PR in the Philippines

Barbados' Prime Minister, Mia Mottley, has emerged as a key advocate for smaller economies in global climate discussions. It was noteworthy at last year's UN climate conference when she suggested engaging with then-President-elect Trump to convey the importance of climate action. “I am not one of those who will immediately declare doom and gloom with the election of President Trump,” she stated at a discussion last November. “We need to identify ways… to facilitate conversations.” Mottley's stance has since shifted. Trump, upon taking office in January, pursued an aggressive agenda against clean energy and climate collaboration. Last week, during a sustainable energy conference in Barbados, Mottley emphasized that small countries must chart their own course. “Don’t waste time lamenting what might have been,” she advised. “Address the world as it is.” Across the three-day SEforAll Global Forum in Barbados, Trump was rarely mentioned directly. This wasn't due to underestimation of his election's impact on global climate progress. Instead, it reflected an acceptance of the situation, with focus shifting to creating a path forward independently of the U.S. This offers insight into the potential shift in climate discussions. While the U.S.'s influence shouldn't be discounted, and some nations may follow its lead, many emerging and developing economies seem determined to pursue their own clean energy strategies. The U.S. has long had a substantial effect on international climate collaboration. As the world’s largest economy and sole superpower, climate negotiators were always mindful of U.S. politics. With the Paris Agreement established, discussions are now centered on directing funds towards energy transition projects, especially in developing and emerging economies. Despite the U.S.'s pivotal role in establishing the system, its public funding never became a primary source of international climate finance. Developing countries and climate advocates have long maintained that the U.S. has a responsibility to contribute due to its historical emissions. Even under the climate-supportive Biden Administration, securing a commitment of $11 billion annually for international climate finance required significant effort. To provide context, developing countries expressed disappointment at the previous year’s UN climate talks that wealthier nations failed to meet their $100 billion pledge in annual climate finance. Essentially, the U.S.'s absence in finance doesn't leave a massive void. So, where will the necessary funds originate? A key area of discussion at the SEforAll forum, where I spoke with public and private sector representatives from various locations like Fiji to Sierra Leone, was "south-south" collaboration. Instead of relying on the U.S. and Europe for capital, developing and emerging market countries can collaborate, providing resources and financing independently. According to data from the Brookings Institution, trade between Global South countries has recently surpassed trade between Global North countries. “This signals significant progress,” Arancha González, former foreign minister of Spain and current dean of the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences Po, stated on a panel I moderated at the forum. “It indicates a new global landscape.” Possible funding sources include development banks in major emerging economies like Brazil and South Africa. Institutions such as the New Development Bank, established in 2014 by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), have financed billions in clean energy development. China is also a key part of this financial scenario. Since its inception in 2013, the country's Belt and Road Initiative has provided over $1 trillion in infrastructure capital. In recent years, the country has increasingly directed its funding towards green projects. Many developing countries have also focused on raising capital domestically to fund projects by encouraging savings and pension funds to invest locally rather than seeking higher returns abroad. Additionally, there are evolving methods of what is commonly termed blended finance. Traditionally, this involves combining public and private capital, where public funds mitigate risk for private investors. More recently, philanthropy has become part of the blended finance discussion, playing an increasingly important role in providing money. “We see unique partnerships where institutional investors collaborate with philanthropic organizations to develop innovative blended finance solutions,” explains Ije Ikoku Okeke, who manages catalytic climate capital for the Global South at RMI, a clean energy non-profit. A right-wing populist might find this new dynamic acceptable, believing that American money should prioritize American interests, leaving other nations to manage their own affairs. However, is the U.S. truly better off if the rest of the world forms a coalition without American involvement? Beyond U.S. strategic interests, it's somewhat refreshing to hear discussions about clean energy in the Global South that bypass debates about whether the U.S. will fulfill its moral obligation as the world’s largest historic emitter and instead prioritize solutions. To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter . TIME receives support for climate coverage from the Outrider Foundation. TIME is solely responsible for all content.

