Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Some of Britain’s biggest banks are under fire for relying on a flawed net zero study that could have influenced which companies they lend to.
Lenders used research that exaggerated the impact of climate change
Some of Britain’s biggest banks are under fire for relying on a flawed net zero study that could have influenced which companies they lend to. The Telegraph has the story.
Lloyds, NatWest and HSBC are among the lenders to have used research that exaggerated the impact of climate change on businesses and the global economy.
The revelation comes after the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), which publishes environmental guidance for banks, warned that some of its analysis was based on an inaccurate paper that was recently retracted.
Lloyds, NatWest and HSBC have all confirmed that they used the NGFS research, with some bankers accessing it to scrutinise the sectors most exposed to the net zero transition.
However, the Bank of England said last year that banks were increasingly using climate forecasts to determine which businesses they lend money to.
This was partially down to bosses seeking to align with net zero, the Bank added.
A research paper from the United Nations in 2020, drawn up in collaboration with Lloyds and 38 other banks, also said the impacts of climate change should be considered when lending to companies.
Following the controversy, Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said: “This just highlights the risk of banks straying from their core job of lending into green ‘wokery’ which they barely understand and rely too much on others.
“Whilst too many have been willing participants, we now need a bonfire of the various regulations on climate.”
Details of the flawed study, which originated from a paper by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, came to light earlier this month.
The paper predicted that climate change would cost $38tn (£28tn) a year by 2049, while also warning that global economic output risked plunging by 62pc by 2100 if carbon emissions continued to rise unabated.
The NGFS first sounded the alarm over the research this summer, which it used to help produce estimates of the long-term economic risks of climate change.
The paper was then retracted this month, and the NGFS has said it will change the way it assesses the impacts of climate change by the end of next year.
Global green planners back in the 1990s were euphoric that somehow, someway, the world had embarked on an irreversible course of climate control (and thus industrial and land-use control). But the Kyoto Protocol predictably failed, and with the Paris climate accord of 2015 teetering (COP30), the momentum has shifted toward climate and energy realism.
Ed. Note: A Hall of Shame business memo turns 28 years old today. Dated December 12, 1997, it was written by Enron lobbyist John Palmisano in the afterglow of the Kyoto Protocol agreement.
“This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!” (-John Palmisano, Enron lobbyist)
Global green planners back in the 1990s were euphoric that somehow, someway, the world had embarked on an irreversible course of climate control (and thus industrial and land-use control). But the Kyoto Protocol predictably failed, and with the Paris climate accord of 2015 teetering (COP30), the momentum has shifted toward climate and energy realism.
The Washington Post broke the memo soon after Enron’s demise, showing how Enron was hardly a free-market, capitalistic company in “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” subtitled “Chairman Pushed Firm’s Agenda with Clinton White House” (also see here). Indeed, Enron was “the company most responsible for sparking off the greenhouse civil war in the hydrocarbon business,” as told by Jeremy Leggett in The Carbon War (Penguin: 1999), p. 204.
The Kyoto Protocol is far past its expiration date of 2008–2012 (see here and here). But Palmisano’s memo, a classic in the history of political capitalism, lives on.
——————————
To: Terry Thorn, Joe Hillings, Cynthia Sandherr, Jeff Keeler, Fiona Grant, Hap Boyd, Bill Shoff, Dan Badger, Tom Kearney, Lynda Clemmons, Bruce Stram, Mike Terraso, Rob Bradley, Jim O’Neill, John Hardy
From: John Palmisano
Date: December 12, 1997
Subject: Implications of the green’ Enron in Kyoto & What Transpired
This memo summarizes the implications of the agreement reached in Kyoto and also describes what I was doing and provides some observations.
Implications
If implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous. In addition, a carbon emissions trading system will be developed. While the trading system will be implemented by 2008, I am sure that reductions will begin to trade with 1-2 years. Finally, Enron has immediate business opportunities which derive directly from this agreement.
On the policy-front: There will be a great number of country-specific and international meetings related to every aspect of this agreement. I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of the agreement.
Three issues of specific importance to Enron are: (1) the rules governing emissions trading, (2) the rules governing joint implementation within Annex-1, and (3) the rules governing the proposed clean energy fund (which promises to dwarf the GEF as a fund for wind, solar, and power plant conversions.)
