ReportWire

Tag: Climate change

  • The most climate-friendly groceries might not be in the supermarket

    [ad_1]

    The pollution from food is sneaky. Because the apple sitting on your kitchen counter isn’t really causing any harm.

    But chances are good that you didn’t pick it from a tree in your backyard. It required land and water to grow, machines to harvest and process, packaging to ship, trucks to transport and often refrigerators to store. Much of that process releases planet-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    That’s why the global food system makes up roughly a third of worldwide, human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EDGAR FOOD pollution database.

    Meanwhile, roughly a third of the U.S. food supply is lost or wasted without being eaten, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It might never get harvested, it might spoil in transit or the grocery store might reject it for being the wrong size or color. That’s a big reason why some consumers are looking for less-wasteful alternatives ranging from farmers markets to delivery services for produce that didn’t meet supermarket size or appearance standards.

    “There’s a whole breadth of opportunities to purchase food,” said Julia Van Soelen Kim, food systems adviser with the University of California Cooperative Extension.

    And during the week of Thanksgiving, this decision is especially high stakes because lots of grocery shoppers are buying for extra guests, and more food can mean a bigger climate impact.

    Here are tips for reducing impact by shopping beyond the grocery store.

    Wasted food is a financial and environmental bummer. It costs the average person $728 per year, and it amounts to about the same planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions every year as 42 coal-fired power plants. Can buying produce that would otherwise go to waste be the answer?

    The community supported agriculture box

    Jane Kolodinsky, professor emerita at the University of Vermont and director of research at Arrowleaf Consulting, has bought her produce directly from a local farmer for 30 years.

    It’s called Community Supported Agriculture, or CSA. At the beginning of every harvest season, Kolodinsky pays that farm a fee. Then, once per week, she picks up a box of produce at the farm. Some CSA programs pick the produce, while others let you customize. Some deliver. An online database shows which farms participate in CSA programs.

    Since the food is grown nearby, there is less processing and packaging. “There’s a smaller carbon footprint for purchasing locally compared to global or national food distribution channels,” said Van Soelen Kim. “When they’re local, they’re traveling less distance, so less gas, less fuel.”

    Local farmers are also likely to grow whatever works best for the area’s climate and season. “When things are in season, they need less storage time, so less electricity for cold storage,” said Van Soelen Kim, who added that can also mean a smaller food bill.

    It’s not pollution-free, because the crops still require land and water, and the food does travel some distance. But CSAs avoid many steps in the modern food supply chain.

    That model is challenging for consumers who want to maintain the same shopping list year-round. Shopping in-season requires more flexibility. “I would encourage consumers to think, ’OK, year-round we want some hand fruit that’s firm,’” she said. “So maybe it’s apples, and then it’s pears, and then its gonna move to kiwis, and then is gonna move to pluots.”

    And in colder regions, she said there is still local produce. It’s just more likely to be dried, frozen or canned.

    Customers browse farmer’s market displays in Union Square, Jan. 13, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Peter K. Afriyie, File)

    The farmers market

    Kolodinsky said the oldest alternative food system is the farmers market, where vendors gather and sell directly to consumers. Growers also sell at farm stands that aren’t tied to a centralized, scheduled event.

    Farmers markets allow consumers more flexibility to pick the produce than a typical CSA. They also offer seasonal produce and less packaging and processing than a grocery store. Many also accept payment associated with government food assistance programs.

    Plus, these models cut down on waste because customers are more tolerant of produce that’s not a uniform size and shape, said Timothy Woods, a University of Kentucky agribusiness professor.

    “It doesn’t matter to me if one cucumber’s a couple inches longer than the other one,” he said. “Less waste means more efficient utilization of all the resources that farmers are putting out to produce that crop in the first place.”

    Other delivery services

    Farmers who sell to grocery stores typically have to meet high standards, Woods said. For example, there could be onions that never got big enough or the carrot that grew two roots — vegetables that are just as safe and tasty to eat. There’s also surplus harvest.