Greenpeace has been ordered to pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based pipeline company, due to its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests nearly a decade ago. This judgment is a significant setback for the environmental group, which claims such a large lawsuit could bankrupt its U.S. operations. Energy Transfer, the Dakota Access Pipeline operator, accused Greenpeace USA and International of playing a key role in organizing the protests against the pipeline at Standing Rock in 2016 and 2017. These protests gained national attention as activists camped on Energy Transfer's land to impede construction. Law enforcement responded with water cannons, tear gas, and other measures against unarmed protesters. Greenpeace denies these accusations, calling the case one of the largest Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) ever filed. Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace, stated in February that Greenpeace's role at Standing Rock was limited and that they were proud to stand in solidarity with activists. She emphasized that Greenpeace never engaged in property destruction or violence, dismissing any claims to the contrary as false. The protests united thousands of activists nationwide who opposed the pipeline's development on the Standing Rock reservation. Experts warn that this SLAPP lawsuit's success, and the substantial penalty against Greenpeace, could discourage other activists from speaking out against large corporations. Jennifer Safstrom, director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School, notes that the verdict significantly alters the risk assessment for advocacy groups involved in environmental and other advocacy issues, as they could also face liability for their efforts. What are SLAPP Lawsuits? SLAPP lawsuits are strategic legal actions designed to silence speech by overwhelming organizations or individuals with legal costs. Coined by two professors in the 1990s, Safstrom explains that this practice was initially used to target environmental activists, leading to the term "eco-SLAPP." Gabe Walters, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, describes it as an abuse of the court system intended to suppress dissent rather than achieve a legitimate legal outcome. EarthRights, an environmental law group, identified 152 cases by fossil fuel companies between 2012 and 2022 that used strategic lawsuits against critics. CASE documented 135 cases filed in 2021. The European Union introduced an anti-SLAPP directive in April 2024 to protect against such lawsuits targeting public participation. Thirty-five states and Washington D.C. have anti-SLAPP laws, offering varying degrees of protection. Some states require expedited verdicts, while others have "fee shifting" provisions, allowing defendants to recover legal fees if they win. However, in states without these protections, SLAPP lawsuits can be devastating for organizations and individuals. Walters notes that the primary goal is often not to win in court but to financially ruin opponents through high litigation costs. How are Environmental Groups Responding? Environmental groups assert that they will continue their work despite the verdict. EarthRights stated that the decision would not silence environmental advocacy and that they stand with Greenpeace USA against legal attacks, ensuring the environmental movement grows stronger. Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, affirmed that no company, lawsuit, or court decision would impede the climate fight. She condemned the misuse of the legal system as a threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms, stating that such tactics would only strengthen their commitment to resistance, solidarity, and the defense of the constitutionally protected right to protest. ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke told TIME that the loss highlights the growing trend of big polluters using the legal system to intimidate and silence critics, sending a chilling message that no organization challenging polluting industries is safe. Greenpeace plans to challenge the ruling and has filed a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer, testing the EU's new anti-SLAPP Directive. Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, stated that Energy Transfer has not heard the last of them in this fight and that they are just beginning their anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest. Walters cautions that, without national anti-SLAPP protections, this verdict may embolden powerful companies and silence activists and groups unable to afford costly legal battles. He says the judgment's sheer size will deter others from criticizing powerful interests and incentivize copycat lawsuits to silence critics. ```

Have you ever experienced the pain of losing someone without them expressing crucial sentiments? Were you left wondering about their true feelings, or perhaps you had a disagreement with them shortly before their passing? As a hospice nurse and the founder of Doulagivers Institute, having supported over 1,000 individuals nearing the end of their lives, I understand the significance of conveying all necessary messages before death. Therefore, I advocate for everyone, regardless of age or health status, to compose their own eulogy. Currently, there's a shift in how funeral services are perceived. Some are reviving traditions like home wakes and funerals. Others are establishing novel ways to honor a life, demonstrating alternatives beyond the conventional. Transforming the traditional eulogy into a personalized farewell can be a meaningful and impactful way to express "I love you" one last time. Typically, a eulogy is a heartfelt tribute delivered by someone else during the funeral or memorial service. This might be a family member, close friend, or even a member of the clergy who may not know the deceased well. As a death doula, I have attended numerous funerals. However, the most profound sense of love and healing I've witnessed occurred when a self-written eulogy was shared. It is impactful, allowing everyone present to feel as though they are having a final conversation with the person they have lost. When this conversation is filled with love, it serves as the greatest comfort. This doesn't prevent others from offering their own eulogies, but there's something