On the business front: During the next year there will be intense positioning of organizations to capture an early lead in a variety of carbon trading businesses.
The endorsement of joint implementation within Annex-1 is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won.
The clean development will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again, we won. (We need to push for natural gas firing to be included among the technologies that get preferential treatment from the fund.)
The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.
Highlights of the Agreement
38 developed countries are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to or below 1990 levels by 2012.
The U.S. reduction objective is 7%, the European Union is 8%, and Japan is 6%; therefore, it is not possible (or at least credible) that Congress can say the United States is at a comparative disadvantage vis-à-vis its main trading partners or competitors since the EU and Japan have higher control targets and are more “carbon-lean” than are we.
Six gases are included (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6).
Emissions trading is included. Details of an international system are to be worked out in 1998.
A “clean development fund” is included. The fund would allow for emission offsets from projects in developing countries.
Joint implementation for Annex-1, developed countries and the transitional economies, is included. This means that Enron projects in Russia, Bulgaria, Romania or other eastern countries can be monetized, in part, by capturing carbon reductions for sale back in the US or other Western countries.
While I do not have the final version of the agreement, I do have the first and second versions. The latest version is not on the world-wide web.
What I Was Involved In
I gave three speeches and received an award on behalf of Enron. The speeches dealt with emissions trading, energy efficiency/renewable, and the role of business in promoting clean energy outcomes. The award came from the Climate Institute and was for Ken Lay and Enron for our work promoting clean-energy solutions to climate change. The other recipients were Sven Auken, MP and Minister for Energy and Environment in Denmark, and MP and former Environment Minister for the UK, John Gummer.
I have met Gummer and Auken several times before and it was nice for them to hear Enron praised so much. (I gave a speech with Gummer last Saturday and it was the third time we have been on the podium together. He is someone who still retains considerable influence in the UK and Europe and someone Enron might want to cultivate.)
I was also involved in a press conference.
Observations
I believe that it will be impossible to separate electricity restructuring from climate change as a domestic political issue. The administration has signaled its view that the two issues are intertwined.
At yesterday’s White House press conference, this connection was underlined by the comments from Tom Kasten, President of Trigen Corporation who spoke in favor of the climate change agreement and its linkage to restructuring. His remarks had to be cleared by the White House.
These remarks are entirely consistent with every other signal from the Administration’s climate change team.
Through our involvement with the climate change initiatives, Enron now has excellent credentials with many “green” interests including Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, GermanWatch, the US Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI, and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized).
(Parenthetically, I heard many times people refer to Enron in glowing terms. Such praise went like this: “Other companies should be like Enron, seeking out 21st century business opportunities” or “Progressive companies like Enron are….” Or “Proof of the viability of market-based energy and environmental programs is Enron’s success in power and SO2 trading.”)
Developing countries have acquired substantial negotiating power. The shift in negotiating power to India, Brazil, China, and the G-77 has been gradual and pronounced.
The EU negotiated as a group. Until two years ago, they negotiated as individual countries. While there are still individual country interests, the EU retains substantial power when working together. It was this cohesiveness that lead to a more stringent agreement.
EU delegates asked for my input into the agreement to oppose some of the positions espoused by some US delegates. In particular, the US was advocating no rules governing the trading of carbon emissions because rules would “inhibit trading.” My position is that rules defining who owns what reductions, how reductions are traded, how they are tracked, and liability rules will help promote trading since rules give both buyers and sellers more confidence in the commodity.
While some companies and trade associations continue to criticize developing countries for not doing more, no company wants to be specific on this issue. To the extent any company does, they will hide under the shield of a trade association. I think that shield will soon be pierced. I believe that some companies will soon break from the line that developing countries should do more. It is a weak position in terms of equity and suicidal in terms of their commercial interests in these countries.
An increasingly ugly trend has become evident to the environmental NGO community and the delegates from developing countries. They see the argument about developing country participation as a thinly disguised recycling of the early twentieth century fear-mongering characterized by the so-called “yellow-peril” or invasion of the US by Asian peoples.
