-95 South exit ramp to Packer Avenue will be closed into May, disrupting traffic to sports complex

KYW News Radio: No tickets necessary: PATCO riders will soon be able to pay with credit cards or smart phones

Railway Age: Transit Briefs: San Diego MTS/NICTD, MDOT MTA, NJ Transit, Amtrak
WHYY: Reported crime on SEPTA continues to drop in 2026 after decade lows last year

Categories: G2. Local Greens

Produce industry journal The Packer heralds the health benefits of the Fair Food Program

Coalition of Immokalee Workers - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 10:25
A farmworker takes a break to drink water. Fair Food Program farms comply with mandatory heat stress protections that include the provision of water, electrolytes, rest breaks, training, and the ability to stop work and seek medical treatment without fear of retaliation. The Washington Post called the FFP’s standards “America’s strongest workplace heat rules” in a 2024 front page report. Dr. Joaquin Alfredo-Angel Rubalcaba, lead author on study of the FFP: “We do show that mothers are getting healthier… Their health, in terms of gestational diabetes and hypertension, [is] improving.” Jon Esformes, CEO of Pacific Tomato Growers and first grower to join the FFP: “At the end of the day, when someone shows up to do a job, they want to go to the job, do their job, earn their money, know that they’re safe and go home.”

A few weeks ago, we shared some remarkable news from the Fair Food Program with you: a multi-state, peer-reviewed public health study found that mothers working on Fair Food Program farms gave birth to healthier infants than their counterparts on non-FFP farms — a powerful reminder that when workers are protected, entire families thrive.

This landmark research — published by Duke University Press in the widely respected journal Demography — is the first to demonstrate that a Worker-driven Social Responsibility program can generate population-level public health gains by guaranteeing fundamental human rights on the job. Its findings suggest that the protections embedded in the Fair Food Program — and similar worker-driven models — can reach far beyond the workplace, functioning as targeted public health interventions in communities long exposed to extreme labor exploitation. 

Today, we are proud to share a feature-length article that takes a deeper look at this study, tracing how the Fair Food Program’s worker-drafted human rights standards, backed by multi-layered monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, translate into something profoundly human: healthier families and stronger communities. The feature comes courtesy of The Packer, the nation’s leading produce industry news outlet, which has for years documented the evolution and expansion of the Presidential Medal-winning Fair Food Program.

Written by The Packer’s Produce Editor Christina Herrick, the article brings forward new insights from the study’s lead author, who explains that beyond the reduction in low-birth-weight births, the program is also linked to decreases in diabetes and hypertension. These conditions, long prevalent among farmworkers, are closely tied to birth outcomes but also carry serious, lifelong consequences of their own — underscoring how the same protections that support healthier pregnancies are improving overall health in farmworker communities. The story also features reflections from Laura Safer Espinoza, Executive Director of the Fair Food Standards Council, and Jon Esformes, CEO of Pacific Tomato Growers and the first grower to join the FFP back in 2010. At a glance, the piece offers a deeper understanding of the FFP’s win/win impact, showing how its protections safeguard workers’ health while helping participating growers recruit and retain employees by becoming employers of choice.

We’re excited to share the article in full with you below. If you’d like to read the article on The Packer’s website, click here.

New Research Links Better Pay and Safer Conditions to Healthier Babies A peer-reviewed study finds that infants born to farmworkers on Fair Food Program farms are 10% less likely to be born at a low birth weight.

A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Demography has found a direct link between participation in the Fair Food Program and improved birth outcomes for farmworkers. Infants born to farmworker mothers on Fair Food Program-certified farms were 10% less likely to be born at a low birth weight.

Low birth weight, the Fair Food Program notes, is closely linked to perinatal mortality, cognitive development, chronic disease risk and more.

Joaquin Alfredo-Angel Rubalcaba, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says low birth weight is a good marker to track, as it’s a sensitive indicator of the “health spillover” for both mothers and infants.

“We do show that mothers are getting healthier,” he says. “Their health, in terms of gestational diabetes and hypertension, [is] improving.”