    “They will intentionally not pick certain melons that are undersized out in the field. And so you’ll have gleaning programs that will be people that are saying, ‘Those are perfectly good cantaloupe that are out there. We’ll send a team out there to pick those,’” said Woods.

    Shiitake mushrooms are displayed at the stand of a farmer who sells "ugly" produce at a discount at a farmers' market in San Francisco, June 7, 2023. (AP Photo/Haven Daley, File)

    Shiitake mushrooms are displayed at the stand of a farmer who sells “ugly” produce at a discount at a farmers’ market in San Francisco, June 7, 2023. (AP Photo/Haven Daley, File)

    He said services delivering food that doesn’t meet supermarket size or appearance requirements, such as Misfit Markets or Imperfect Produce, have become more popular in recent years.

    Van Soelen Kim said there isn’t a lot of data yet on whether these services have a significantly lower climate impact. They reduce food waste, but the food might come from far away.

    Misfits Market refreshes its online selection weekly. Customers then fill a box of often discounted groceries that might have misprinted labels or are undersized or blemished. They are delivered via a company truck or third-party courier such as FedEx. The company’s founder and CEO, Abhi Ramesh, said it minimizes emissions by having set delivery days instead of offering on-demand delivery.

    “By doing that, we batch all of our deliveries together. So it is one van to your ZIP code on that day. One truck that goes from our warehouse on that date,” he said.

    Ramesh said sometimes a farmer’s market or CSA is even better at offering nearby seasonal food than his company. But for a lot of the country, those services go away when the harvest season ends. “And so your local grocery store, believe it or not, is still transporting that from California. But the difference is we’re able to go and transport the food waste piece, which reduces a ton of emissions.”

    Woods’ advice for using services like Misfits Market is the same as other channels: Eat seasonally, eat locally and look for minimal packaging.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ambitious plan to store CO2 beneath the North Sea set to start operations

    [ad_1]

    NORTH SEA, Denmark (AP) — Appearing first as a dot on the horizon, the remote Nini oil field on Europe’s rugged North Sea slowly comes into view from a helicopter.

    Used to extract fossil fuels, the field is now getting a second lease on life as a means of permanently storing planet-warming carbon dioxide beneath the seabed.

    In a process that almost reverses oil extraction, chemical giant INEOS plans to inject liquefied CO2 deep down into depleted oil reservoirs, 1,800 meters (5,900 feet) beneath the seabed.

    The Associated Press made a rare visit to the Siri platform, close to the unmanned Nini field, the final stage in INEOS’ carbon capture and storage efforts, named Greensand Future.

    When the project begins commercial operations next year, Greensand is expected to become the European Union’s first fully-operational offshore CO2 storage site.

    Environmentalists say carbon capture and storage, also known as CCS, has a role to play in dealing with climate change but should not be used as an excuse by industries to avoid cutting emissions.

    Future plans

    Mads Gade, chief executive of INEOS Energy Europe, says it will initially begin storing 400,000 tons (363,000 metric tons) of CO2 per year, scaling up to as much as 8 million tons (7.3 million metric tons) annually by 2030.

    “Denmark has the potential to actually store more than several hundred years of our own emissions,” says Gade. “We are able to create an industry where we can support Europe in actually storing a lot of the CO2 here.”

    Greensand has struck deals with Danish biogas facilities to bury their captured carbon emissions into the Nini field’s depleted reservoirs.

    A “CO2 terminal” that temporarily stores the liquefied gas is being built at the Port of Esbjerg, on the western coast of the Danish Jutland peninsula.

    A purpose-built carrier vessel, dubbed “Carbon Destroyer 1,” is under construction in the Netherlands.

    Climate solution

    Proponents of carbon capture technology say it is a climate solution because it can remove the greenhouse gas that is the biggest driver of climate change and bury it deep underground.

    They note the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s top body of climate scientists, has said the technology is a tool in the fight against global warming.

    The EU has proposed developing at least 250 million tons (227 million metric tons) of CO2 storage per year by 2040, as part of plans to reach “net zero” emissions by 2050.

    Gade says carbon capture and storage is one of the best means of cutting emissions.