The developing country delegates see the argument of the carbon lobby that the US will lose markets to developing countries as empty and racist—they see energy-intensive imports to the US coming from Japan and Germany in terms of automobiles (and these are high cost energy areas), while economic growth in developing countries is fueled by local growth or Western industries requiring low cost of labor, low cost for land, or permitting flexibility for new plants.
Enron should not participate in any argument like this because it hurts our credibility with developing countries, NGOs, and developed country governments.
I should have a copy of the agreement today.
The next year will be very intensive because the structure of the agreement exists, business opportunities are being defined, the rules governing emissions trading will be developed, and identifying, financing, and managing JI projects will be important.
One final point, Terry, if you remember, I predicted an agreement that would yield a 5% reduction by 2010; we got 7% by 2012. I now predict ratification within 3 years. I predict business opportunities within 18 months. I predict this agreement will have very significant influences on the energy sector within OECD and transitional economies and will accelerate renewable markets in developing countries.
At the December 1, 2025, State Energy Planning (SEP) Board meeting there were presentations that gave overwhelming evidence that implementing the Climate Act as presently written will be unaffordable and the 2030 CLCPA 40% emission reduction target and 70% renewable energy in the electric system mandate will not be achieved.
Francis Menton and I have been publishing articles about the futility of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) for years and recently have been collaborating in several proceedings trying to make our case that the law needs to be reconsidered. In the past few months there have been under-publicized findings by State agencies that support our case.
At the December 1, 2025, State Energy Planning (SEP) Board meeting there were presentations that gave overwhelming evidence that implementing the Climate Act as presently written will be unaffordable and the 2030 CLCPA 40% emission reduction target and 70% renewable energy in the electric system mandate will not be achieved. I think that if this information gets widespread coverage there will be a public outcry that may force the Governor and the Legislature to consider changes to the law. I prepared a press release that I distributed to various New York press outlets describing these results. This is a summary of a long, detailed post on my blog that documents the points made in the press release.
Recent Court Decision
On Oct. 24, 2025, there was an Albany County New York Supreme Court decision ordering the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to issue final Climate Act implementing regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act 2030 GHG reduction mandate schedule changed. During the legal proceeding the State Attorney General submitted a letter that argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”. The Judge acknowledged that this argument was relevant but ruled that DEC must promulgate regulations implementing a law even if they have persuasive arguments that it is inappropriate. The Hochul Administration and DEC appealed the decision on November 25, 2025 claiming that “it is impossible for the Department to simultaneously comply with both the Court’s order and its substantive statutory obligations.” I think this just postponed the inevitable reckoning that the schedule in the law must be changed.
State Energy Plan
The New York State Energy Plan is a “comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”. I have provided background information and a list of relevant articles on my Energy Plan page. The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) released the Draft Energy Plan last summer. Stakeholder comments were accepted until early October. The Energy Planning Board has the responsibility to approve the document. The meeting on December 1 presented results from additional analyses that made the case for reconsideration stronger than the work Menton and I have been doing.
Energy Affordability
An article on the Energy Affordability presentation at the meeting documents the future energy cost methodology. The Pathways Analysis considered eleven different household profiles based on income level, primary household fuel, and location. The Upstate (north of the immediate New York City suburbs) moderate income (incomes between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income) household using natural gas profile was used as an example.
I extracted information from two slides presented at the meeting that described projections for four future energy scenarios or “journeys”. Those scenarios are:
Fossil fueled heating and transportation with average existing equipment.
Conventional Replacement: Fossil fueled heating and transportation with new, more efficient equipment
Moderate Efficient Electrification: Some electrification of heating and transportation, with basic building envelope efficiency measures
High Efficient Electrification: More electrification of heating and transportation, with basic or medium building envelope efficiency measures, and efficient electric appliances
In the following slide, three projected “household journeys” for 2031 reduce monthly energy expenditures relative to the current starting point. However, buried at the bottom of the page is the notation that these values are “Average monthly expenditures. Does not include equipment costs”.
The total energy costs for this household profile are currently $506 per month, assuming no capital costs. If a household with average equipment efficiencies was upgraded to use more efficient equipment monthly costs go down to $361 because of efficiency savings. The moderate efficient electrification scenario projects monthly costs would be reduced to $404 and if the household purchases equipment necessary to achieve the Climate Act targets the efficiency savings bring the cost down to $336 per month. Results for two other household profiles were also presented at the meeting. However, there is a huge caveat. Those costs do not include the cost of capital for equipment costs.