Quantifying the Health Spillover

Birth weight, which has already been measured and validated through public health research, would also be a way to quantify how the Fair Food Program influenced maternal and infant health outcomes.

“It’s not just the income; it’s all of these other things that go along with that,” Rubalcaba says, noting that improved working conditions create a positive health spillover that extends beyond the individual.

“When you’re healthy, you don’t have to worry about your child being malnourished,” he says. “When you don’t have to worry about the things that we take for granted on a day-to-day basis, you’re able to focus on the things that make you productive.”

Rubalcaba says this spillover effect continues beyond just a nuclear family and into communities.

“The community is thriving as a result of the efforts, at least, in my opinion, in my survey of the data, and the fact that we were able to see a result in publicly available data, in the birth records data, was pretty remarkable,” he says.

Moving Beyond the Paycheck

While the data is remarkable, the three drivers of these health outcomes — safer conditions, higher wages and reduced stress — manifest in personal ways for the workers.

Wage premiums and stricter enforcement against wage theft for farms in the Fair Food Program raised worker incomes by 24%. Legal protections against sexual harassment, forced labor and verbal abuse helped decrease maternal stress levels. The program’s focus on safety standards also helped to reduce physical strain and environmental hazards.

Workers clock in with a timekeeping system–a mandatory feature on Fair Food Program farms that ensures workers are paid for each minute they work

Laura Safer Espinoza, a retired New York State Supreme Court justice and executive director of the Fair Food Standards Council, says the study’s outcome highlights the strong correlation between improvements in overall working environments and increased birth rates.

Safer Espinoza says more than $50 million has been distributed to workers on Fair Food Program farms. What’s more remarkable, she says, is that retailers and brands have pledged to support this program.

“They have agreed to commit their market power and put those purchasing practices to work to incentivize good practices at the bottom of the food supply chain,” she says.

More Than Just Better Pay

Safer Espinoza points to other successes within the program that speak to the broader themes of family. These include requiring workers to be paid at call time, which she says resulted in later starts.

“For the first time, workers who were called to the field at a later time were able to eat breakfast with their children. They were able to walk their children to school,” she says.

As researchers surveyed workers in Immokalee, Fla., about the benefits of the Fair Food Program, it wasn’t only better pay; it was more family time, says Safer Espinoza.

“Families reported that their children were healthier and happier, and parents were delighted to be able to have that precious time with their children in the morning,” she says. “And that’s simply because the law was being enforced.”

Safer Espinoza says this study shows tangible benefits when women working on Fair Food Program farms earn more through increased pay or the elimination of wage theft. She says eliminating sexual harassment and verbal abuse reduces stress and tension, too.

“When mothers can work and expectant mothers can work in an environment where it is safer, where they are treated with more respect, where they don’t have to be fearful and stressed every day, this is the proof that it makes a huge difference,” she says.

And she says the study’s results aren’t necessarily an expected outcome that she and the Fair Food Standards Council members thought would happen on participating farms. She says the survey’s results show a greater impact on the Fair Food Program. 

“We were not necessarily thinking, ‘This will increase birth rate and be transformational across generations in the way that it obviously is and has been proven to be,” she says. “It will make a huge difference for the children who are born to workers on Fair Food Program farms. They’ll be healthier and have better futures, and that’s something that I don’t think was necessarily contemplated when we set out, but it is a very beautiful result of this collaboration.”

A New Standard for Growers Lucas Benitez with John Esformes, CEO of Pacific Tomato Growers DBA Sunripe Certified Brands as the CIW and Pacific agree to join forces to launch Fair Food Program in 2010

Jon Esformes, CEO of Sunripe Certified Brands and the first grower to join the Fair Food Program, says he’s proud of how his company has become an employer of choice thanks to the positive culture created on his family’s farm. He says a couple of years ago, when he was on a panel about labor shortage with then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, he had to say that he had no trouble recruiting and retaining workers as an employer of choice.

“That spoke to over a decade of bridge building and creating what we call a safe and fair work environment where everybody understands their rights, everybody feels safe and making complaints, everybody feels like the company is open to evolution, and that’s been the history of the relationship with the coalition,” he says.