uniquely special about hearing directly from the person who is deeply missed. Writing your own eulogy to be read after your death provides comfort in knowing you've left a message for your loved ones to help them cope with their grief. Even if you are in good health and young, you may find relief in knowing your eulogy is prepared. While contemplating our own mortality can be daunting, I've come to realize that taking control of our final arrangements can alleviate some of this fear, fostering a sense of peace rather than dreading the unknown. It also presents an opportunity to share valuable life lessons, especially with young children or grandchildren. I recall someone who wrote about his past overwork, before realizing the importance of spending time with family. He included this in his eulogy, reminiscing about cherished memories with his children, wife, and parents that would have been missed if he had continued working overtime. He acknowledged that it meant foregoing expensive vacations, but as he stated, "seeing the Great Wall of China will never compare to watching my five-year-old perform in a kindergarten play." A first-person eulogy provides the ideal space for offering apologies that were never voiced and resolving conflicts before death. For strained or conflicted relationships, a pre-written eulogy can offer comforting closure, transforming a somber occasion into a powerful, healing experience. Some individuals use their eulogy to express remorse for their human imperfections, reassuring loved ones that they tried their best despite shortcomings, and hoping that those left behind will cherish the positive memories over the painful ones. Most importantly, your eulogy is a chance to convey your love and appreciation for the people in your life. You can communicate their importance to you, your admiration for them, and the invaluable impact they've had on your life. Even if you've already expressed these sentiments directly, reiterating them one last time after you're gone will hold immense significance for them. If you have children, expressing your pride will resonate with them forever. I suggest being specific, addressing each child's individual strengths that you admire, and offering encouragement and confidence for their future. It's your opportunity to affirm your belief in them and the life they can create, regardless of any challenges they may have faced. If your child is struggling, this can provide a remarkable boost. You can't always rely on having the chance to say goodbye to your loved ones. Even with a prolonged illness, you might be unconscious or too weak to do so. By writing your own first-person eulogy in advance, you can say goodbye to everyone who has touched your life—not only family and close friends but also colleagues, mentors, and community members you wish to acknowledge and share your feelings about. When writing while healthy, you're less likely to forget anyone and can always add to the list as needed. Preparing this in advance is incredibly empowering and comforting, ensuring that nothing is left unsaid. ```

Warning: This post contains spoilers for the . The nature of the work is shrouded in mystery, yet undeniably significant. It seemingly involves a process where one's long-lost spouse is divided into entirely new identities—or multiple personalities—stripped of all memories of their former self and shared life. After a considerable wait, particularly for those who followed Season 1 from its inception, the Severance Season 2 finale offered glimpses into the truth surrounding Cold Harbor and Gemma (Dichen Lachman), though many questions remain unanswered. Ms. Cobel (Patricia Arquette) explained to innie Mark (Adam Scott) that the data he meticulously refined over two years served as a "doorway" to Gemma's mind. This explanation came after Mark's frustration with his outie's demands to terminate his innie existence and love story. Cobel asked Mark what he perceived and felt when observing the numbers, listing emotions like woe, frolic, malice, and dread. She clarified that these clusters represented Gemma's "tempers" and the fundamental elements of her mind. Each completed file birthed a new consciousness, a new innie, with Cold Harbor being the final step. Subsequently, after innie Mark reluctantly finalized the file under Helly's (Britt Lower) watchful gaze, Dr. Mauer (Robby Benson) and Mr. Drummond (Olafur Darri Ólafsson) initiated Gemma's entry into the Cold Harbor room, located on the testing floor. She was dressed in the same clothes she wore the night of her presumed death. Once inside, her 25th and ultimate innie was tasked with disassembling the crib she and Mark had intended for their future child. This task appeared designed to delve into the deepest recesses of her past memories and traumas, ensuring that her severed innies retained no emotional residue from her outie self. However, before Gemma could dismantle the last piece of the crib, innie and outie Mark, having navigated numerous threats, intervened in the Cold Harbor room. Despite Mark being covered in Mr. Drummond's blood and holding the gun he unknowingly used to kill the Lumon security chief, a remnant of the original Gemma instinctively trusted Mark and chose to accompany him. Based on Mr. Drummond's earlier conversation with Lorne (Gwendoline Christie), head of the Mammalians Nurturable department, Lumon intended to "entomb" Gemma with a sacrificial goat after the completion of Cold Harbor. This ritual was supposedly meant to guide her spirit "to Kier's door," the significance of which remains unclear. If Lumon's ultimate goal was to eliminate Gemma after this elaborate process, the purpose behind it becomes questionable. What is the ultimate objective of creating these completely detached innies? And how does it all tie back to Kier and the Eagans? Theories abound, ranging from the creation of a highly efficient workforce to a manufactured paradise allowing Lumon's clients to sever themselves from all negative experiences. However, definitive answers remain elusive. In Episode 7, Mr. Drummond declared that the completion of Cold Harbor would mark "one of the greatest moments in the history of this planet." The nature of this moment remains a mystery, and further insight is unlikely until Season 3. Hopefully, the wait for the next season will be shorter than the previous one. ```