    “We don’t want to deindustrialize Europe,” he said. “We want to have actually a few instruments to decarbonize instead.”

    Experts at Denmark’s geological survey say Greensand sandstone rock is well-suited for storing the liquefied CO2. Almost a third of the rock volume is made up of tiny cavities, said Niels Schovsbo, senior researcher at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

    “We found that there (are) no reactions between the reservoir and the injected CO2. And we find that the seal rock on top of that has sufficient capacity to withhold the pressure that is induced when we are storing CO2 in the subsurface,” added Schovsbo.

    “These two methods makes it a perfect site for storage right there.”

    Limitations and criticism

    But while there are many carbon capture facilities around the world, the technology is far from scale, sometimes uses fossil fuel energy in its operations and captures just a tiny fraction of worldwide emissions.

    The Greensand project aims to bury up to 8 million tons (7.3 million metric tons) of CO2 a year by 2030. The International Energy Agency says nearly 38 billion tons (34.5 billion metric tons) of CO2 were emitted globally last year.

    Environmental campaigners say CCS has been used as an excuse by industries to delay cutting emissions.

    “We could have CCS on those very few sectors where emissions are truly difficult or impossible to abate,” said Helene Hagel, head of climate and environmental policy at Greenpeace Denmark.

    “But when you have all sectors in society almost saying, we need to just catch the emissions and store them instead of reducing emissions — that is the problem.”

    While the chemical giant ramps up carbon storage efforts, it is also hoping to begin development at another previously unopened North Sea oil field.

    “The footprint we deliver from importing energy against producing domestic or regional oil and gas is a lot more important for the transition instead of importing with a higher footprint,” said Gade, defending the company’s plans.

    “We see a purpose in doing this for a period while we create a transition for Europe.”

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Iceland Is Becoming a Model for Renewable-Powered High-Performance Computing

    [ad_1]

    With abundant renewable energy, efficient cooling and community-first development, Iceland shows how data centers can grow without compromising the planet. Unsplash+

    As the demand for A.I.-ready digital infrastructure skyrockets, data center development has become an urgent and necessary foundation for a wide spectrum of high-performance computing technologies—and for the businesses that are increasingly dependent on them. Unsurprisingly, data center construction has surged globally. Yet as growth accelerates, teh roadblocks to building at the required pace and scale have become far more pronounced. 

    Arguably, the most critical factor in data center development today is access to power. Alex de Vries-Gao, the founder of tech sustainability website Digiconomist, estimates that by the end of 2025, energy consumption by A.I. systems could reach 23 gigawatts—twice the total energy consumption of the Netherlands.

    This poses two intertwined challenges. First, many countries simply lack sufficient power or a modern grid capable of supporting these demands. Much of the U.S. and U.K. national grid infrastructure was built between 1950 and 1970 and designed around large coal-fired plants—a post-war regeneration system now decades overdue for modernization. As coal availability waned, nuclear and renewable sources such as wind and solar began to fill the gap. Yet, these types of energy systems take time to develop and rely heavily on robust, upgraded power networks. The sudden increase in power demand resulting from the proliferation of data centers has highlighted the crucial need for investment in power infrastructure globally.

    Second, the demand for such vast power has sharpened scrutiny on the carbon footprint of data centers. As a result, data-intensive businesses are increasingly looking for data center partners that have proven sustainability credentials and can help decarbonize their IT workloads. That often means looking further afield than your local neighborhood data center provider to find a partnership that is environmentally and financially beneficial and sustainable long-term. At atNorth, we are seeing unprecedented demand for environmentally responsible A.I. infrastructure at speed and scale. Power bottlenecks caused by power availability simply cannot be allowed to become a limiting factor to growth.

    The Icelandic example

    Data centers located in cooler climates such as the Nordics can leverage highly energy-efficient cooling systems that significantly reduce the energy required to power and cool the hardware they host. The region also benefits from abundant renewable energy and relatively young, resilient power and internet networks. 