The presentation and the supporting data annexes only provide the equipment costs for this profile. For this household profile the monthly levelized capital costs for new equipment more than doubles the monthly energy costs for all three scenarios that replace all equipment. Undoubtedly some of this increase is related to the assumption that there are no monthly payments for existing cars or household appliances. Nonetheless, that point alone suggests that there is an impending energy crisis in New York.
Relative to Climate Act implementation, the cost to comply equals the expected monthly energy cost increase difference between the conventional replacement scenario and the highly efficient replacement scenario.
The literal and figurative money quote is that the total replacement cost is estimated to be $593 a month in 2031, which is a 43% more than the cost for conventional equipment.
In case you are wondering how NYSERDA spun these costs it was a classic case of misdirection. The presentation admitted that the key driver of change over the next five years is “change in energy price”. Not shown in the first slide is the starting point in 2026 which was $488 per month. The modeling shows that household energy spending 3% to 8% on average to $506 per month but could go up to as much as 14% to 19% even if they do nothing. That would increase costs up to $587 a month
I prepared an annotated transcript for the energy affordability presentation that includes internal links to headings for questions. Under the link to Chair Harris was this exchange:
NYSERDA Chair Doreen Harris: “And then, James, maybe to kind of take those percentages in context, was it in that higher price sensitivity, a household that did nothing could see as much as one hundred dollars a month increased costs. Is that about right?
James Wilcox, NYSERDA staff: “Yeah. That’s correct.”
NYSERDA Chair Doreen Harris: “So there’s a substantial increase with these energy prices for folks who don’t take any action. Thank you. That is what I was trying to elicit: What does doing nothing get you?
To summarize the misdirection, the Chair of the Energy Planning Board was trying to elicit a specific point from her staff that there will be a “substantial increase” in energy prices even if people don’t take any action. Left unsaid was that her “substantial increase” is at most 17% but the equipment costs to comply with the Climate Act are an increase of 2.9 times relative to doing nothing whereas replacement equipment increases cost 1.7 times. You cannot make this stuff up.
Implementation Timing
I summarized my initial thoughts about the Pathways Analysis presentation at the December SEP Planning Board meeting. The presentation found that neither the CLCPA 40% GHG emission reduction target nor the electric system 70% renewable energy mandate would be achieved on time. The “Key Takeaways (3/3)” Slide (#31) in the meeting presentation states that “the state is currently not on track to meet the 2030 emission limit – Current Policies is estimated to hit 40% reduction in 2038 while Additional Action is estimated to hit 40% reduction in 2037.”
The Court Decision and the Energy Plan findings are not the only reasons given by state agencies that it would be appropriate to reconsider the Climate Act. I described three other similar findings in an article last month. The New York State Comptroller Office audit of the NYSERDA and PSC implementation efforts for the Climate Act was an early acknowledgement that the implementation plan needs to be revised. The Public Service Commission (PSC) compared the renewable energy deployment progress relative to the Climate Act goal to obtain 70% of New York’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030. The final Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report document found that 2030 goal will likely not be achieved until 2033. Finally, The Second Informational Report prepared by Department of Public Service (DPS) staff described four feasibility concerns: the 2030 renewable energy target is “likely unattainable”, offshore wind faces major obstacles, transmission remains a “critical bottleneck”, and grid reliability challenges are mounting
In a rational world, these findings should inspire the Hochul Administration to amend the Climate Act. It is troubling that the State Energy Planning Board meeting presentation did not mention these ramifications. Surely, this is an important factor for the “comprehensive roadmap” of the energy future. Furthermore, there has been no sign that the Hochul Administration or the majority leadership in the Legislature are amenable to considering amendments to the Climate Act.
Conclusion
New York State entities have found that the Climate Act transition will be unaffordable and meeting the schedule is impossible. The only appropriate course of action is to reconsider the Climate Act but no in the majority dates broach the subject.