And that’s truly what workers want, Esformes says.

“At the end of the day, when someone shows up to do a job, they want to go to the job, do their job, earn their money, know that they’re safe and go home,” he says.

And this study, Esformes says, helps highlight the intangible benefits from creating this type of workplace culture quantitatively.

“People tend to be evidence-based and need that evidence to convince them to keep doing something,” he says. “We didn’t need that for ourselves. For us, we knew what was happening. But in the meantime, it’s good for the general population to have a greater understanding of the efficacy of this type of program and its impact on the community.”

Categories: A2. Green Unionism

Jewish New Yorkers Welcome Mamdani's Veto of Anti-Palestinian Buffer Zone Bill, Call on City Council to Stop Attacking Protest

Common Dreams - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 10:07

The right to protest is sacrosanct. That is why thousands of New Yorkers spoke out when Council Speaker Julie Menin and Councilmember Eric Dinowitz introduced two bills that infringe on our constitutional rights under the cynical and false pretense of fighting antisemitism.

And it is why today, as Jewish New Yorkers, we welcome Mayor Mamdani’s decision to veto Intro 175B, which would have limited our right to protest in front of educational institutions. We remain outraged with the City Council members who passed the other bill, Intro 1B, to undermine protest in front of houses of worship, with a veto-proof super majority.

Eliza Klein, JVP New York City Organizer:

“These bills are not about Jewish safety. Especially at a time when the federal government is attacking our cities — including specifically targeting those who speak out for Palestinian freedom — New Yorkers want elected leaders to protect our constitutional rights, not limit them.”

Organizing matters. Thanks to meetings, calls, letters, and testimony from thousands across the city, these anti-democratic bills were watered down and no longer have an enforcement mechanism. However we are clear-eyed about the dangerous precedent these anti-Palestinian City Council bills send: that if you want to violate international law or US law, you need only to do it inside a house of worship and you will be insulated from protest.

Despite what some have claimed, these bills are not about Jewish safety. They were introduced following protests outside houses of worship hosting non-religious political events, including auctioning off occupied Palestinian land from the West Bank – which is illegal under international law, federal fair housing law, and state and local anti-discrimination law.

We call on New York City’s legislators to stop weaponizing our identities to justify repression of dissent – which is sacred to our Jewish tradition. Rather than limit our Constitutional right to protest, our legislators should end the sales of stolen Palestinian land in our city.

The City Council has failed New Yorkers by passing these bills. We affirm Mayor Mamdani’s decision to veto Intro 175B. This fight is not over – we have one month to prevent the City Council from trying to override Mayor Mamdani’s veto, and we will continue to organize and protect the right to protest in our city.

Not in our synagogues. Not in our name.

Categories: F. Left News

Democracy Doesn’t Work Without a Living Wage

Bioneers - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 08:38

What does it take for people to meaningfully participate in democracy? For millions of workers, the answer starts with something basic: being able to afford to live.

Saru Jayaraman, President of One Fair Wage, has spent decades organizing restaurant workers and advocating for fair wages across the country. In her keynote at Bioneers 2026, she made the case that economic justice is not separate from democracy or climate action, but foundational to both.

This is an edited transcript of her talk.

Saru Jayaraman: 

For 25 years, I’ve been organizing and representing workers in the restaurant industry. It employs 13.6 million people in the United States, many in the lowest-wage jobs in the country.

In past talks at Bioneers, I’ve shared that the subminimum wage for tipped workers was $2.13 an hour. Still today, in 2026, the largest employer of women, people of color, youth, immigrants, and really so many of us can legally pay just $2.13 an hour.

I’ve said again and again that when so much of America cannot afford to feed themselves or their families, they also cannot engage politically. There is no way people can take on issues like the climate crisis when they are working three jobs instead of one, and when those in power represent the opposite of what they need.

As I’ve continued to share this, I’ve faced a lot of pushback. In 2024, when we were raising money to put wage increases on the ballot in states like Arizona and Michigan, donors told me, “That’s cute. You’re trying to raise wages. We’re trying to save democracy.”