    Iceland, in particular, is a global leader in clean energy: 71 percent of its energy is generated by hydropower, and 29 percent from geothermal energy. Icelandic data centers can combine renewable energy with its naturally cool ambient temperatures to achieve exceptional energy efficiency. While global average Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE)—the metric of data center energy efficiency where the ideal value is 1.0 (representing 100 percent efficiency)—hovers around 1.48, Icelandic facilities average between 1.1 and 1.2, enabling customers to significantly decarbonize their IT workloads. For example, BNP Paribas lowered its total cost of ownership, cut energy use by 50 percent and reduced CO₂ output by 85 percent by relocating a portion of its IT infrastructure to one of atNorth’s Icelandic facilities.

    Temperatures in Iceland typically range from 30°F (-1 °C) in winter to 52°F (11 °C) in summer, enabling free-air cooling of some IT workloads. As compute density increases to accommodate A.I. and other high-performance applications, more advanced cooling technologies—such as Direct Liquid Cooling (DLC) or Direct to Chip Cooling—that allow water (or coolants) to reduce the temperature of the computer equipment more efficiently due to superior heat dissipation have become essential. These solutions are widely available in Iceland and across the Nordic countries, which are well known for their environmentally friendly ethos and circular economy principles.

    Moreover, Iceland’s political and economic stability offers another key advantage as geopolitical uncertainty grows across regions. Businesses are now more sensitive to the physical location of their data and the legal frameworks that govern it. As a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland has adopted the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and reinforced it with national legislation, resulting in robust safeguards for data privacy and security.

    Going beyond carbon reduction

    These factors have driven a surge in Nordic data center development in recent years, positioning the region at the forefront of the industry. While much of the world works to upgrade legacy power networks in order to start building data centers, the Nordic countries are addressing newer challenges associated with more mature data center development. Certainly, at atNorth, we have seen growing demand for a more holistic approach to sustainability and responsible operations. It is not enough to mitigate environmental impact; data center operators must deliver tangible benefits to the local communities in which we operate to support long-term sustainability and economic growth.

    Using the most sustainable materials possible is one factor that can showcase an honest commitment to care for the natural environment. atNorth’s ICE03 data center was constructed using Glulam, a sustainable laminated wood product with lower environmental impact and superior fire resistance compared to steel. Similarly, the site was insulated using sustainable Icelandic rockwool, produced from natural volcanic basalt and known for its durability, fire resistance and low ecological footprint.  

    The process of heat reuse—the recycling of waste heat from the data center cooling systems for use in the local community—is a practice that is common in the Nordic countries and growing in popularity across northern Europe. This is a fundamental part of sustainable data center design, and even in countries like Iceland, where naturally heated geothermal water is abundant, opportunities for further improvement remain. At ICE03, for example, atNorth partnered with the municipality of Akureyri to channel waste heat into a new community-run greenhouse, which will provide a space for schoolchildren to explore ecological farming practices and sustainable food production. These initiatives reduce carbon emissions for both the data center and the receiving organization while addressing specific local needs, such as fresh vegetable production in a country that imports 80 percent of its fresh produce.

    Community engagement is also becoming pivotal to the data center development process as competition over suitable land intensifies. Just as the concept of a “trusted brand” has proven fundamental in the consumer retail market—with some research suggesting that 81 percent of consumers need to trust a brand before considering a purchase—the same principle extends to regional decision-making that directly affects the lives of local people. Therefore, operators that can demonstrate a genuine commitment to good corporate citizenship will undoubtedly find more success.

    To ensure authentic integration with local communities, local hiring is essential. Over 90 percent of the workforce involved in developing atNorth’s ICE03 site came from nearby communities. The company also supports local education, charities and community projects through volunteer support and financial donations—sponsoring a local run in Akureyri, funding Reykjanesbær’s light festival and donating advanced mechatronics equipment to Akureyri University to support training for data center-related careers. 

    Building for the A.I. era—responsibly 

    As digitalization intensifies, so will the demand for high-performance data center capacity. Yet such rapid expansion carries risks that could seriously undermine long-term sustainability. The boom-and-reckoning pattern seen in industries like palm oil—where explosive growth preceded significant deforestation—serves as a warning. 