I was motivated to publish this and distribute it to the media because these findings have significant implications for the future New York energy system. In the near term, something must be done to reconcile the reality that the CLCPA schedule is too ambitious to have any hope of compliance. More importantly, the findings described should become the basis for a discussion for more New Yorkers. As it stands now New York energy policy is being guided by a small but extremely vocal and motivated constituency that does not understand the physics of the energy system. Thomas Sowell has been quoted as saying: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong”. In this instance, there is nothing more stupid or dangerous than ignoring the people who will lose their jobs if there are problems with the energy system.
I would appreciate any reader with ties to New York to let them know that if the Climate Act is left unmodified NYSERDA expects that their energy bills will increase by $593 per month.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
According to noted stock trader Ross Givens, many investors are pouring money into nuclear energy stocks that may never deliver. Innovative generation IV and V reactor designs remain unapproved by a slow-moving federal government. Yet investors remain hopeful that this bottleneck will soon be removed.
65397964 – magic crystal ball atom on forest floor for summer fantasy imagery
According to noted stock trader Ross Givens, many investors are pouring money into nuclear energy stocks that may never deliver. Innovative generation IV and V reactor designs remain unapproved by a slow-moving federal government. Yet investors remain hopeful that this bottleneck will soon be removed.
In the early years of America’s nuclear power industry, the Atomic Energy Commission was favorable to innovative technology and bullish on nuclear’s ability to power the future.
One minor incident, however, enabled the anti-nuclear crowd to have the AEC replaced by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose mandate switched from using nuclear energy to protecting Americans from nuclear radiation. Their approach predated President Obama’s strategy for bankrupting the coal industry — regulations to make nuclear reactors so expensive that anyone trying to go nuclear would go bankrupt.
In May, President Trump issued an executive order calling for major reforms to the NRC, whose current structure and staffing, he said, are “misaligned with the Congress’ directive that the NRC shall not unduly restrict the benefits of nuclear power.” He wants an NRC that promotes expedited processing of license applications and adoption of innovative technology.
One tactic used by the NRC is the $300 per hour charge to applicants for reviewing applications. Coupled with a razor-like ability to “discover” separate “serious flaws” one at a time, the NRC process adds direct and indirect costs that discourage applicants.
The Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Georgia, the only two new U.S. reactors in the 21st century, were supposed to cost about $14 billion from design to operational status but ended up costing $36.8 billion — plus revenues lost to the delayed approvals. Permitting for Tennessee’s Watts Bar unit 2, which became operational in 2016, began in 1972.
The White House believes NRC staffers have disregarded the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of risk aversion overkill — including safety models that, without sound scientific basis, claim there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure. This forces nuclear plants to protect against radiation below naturally occurring levels.
While lauding the White House’s goal of jumpstarting a nuclear renaissance, nuclear power advocate Steven Curtis says that putting new wine into the old NRC wineskin is a recipe for failure. So is throwing federal dollars at nuclear startups rather than merely removing the regulatory barriers and letting the market decide winners and losers.
Today, says Curtis, 60 to 70 privately owned advanced design nuclear power startups have a combined capital investment exceeding $20 billion, yet the regulations under which they receive approval for both construction and operation are tied up in red tape.
NRC regulations require nuclear facilities, like mining operations, to set aside estimated costs for decommissioning the reactor and long-term storage of nuclear waste. No one has even been harmed from a U.S. nuclear accident, yet neither oil and gas, nor wind and solar facilities, nor any other U.S. industry, is so rigidly overregulated.
Shortening permitting times for nuclear reactors is a step in the right direction, Curtis says, but that alone will not bring the cost of nuclear energy to competitive levels. There is a solution, says Curtis, that can turn a $50 billion bill for storing nuclear waste into a trillion-dollar bonanza: Promote the recycling (not just reprocessing) of spent nuclear fuel in fast reactors and design and build reactors that can turn recycled fuel into abundant cheap electricity.
Every active U.S. nuclear reactor is a “light-water reactor,” in which only about 3% of the fissile material is used to generate electricity. French reactors are of similar design, but they send spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing that yields a 25% to 30% increase in energy output.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, France was sending spent nuclear fuel to the Seversk plant in Siberia. Since then, EDF, which operates France’s reactor fleet, has considered setting up a conversion facility in Western Europe, but, as of now, the spent fuel is in storage.