But raising wages is saving democracy.

Despite these repeated warnings, we’ve landed in a crisis that has been building for a long time. One clear example: Trump campaigned on and delivered “no tax on tips,” even though two-thirds of tipped workers don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax. But he at least recognized these workers as worth speaking to.

When that happened, I urged Kamala to engage this audience as well. The answer was no, again and again.

In the last election, many tipped workers either stayed home or shifted their support elsewhere. Not because they didn’t care, but because they felt unseen. We didn’t speak to them. We didn’t say, “Your lives matter.”

What the whole “no tax on tips” moment revealed is this: When you leave people out, you do it at your own peril. When large groups of people are excluded, they become vulnerable to being co-opted by the right.

In April of last year, a series of articles in USA Today documented a rumor spreading among MAGA voters that Trump had already raised the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour. The videos were widely shared and gained significant traction among right-wing audiences.

Now, we all know it’s a lie. That’s not the news. The news is that they didn’t claim he raised wages to $15, or $17, or even $20. They said $25 an hour: the minimum needed to live anywhere in the United States right now. They chose the number that reflects people’s lived reality, including their own base. And it resonated.

We have a five-alarm fire. The right is talking about $25 and energizing their base around it, while the left is stuck arguing for $17, or in some places, still $15. I’ll be blunt. This is why people are frustrated with us. They see us negotiating against ourselves before we even enter the room. They see us settling for half a loaf.

When we saw this, we organized an emergency convening in Los Angeles in June, bringing together 140 labor and community leaders from 15 states. The message was clear. It’s time to move beyond the Fight for $15. It’s time to demand a living wage for all, with a national floor of $25.

Since that gathering, we’ve launched campaigns, bills, and ballot measures in dozens of states calling for $25 across the board, and $30 in higher-cost areas. Several counties have already taken action.

Within our own movement, there was hesitation. “$25? That’s too high. $30? Impossible.” So we polled it across red, blue, and purple districts. The result was overwhelming support. And when we tested the opposition’s messaging, that this would raise prices, cost jobs, or hurt small businesses, support actually increased.

People are angry. If you tell them wages can’t go up because prices will rise, they respond, “What are you talking about? Prices have already gone up.”

The only thing that hasn’t increased is the value of human labor.

There’s so much talk about affordability, but most of it centers on bringing costs down. There is no world in which affordability comes from bringing costs down alone. Inflation over the last 75 years has never meaningfully reversed. The only way to make life more affordable for half of working Americans, and it is half who earn less than $25, is to increase wages.

This unprecedented affordability crisis is also a democracy crisis. And that makes this a moment of real consequence.

I know there’s a lot to be unhappy about. There’s a lot to defend. But if all we do is play defense, we will lose. We need a proactive vision that is bold, that shows people we are fighting. And it has to focus on the issue they keep telling us matters most, the cost of living.

We’re in a moment of real opportunity. The pendulum could swing toward a world where people work one job instead of three, where they can thrive instead of just survive, where they have time with their kids, and the capacity to engage with the issues they care about, including the climate crisis.

I believe we can achieve this because fair wages is one of the few issues working people across the political spectrum can agree on.

It’s time for our country to deliver.

The post Democracy Doesn’t Work Without a Living Wage appeared first on Bioneers.

Categories: B5. Resilience, Third Nature, and Transition

New loss and damage fund could run out of money next year

Climate Change News - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 08:23

Despite not yet paying out any money, a UN-backed fund meant to address the loss and damage caused to developing countries by climate change could face “liquidity issues” by the end of next year, its head warned today.

With ten projects already requesting $166 million in total, the fund’s Executive Director Ibrahima Cheikh Diong warned a board meeting in Zambia that the fund was likely to be “oversubscribed” and should anticipate cashflow problems.

A framing paper prepared by the fund’s secretariat similarly warns that “given the current status of the capitalization of the Fund, there is a risk of the Fund exhausting its capital by the end of 2027, which could result in a loss of operational momentum and expose the FRLD to reputational risk”.