    The data center industry must learn from history and chart a new path in which digital infrastructure can be technologically advanced, environmentally responsible and locally beneficial. In short: data centers must be developed to meet A.I.-era performance demands while driving responsible growth and long-term value for clients, communities and our planet.

    Why Iceland Is Becoming a Model for Renewable-Powered High-Performance Computing

    [ad_2]

    Erling Freyr Guðmundsson

    Source link

  • The most climate-friendly groceries might not be in the supermarket

    [ad_1]

    The pollution from food is sneaky. Because the apple sitting on your kitchen counter isn’t really causing any harm.

    But chances are good that you didn’t pick it from a tree in your backyard. It required land and water to grow, machines to harvest and process, packaging to ship, trucks to transport and often refrigerators to store. Much of that process releases planet-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    That’s why the global food system makes up roughly a third of worldwide, human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EDGAR FOOD pollution database.

    Meanwhile, roughly a third of the U.S. food supply is lost or wasted without being eaten, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It might never get harvested, it might spoil in transit or the grocery store might reject it for being the wrong size or color. That’s a big reason why some consumers are looking for less-wasteful alternatives ranging from farmers markets to delivery services for produce that didn’t meet supermarket size or appearance standards.

    “There’s a whole breadth of opportunities to purchase food,” said Julia Van Soelen Kim, food systems adviser with the University of California Cooperative Extension.

    And during the week of Thanksgiving, this decision is especially high stakes because lots of grocery shoppers are buying for extra guests, and more food can mean a bigger climate impact.

    Here are tips for reducing impact by shopping beyond the grocery store.

    Jane Kolodinsky, professor emerita at the University of Vermont and director of research at Arrowleaf Consulting, has bought her produce directly from a local farmer for 30 years.

    It’s called Community Supported Agriculture, or CSA. At the beginning of every harvest season, Kolodinsky pays that farm a fee. Then, once per week, she picks up a box of produce at the farm. Some CSA programs pick the produce, while others let you customize. Some deliver. An online database shows which farms participate in CSA programs.

    Since the food is grown nearby, there is less processing and packaging. “There’s a smaller carbon footprint for purchasing locally compared to global or national food distribution channels,” said Van Soelen Kim. “When they’re local, they’re traveling less distance, so less gas, less fuel.”

    Local farmers are also likely to grow whatever works best for the area’s climate and season. “When things are in season, they need less storage time, so less electricity for cold storage,” said Van Soelen Kim, who added that can also mean a smaller food bill.

    It’s not pollution-free, because the crops still require land and water, and the food does travel some distance. But CSAs avoid many steps in the modern food supply chain.

    That model is challenging for consumers who want to maintain the same shopping list year-round. Shopping in-season requires more flexibility. “I would encourage consumers to think, ’OK, year-round we want some hand fruit that’s firm,’” she said. “So maybe it’s apples, and then it’s pears, and then its gonna move to kiwis, and then is gonna move to pluots.”

    And in colder regions, she said there is still local produce. It’s just more likely to be dried, frozen or canned.

    Kolodinsky said the oldest alternative food system is the farmers market, where vendors gather and sell directly to consumers. Growers also sell at farm stands that aren’t tied to a centralized, scheduled event.

    Farmers markets allow consumers more flexibility to pick the produce than a typical CSA. They also offer seasonal produce and less packaging and processing than a grocery store. Many also accept payment associated with government food assistance programs.

    Plus, these models cut down on waste because customers are more tolerant of produce that’s not a uniform size and shape, said Timothy Woods, a University of Kentucky agribusiness professor.

    “It doesn’t matter to me if one cucumber’s a couple inches longer than the other one,” he said. “Less waste means more efficient utilization of all the resources that farmers are putting out to produce that crop in the first place.”

    Farmers who sell to grocery stores typically have to meet high standards, Woods said. For example, there could be onions that never got big enough or the carrot that grew two roots — vegetables that are just as safe and tasty to eat. There’s also surplus harvest.

    “They will intentionally not pick certain melons that are undersized out in the field. And so you’ll have gleaning programs that will be people that are saying, ‘Those are perfectly good cantaloupe that are out there. We’ll send a team out there to pick those,’” said Woods.