Today’s generation IV and V “fast” reactors, including molten salt reactors, can be designed to burn most of the remaining 95% (1% becomes plutonium) of what Curtis calls “slightly used nuclear fuel” (SUNF), if it is recycled (rather than merely reprocessed).
If the U.S. adopted true nuclear fuel recycling, says Curtis, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity could fall dramatically. First, from being able to use nearly all the uranium fuel to generate electricity; second, from significant reductions in the amount — and half-life — of the remaining “nuclear waste,” and maybe even ending the quest for deep underground burial.
The shocking fact is that, in the U.S., both reprocessing and recycling are legal.
Anti-nuclear propaganda, the NRC’s archaic licensing system, and media-generated public fear are the chief obstacles to this revolutionary technology. Funding for today’s nuclear startups could turn into an avalanche of cash if investors could be certain that the reactors they were designing would not need NRC licensing and that their SUNF could be disposed of.
One method of true recycling of SUNF is done via pyro- processing, in which spent fuel rods are chopped into small pieces, then crumbled into a powder that is dissolved into a molten salt bath. When an electric current is applied, the uranium and transuranic elements are deposited onto an electrode, then collected as a metallic ingot. This “fuel” can then be placed into a fast reactor.
The Argonne National Laboratory successfully operated such a reactor/recycle system for 30 years using the 20 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor called the Experimental Breeder Reactor. Scientists conducted two extreme accident failure simulations in April 1986 to test the system’s safety, and it passed with flying colors. In both cases, the reactor shut down with no damage and was quickly restarted for normal operations.
While the project was terminated in 1994 and decommissioned for political reasons, the Department of Energy is now planning to construct a similar test reactor using the same concepts to more accurately determine cost projections for today’s small modular (fast) reactor designs, which are also intrinsically safe.
To commercialize this process, scientists at the Argonne laboratory in 2012 proposed to spend $500 million on a 100-ton-per-year (tpy) facility that could feed a 1 GW fast reactor power plant. There is also a design concept for a full-scale commercial 2,000 tpy facility at a projected cost of $7 billion. Based on fees collected from the DOE for reprocessing SUNF, such a facility should earn a minimum 18% profit annually.
Curtis believes that fully embracing SUNF recycling and building reactors capable of using recycled nuclear fuel could enable leveraging most of the $50 billion currently in the Congressional Nuclear Waste Fund to jumpstart a private initiative to recycle the SUNF into up to a trillion dollars’ worth of recycled nuclear fuel.
Had the NRC, the media, and the fear mongers realized in 1986 that recycling was not only possible but profitable, the U.S. might today have multitudes of fast reactors burning SUNF and providing electricity to American people and industries for pennies a kilowatt-hour. That’s why Curtis believes the NRC — and federal subsidies that lock companies into bureaucratically determined reactor designs — need to go.
NGOs should be helping these people put their lives back together. Instead, they appear to be encouraging wild fantasies of a big payday.
Filipino typhoon survivors sue Shell over climate change
London (AFP) – Survivors of a deadly 2021 typhoon in the Philippines have filed a lawsuit against British oil giant Shell, seeking financial compensation for climate-related devastation, three NGOs supporting them said Thursday.
Issued on: 11/12/2025 – 08:02 Modified: 11/12/2025 – 08:00
Typhoon Rai struck the southern and central regions of the Philippines in December 2021, toppling power lines and trees and unleashing deadly floods that killed over 400 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.
The lawsuit on behalf of 103 survivors argues Shell’s carbon emissions contributed to climate change, impacting Philippine communities.
Trixy Elle, a plaintiff from a fishing community whose home and four boats were swept away in the typhoon, told AFP the lawsuit was about getting justice.
“Island residents like us contribute only a small percentage of pollution. But who gets the short stick? The poor like us,” said the 34-year-old, who is still paying off high-interest loans she needed to rebuild.
“I am not speaking only for my community but for all Filipinos who experience the effects of climate crises,” Elle said, adding that her now 13-year-old son still suffers from trauma caused by the storm.
NGOs could simply ask companies like Shell to assist with rebuilding these communities. Companies like Shell spend substantial money every year helping people in need.
Instead, they’ve convinced these people to waste time and effort on a high-risk lawsuit, which even if they win will take many years to resolve.
You must be logged in to post a comment.