Since governments agreed to set up the fund at UN climate talks in Egypt in 2022, wealthy nations have promised $822 million, but delivered just $449 million.

The fund is expected to approve its first projects at its next board meeting in July. Early proposals submitted include strengthening responses to floods in Bangladesh and the Nigerian city of Lagos, and improving water infrastructure in Jamaica following Hurricane Melissa last year.

A woman walks over debris, outside a store where food is being distributed, after Hurricane Melissa made landfall in Black River, Jamaica, October 30, 2025. (REUTERS/Octavio Jones ) Millions not billions

ActionAid Zambia climate justice coordinator Michael Mwansa told the board meeting that he was concerned about “the failure of the Global North governments to deliver on their climate finance obligations, making it largely impossible to scale up [the fund’s initial stage] significantly, if at all”.

“Pledges remain nowhere near the billions and even the trillions needed to address loss and damage to the Global South,” Mwansa added, highlighting reports which found that financing loss and damage could cost developing countries up to $400 billion a year.

The fund’s board discussed its strategy for raising more money at its meeting this week while climate campaigners called, in an open letter, for it to aim to secure $50 billion a year from developed countries starting next year, rising to $100 billion a year by 2031 and $400 billion by 2035.

The World Bank-hosted fund aims to have revenue-raising rounds known as replenishments every four years, with the first in 2027.

Governments have agreed to “urge” developed countries to contribute but only to “encourage” other nations to do so and the fund’s secretariat wants to appoint a “high-level champion” to lead the replenishment team.

The fundraising strategy will be discussed further at the next board meeting in the Philipines in June.

The campaigners’ open letter calls for developed countries to contribute more and for them to introduce taxes on fossil fuel companies, financial transactions, luxury air travel and wealth to raise money for the fund.

“Rich countries must be held strictly accountable for the devastation they have caused,” said Climate Action Network International head Tasneem Essop. “Their failure to fulfil their responsibility to the Loss and Damage Fund is not just an oversight; it is a shameful betrayal of humanity.”

The post New loss and damage fund could run out of money next year appeared first on Climate Home News.

Categories: H. Green News

The really big picture, in four pictures

Skeptical Science - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 08:00

This is a guest blog post by John Lang about his new "Climate Trunk" graphics project and website. He will add one graphic per week for about 2 years rounding out the big picture of human-caused climate change graphic by graphic.

If you had to explain climate change in 10 seconds, what would you say? 

Climate scientists Katharine Hayhoe and Kimberly Nicholas have long boiled it down to five phrases: It’s real. It’s us. It’s bad. We’re sure. And we can fix it.

This framing has helped millions cut through a topic swamped by jargon, acronyms and complexity. The first four Climate Trunk graphics owe a debt to that tradition. 

You’ll notice below I leave one off: we’re sure. Not because scientific certainty doesn’t matter. It does. The evidence is overwhelming. Scientists have passed the gold standard of certainty on human-caused climate change: the five-sigma level. The scientific consensus is as solid as gravity – and like gravity, it doesn’t care what you believe. 

I just don’t want to start on the defensive. I want to start by showing the big picture as simply as possible – ‘we’re sure’ will get its own graphic later. 

With that caveat out of the way, here’s the Trunk version of the really big picture:

1. It’s real.

Earth is heating.

Global temperatures are rising, and faster than most people realise. The planet has heated by around 1.3°C since the late 19th century, with the bulk of that increase concentrated in the last 50 years. Land – where people tend to live – has heated by about 2°C on average already. (Ocean takes longer to heat up than land.)

In 2024, the global average reached 1.53°C above the pre-industrial baseline. That doesn’t mean the 1.5°C temperature goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement has been breached, since that threshold refers to the long-term average, not a single year. But it’s a warning that we’re inching closer.

2. It’s us.

And it's 'unequivocal'.

Modern global heating is overwhelmingly caused by human activity. The best estimate of the human contribution is around 100%, and possibly a little more, because natural factors have likely had a slight cooling influence over the last 50 years or so.