    He said services delivering food that doesn’t meet supermarket size or appearance requirements, such as Misfit Markets or Imperfect Produce, have become more popular in recent years.

    Van Soelen Kim said there isn’t a lot of data yet on whether these services have a significantly lower climate impact. They reduce food waste, but the food might come from far away.

    Misfits Market refreshes its online selection weekly. Customers then fill a box of often discounted groceries that might have misprinted labels or are undersized or blemished. They are delivered via a company truck or third-party courier such as FedEx. The company’s founder and CEO, Abhi Ramesh, said it minimizes emissions by having set delivery days instead of offering on-demand delivery.

    “By doing that, we batch all of our deliveries together. So it is one van to your ZIP code on that day. One truck that goes from our warehouse on that date,” he said.

    Ramesh said sometimes a farmer’s market or CSA is even better at offering nearby seasonal food than his company. But for a lot of the country, those services go away when the harvest season ends. “And so your local grocery store, believe it or not, is still transporting that from California. But the difference is we’re able to go and transport the food waste piece, which reduces a ton of emissions.”

    Woods’ advice for using services like Misfits Market is the same as other channels: Eat seasonally, eat locally and look for minimal packaging.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways From the COP30 Climate Summit in Brazil

    [ad_1]

    BELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -This year’s U.N. climate change summit ended with a tenuous compromise for a deal that skipped over most countries’ key demands but for one: committing wealthy countries to triple their spending to help others adapt to global warming. 

    Here are some of the takeaways from the COP30 climate summit held in Brazil’s Amazon city of Belem:

    Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had launched the summit calling for countries to agree on a “roadmap” for advancing a COP28 pledge to shift away from fossil fuels. 

    But it was a road to nowhere at this summit, as oil-rich Arab nations and others dependent on fossil fuels blocked any mention of the issue. Instead, the COP30 presidency created a voluntary plan that countries could sign on to – or not.

    The result was similar to Egypt’s COP27 and Azerbaijan’s COP29, where countries agreed to spend more money to address climate dangers while ignoring their primary cause.

    Nearly three-fourths of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 2020 have come from coal, oil and gas. Demand for these fuels is likely to rise through 2050, the International Energy Agency said in a report midway through the COP30 summit that reversed expectations of a rapid shift to clean energy. 

    GLOBAL CLIMATE UNITY ON THE BRINK

    The need to show global unity in climate talks was the main thing countries agreed, along with the idea that long-polluting wealthy countries should do most to tackle the problem. 

    But to get to a final deal, they ditched nearly all ambitions they’d brought – including mandatory tightening targets for reducing climate-warming emissions. 

    Brazil’s COP30 presidency lamented the United States’ snubbing of the talks. The absence of the world’s biggest economy – and biggest historical polluter – emboldened countries with fossil fuel interests.

    Rumbling concerns about a process that allows only a few to effectively veto collective deals grew louder, stoking calls for reform.

    After Brazil had promised a ‘COP of Truth’ that would set countries on course for action, the omission of any agreed implementation plans was glaring. 

    China played a leading role at the summit – but from behind the scenes. 

    President Xi Jinping skipped the talks as he typically does. But his delegation carried a strong message that China was prepared to deliver the clean energy technology the world needs to cut emissions. 

    Executives from Chinese solar, battery and electric vehicle companies were featured at the country’s exhibit pavilion – one of the first things delegates saw on entering the sprawling venue.

    China was not the only fast-developing nation in focus this year. The Indian delegation flexed more muscle in the negotiations, while South Africa rolled out a climate-linked agenda for its own November 22-23 G20 summit.

    FRAUGHT FUTURE FOR FORESTS AND INDIGENOUS RIGHTS

    Holding the summit in an Amazon forest city, Brazil touted the importance of the world’s remaining canopy for fighting climate change – along with the roughly half-billion Indigenous people seen as stewards of natural lands. 

    Many who attended from across the Amazon and the world felt frustrated they weren’t being heard. They staged several protests, and even stormed the COP30 compound gates – clashing with security before being pushed back out. 