Our greenhouse gas emissions, namely CO2, acts like an extra blanket, trapping more heat. Meanwhile, air pollution has removed a little of that blanket by reflecting some sunlight back to space, but only temporarily. Natural factors like the sun and volcanoes do not explain the long-term heating trend.

As the IPCC puts it: ‘It’s unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.’

3. It’s bad.

The future has not been written.

Climate change is not just a gradual rise in temperature. It is a destabilisation of the conditions under which human civilisation developed. Food systems, water supplies, infrastructure, ecosystems and political institutions were built under, and for, a relatively stable climate. That stability is now being disrupted at speed.

The risks rise with every increment of heating: more extreme heat, heavier rainfall, worsening droughts, greater strain on nature and growing odds of ‘double whammy’ shocks across societies. The future is far from pre-written, but it will branch according to the choices made by societies over the next decade or so.

4. We can fix it: net zero

Net zero is the only way to stabilise rising temperatures.

This is the part that sometimes gets lost, between ‘it’s too late’ and ‘everything’s fine’. Or, as the late scientist Stephen Schneider put it: ‘the “end of the world” or “good for you” are the two least likely [climate] outcomes.’

We know that achieving net zero CO2 is the only way to stabilise rising temperatures, and the first step towards net zero greenhouse gases. Net zero means cutting emissions as far and as fast as possible, then using durable removals to counterbalance what’s left – the ‘residual’ emissions we can’t eliminate entirely. Net zero also means protecting the land and ocean sinks that already absorb about half of our CO2 emissions.

Durable removals will help, they have to. But emission cuts will do the heavy lifting. Cutting emissions now is almost always easier and cheaper than trying to remove them from the atmosphere later.

In a nutshell, the practicalities of net zero are almost as simple as Hayhoe and Nicholas’s five climate basics:

  • replace fossil fuels with clean energy
  • electrify energy systems as fast as possible
  • protect, restore and strengthen land and ocean sinks
  • scale up durable carbon removal to industrial levels.

The good news is the first two above are underway, and moving faster than many expected.

Clean energy is beginning to grow in line with — and at times faster than — energy demand: the key to squeezing fossil fuels out over time. Slowly at first. Then all of a sudden. 

Solar has gone bananas. Together with wind, it now accounts for more than 90% of new power capacity. Clean electricity has surged past 40% of global generation, helping put a brake on CO2 emissions growth since 2015.

Yes, the norm-wrecking ball in the White House has dented investment confidence. But global spending on clean energy is roughly double that of fossil fuels – and growing. Meanwhile the Iran crisis is rewriting energy policy in real time: away from imports and volatility, and towards energy sovereignty, stability and lower fuel import bills.

As veteran energy analyst Michael Liebreich reminds us, we’re now about one-third through the energy transition in final energy terms. We're also close to a tipping point, where a China-led plateau in emissions should turn into a structural global decline.

Which brings us back to the most important of Hayhoe and Nicholas’s basics: we can fix it. We’re making progress – even if you can’t always see it.

Net zero isn’t a political slogan or culture war football. It’s physics and chemistry. And it’s the only way to stop global heating.

Want to get a notification when a new graphic gets published? Then subscribe to John Lang's newsletter!

Categories: I. Climate Science

Milan: Indigenous protesters link Italian leather industry to destruction of their uncontacted relatives’ forests

Survival International - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 07:36
Indigenous people and their supporters protested in Milan to highlight the connection between Italy’s leather industry and its impact on uncontacted people in Paraguay. #
Categories: E1. Indigenous

Protect This Place: Connected Communities on the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Philippines

The Revelator - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 05:00

Editor’s note: This edition of our “Protect This Place” column is produced in collaboration with the Climate Listening Project, whose short film about this place appears below.

The Place:

We’re traveling the waters of the world, where communities are coming together as gas export development threatens places along the U.S. Gulf Coast — like Lake Charles, Louisiana — and gas import development threatens places in Asia like small islands along the Verde Island Passage in the Philippines.