    Countries announced about $9.5 billion in forest funding – including almost $7 billion for Brazil’s flagship tropical forest fund and another $2.5 billion for an initiative for Congo.

    But the summit ended on a sour note for many, as negotiators dropped efforts for a roadmap to meet the 2030 zero-deforestation pledge and gave no recognition for the protection of their lands. 

    ATTACKS ON CLIMATE SCIENCE

    While Lula and other world leaders had railed against misinformation and denial, COP30 talks didn’t help much in countering this year’s U.S. government assault on climate science.

    The summit also chipped away at global consensus around climate science by no longer recognizing the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the “best available science” to guide policy on climate change and its impacts.

    Instead, the final deal notes the importance of IPCC outputs along with “those produced in developing countries and relevant reports from regional groups and institutions.”

    And by sidelining fossil fuels and emissions targets, COP30 ignored the alarm bells being rung by scientists. 

    (Reporting by Katy DaigleEditing by Ros Russell)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Many Hoped UN Climate Talks in Brazil Would Be Historic. They May Be Remembered as a Flop

    [ad_1]

    This year’s U.N. climate conference in Brazil had many unique aspects that could have been part of an historic outcome.

    COP30, as it’s called, was hosted in Belem, a city on the edge of the Amazon rainforest, a crucial regulator of climate and home to many Indigenous peoples who are both hit hard by climate change and are part of the solution. It had the heft of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, an influential and charismatic leader on the international stage known for his ability to bring people together. And encouraged by Lula’s rousing speeches in the summit’s beginning days, more than 80 nations called for a detailed road map for the world to sharply reduce the use of gas, oil and coal, the main drivers of climate change.

    In the end, none of that mattered.

    The final decision announced Saturday, which included some tangible things like an increase in money to help developing nations adapt to climate change, was overall watered-down compared to many conferences in the past decade and fell far short of many delegates’ expectations. It didn’t mention the words “fossil fuels,” much less include a timeline to reduce their use.

    Instead of being remembered as historic, the conference will likely further erode confidence in a process that many environmentalists and even some world leaders have argued isn’t up to the challenge of confronting global temperature rise, which is leading to more frequent and intense extreme weather events like floods, storms and heat waves.

    The criticism was withering and came from many corners.

    “A climate decision that cannot even say ‘fossil fuels’ is not neutrality, it is complicity,” said Panama negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez. “Science has been deleted from COP30 because it offends the polluters.”

    Even those who saw some positives were quick to say they were looking toward the future.

    “Climate action is across many areas, so on the whole it is a mixed bag. They could have done much, much more,” said Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development.

    “All eyes are already turning to COP31,” added Nacpil, referring to next year’s conference, which will be held in Turkey.


    High expectations for COP30

    Saturday’s final resolution was the culmination of three years of talk, from measured optimism to hoopla, about a Conference of the Parties, as the summit is known, that could restore confidence in the ability of multilateral negotiations to tackle climate change. It was even called a “COP of truth.”

    From the time Lula was reelected in October 2022, he began pitching his vision of hosting a climate summit for the first time in the Amazon. By 2023, the U.N. had confirmed Brazil’s bid to host it in Belem. The choice of Belem, a coastal city in northeast Brazil, raised many questions, both in Brazil and in many countries, because Belem doesn’t have the infrastructure of other Brazilian cities such as Rio de Janeiro or Sao Paulo.

    For Lula, that was the point: This was a chance for the world to get a taste of the Amazon, truly understand what was at stake, and a chance for thousands of Indigenous peoples, who live across the vast territory shared by many South American nations, to participate.

    By the time the conference began Nov. 6 with two days of world leaders’ speeches, Lula was able to change the subject from Belem, in large part by laying out a vision of what the conference could be.

    “Earth can no longer sustain the development model based on the intensive use of fossil fuels that has prevailed over the past 200 years,” Lula said Nov. 7, adding: “The fossil fuel era is drawing to a close.”