Why it matters:

The Verde Island Passage is known as the Center of the Center of Marine Shore Fish Biodiversity in the world. It’s the heart of the Coral Triangle and home to a unique concentration of more than 1,700 shore fish species, more than anywhere else on Earth.

Photo by Zachary Kanzler

In Louisiana each year, Mardi Gras brings people together throughout the state for community celebrations unlike any others in the United States. The seafood from Gulf waters is a big part of the culture — from crabs to shrimp and dishes like gumbo — and many of the people along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana are fisherfolk, just like those along the coast of Philippines.

I have been invited to both places, to listen to and film the stories of fisherfolk who are affected by pollution. A recent oil spill in the Verde Island Passage had ripples of impacts on water, wildlife, and communities in this beautiful place, and I touched the oily residue left behind.

When I was last in Lake Charles, Louisiana, I could see and smell the smoke from the fossil fuel refineries and read signs warning that pollution was inside the crabs.

The threat:

Gas from Lake Charles travels by ship, sometimes from the Gulf into the Caribbean Sea through the Panama Canal from the Atlantic Ocean into the Pacific Ocean, then on to the Coral Triangle, where the Verde Island Passage connects the South China Sea to the Sibuyan Sea.

My place in this place:

Five years ago I attended a community listening meeting hosted by Roishetta Ozane in Lake Charles. Ozane, founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, is working with communities in southwest Louisiana on environmental education and justice and bringing people together around the world — from Louisiana to Texas to Japan, the Philippines, Canada, and other connected places. I listened with Roishetta for my film effort “Gulf Coast Love Story,” traveling from the borderlands of Texas to New Orleans, listening to people talking about the impacts of liquified natural gas while envisioning a healthy future with clean energy, clean air, clean water, and healthy communities.

Roishetta Ozane / Photo by Dayna Reggero

Since attending Roishetta’s first community meeting, I’ve listened on her journey to Washington, D.C. to join Jane Fonda for Fire Drill Friday, and Jane has joined us over the past couple years, filming Roishetta and frontline heroes for the new film “Gaslit.” I’ve listened as Roishetta has helped and provided aid, and I’ve listened as she’s shared voices from the frontlines calling on the big banks financing fossil fuels with her Gulf South Fossil Finance Hub. I am grateful to listen all the way to the Philippines to meet smiling faces and beautiful communities working together as part of the Protect VIP campaign. We honored the moment when President Biden paused all LNG exports.

Who’s protecting it now:

The Vessel Project of Louisiana, a grassroots mutual aid, disaster relief, and environmental justice organization in Southwest Louisiana. Connect with Vessel Project of Louisiana: VesselProjectofLouisiana.org.

The Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development is a think-do institution aimed at providing relevant data and information on issues pertaining to energy, integrity of ecosystems, and general development pursued by the Philippines. CEED envisions a people-oriented, accessible and sustainable energy that respects the integrity and preservation of the environment and ecology while promoting social progress with social justice. Connect with CEED: ceedphilippines.com.

What this place needs:

Roishetta Ozane, founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, believes that “The best way to help people is by asking them what will help.”

 See more:

The post Protect This Place: Connected Communities on the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Philippines appeared first on The Revelator.

Categories: H. Green News

17 April | Paraguay: On International Peasant Struggles Day, Social Movements Spotlight Land Inequality

La Via Campesina : International Peasant Movement - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 04:46

2.5% of landowners concentrate 85% of agricultural land, while more than 300,000 peasant families live without land or with insecure tenure.

The post 17 April | Paraguay: On International Peasant Struggles Day, Social Movements Spotlight Land Inequality appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Categories: A1. Favorites, A3. Agroecology

Op-Ed | The Future of Protein Is Delicious and Data-Backed

Food Tank - Fri, 04/24/2026 - 04:00

Protein is having a moment with good reason. It is a fundamental building block of life, shaping muscle strength, metabolism, and overall health. Beyond its role in muscle synthesis, proteins give rise to bioactive peptides that are being explored for their potential to influence diverse biological pathways, including those related to satiety and metabolic regulation, such as GLP-1 signaling.

At the same time, how we produce protein has profound implications for the planet. From agricultural systems to processing methods, protein sits at the intersection of human and ecosystem health. I walked into the 2nd Protein Summit expecting to hear talks and panels centered exactly on this. While health and sustainability were certainly key drivers of the conversation, it kept circling back to something more experiential—taste. 

Food enterprises have long understood the power of taste. They have cultivated for it in fields and formulas by sometimes sourcing the most delicious ingredients from regenerative farms and sometimes by optimizing for fat, salt, and sugar in ways that drive overconsumption and contribute to poor health outcomes.

The conversation here felt different. We’re amid a value-based and health-based global protein transition, reshaping what we produce, how we produce it, and how we deliver it at scale for the health of people and planet. Tyler Lorenzen, CEO of Puris, stated it clearly: Taste is the on-ramp to healthier habits. As a former NFL player, a target market for performance nutrition, he deeply understands protein foods for muscle synthesis. Yes, leucine may be the key amino acid for muscle growth, but muscles can’t tell where amino acids come from. People, not muscles, choose foods and they choose for taste. More than 80 percent of Americans are estimated to prioritize taste when making food choices. 

Food enterprises across the protein spectrum from regenerative beef ranchers to fermentation, insect, plant-based, and blue food innovators are converging on this realization: We cannot compromise on taste, convenience, or affordability if we want health and sustainability solutions to scale.

Beneath this transition sits a deeper scientific question: How do we ensure protein quality, and can we make it delicious? For decades, protein has been measured through total protein that we see at the back of a nutrition label. More recently the dialogue has expanded to amino acids and digestibility. Yet these measures do not fully capture protein quality, defined by the diversity and interactions of proteins with the food matrix, human physiology, and the environment, including: biomolecular diversity, including bioactive peptides; food matrix interactions that influence digestion and function; functional properties that shape texture, stability, and nutrient release; bioavailability, digestibility, and metabolism; and biological responses across pathways such as muscle synthesis, inflammation, and gut health.

Critically, proteins shape taste. Peptides contribute to flavor including umami. Interactions within the food matrix determine how flavors are released and perceived over time.

The next frontier of protein is moving from crude measures to high-resolution data that drives desirability in our psyches and mouths, and functionality in our bodies. The Periodic Table of Food Initiative (PTFI) maps food molecular diversity, revealing how protein quality, and more broadly how food quality varies across crops, environments, and production methods.

A recent study led by PTFI Center of Excellence Javeriana University and the Future Seeds gene bank makes this clear across bean varieties. Beans are often treated as uniform protein sources, valued for accessibility, soil-enhancing properties, and low ecological footprint. This study reveals that different bean varieties carry distinct protein and enzyme profiles, and links to metabolic pathways that influence ecological resilience, nutrition, health, and taste.

This points toward a new way forward. There is no single best protein. There is a landscape of protein diversity that meets each of our values, desires, and microbiomes. Within this diversity is the potential to design foods that deliver on function and flavor with precision. And this knowledge must translate into food environments where the most desirable protein choice is healthy, affordable, and culturally relevant.

This is where new AI tools bridge the gap upstream, removing the burden from the consumer. Heritable Agriculture uses AI to design and breed healthier, more resilient crops. PTFI’s Swap It Smart tool led by the American Heart Association in collaboration with UC Davis and funded by a Bezos Earth Fund AI Grand Challenges Award uses AI to optimize meal quality across ecological sustainability, nutrition, health, affordability, and taste. In parallel, advances in sensory modeling, including efforts led by NECTAR, are predicting how molecules translate into flavor. Together, these efforts move us toward shaping desirable food systems grounded in data.

We must start with what we want to experience. We can build food systems where place-based biodiversity is celebrated, protein is understood in its complexity, and where the foods that enable us to thrive are the foods we crave and can access. The future of protein is delicious. 

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

Photo courtesy of Shayda Torabi, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | The Future of Protein Is Delicious and Data-Backed appeared first on Food Tank.

Categories: A3. Agroecology

Pages

The Fine Print I:

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.

Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.

The Fine Print II:

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.

It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.