    Words like those, coming from the leader who has both curbed deforestation in the Amazon and unabashedly supported oil exploration in it, raised hopes among many delegates, scientists and activists. Here was Lula, the ultimate pragmatist from a major oil-producing country, which gets most of its energy for domestic uses from renewables like hydropower, pushing a major change.


    Previous naming of fossil fuels

    In late 2023, during COP28 in Dubai, the final resolution declared the world needed to “transition away” from fossil fuels. The past two years, though, nothing had been done to advance that. Indeed, instead of phasing away, greenhouse gas emissions worldwide continue to rise.

    Now at COP30, there was talk of a “road map” to fundamentally changing world energy systems.

    A few days before the talks concluded, there were signs that even Lula, arguably Brazil’s most dominating political figure of the past 25 years, was tempering his expectations. In a speech Wednesday night, he made the case that climate change was an urgent threat that all people needed to pay attention to. But he was also careful to say that nations should be able to transition to renewable energies at their own pace, in line with their own capacities, and there was no intention to “impose anything on anybody.”

    Negotiators would lose much of Thursday, as a fire at the venue forced evacuations.


    An outcome that many nations blasted

    By Friday, the European Union, along with several Latin American and Pacific Island nations and others, were flatly rejecting the first draft of a resolution that didn’t identify fossil fuels as the cause of climate change or have any timeline to move away from them.

    “After 10 years, this process is still failing,” Maina Vakafua Talia, minister of environment for the small Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, said in a speech Friday, talking about the decade since the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set international goals to limit temperature rise.

    After an all-nighter from Friday into Saturday, the revised resolution, which U.N. officials called the “final,” did not include a mention of fossil fuels. Environmental activists decried the influence of major oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, which historically have fought against proposals that put a timeline on reducing oil.

    When delegates met Saturday afternoon for the final plenary, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago gaveled in the text while also promising to continue the discussion of fossil fuels and work with Colombia on a road map that could be shared with other countries. Technically, Brazil holds the presidency of the climate talks until the summit in Turkey next year.

    That was little consolation for several dozen nations that complained, including some, such as Colombia, that flatly rejected the outcome.

    “Thank you for your statement,” do Lago would say after each one. “It will be noted in the report.”

    Associated Press reporters Seth Borenstein, Melina Walling and Anton Delgado contributed to this report.

    Peter Prengaman, AP’s global climate and environment news director, was previously news director in Brazil.

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Indigenous People Reflect on the Meaning of Their Participation in COP30 Climate Talks

    [ad_1]

    BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Indigenous people filled the streets, paddled the waterways and protested at the heart of the venue to make their voices heard during the United Nations climate talks that were supposed to give them a voice like never before at the annual conference.

    As the talks, called COP30, concluded Saturday in Belem, Brazil, Indigenous people reflected on what the conference meant to them and whether they were heard.

    Brazilian leaders had high hopes that the summit, taking place in the Amazon, would empower the people who inhabit the land and protect the biodiversity of the world’s largest rainforest, which helps stave off climate change as its trees absorb carbon pollution that heats the planet.

    Many Indigenous people who attended the talks felt strengthened by the solidarity with tribes from other countries and some appreciated small wins in the final outcome. But for many, the talks fell short on representation, ambition and true action on climate issues affecting Indigenous people.

    “This was a COP where we were visible but not empowered,” said Thalia Yarina Cachimuel, a Kichwa-Otavalo member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, a group of Indigenous people from around the world.


    Some language wins but nothing on fossil fuels

    Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said she was happy because the text for the first time mentioned those rights explicitly.

    But Mindahi Bastida, an Otomí-Toltec member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, said countries should have pushed harder for agreements on how to phase out fuels like oil, gas and coal “and not to see nature as merchandise, but to see it as sacred.”

    Several nations pushed for a road map to curtail use of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saturday’s final decision left out any mention of fossil fuels, leaving many countries disappointed.

    Brazil also launched a financial mechanism that countries could donate to, which was supposed to help incentivize nations with lots of forest to keep those ecosystems intact.

    Although the initiative received monetary pledges from a few countries, the project and the idea of creating a market for carbon are false solutions that “don’t stop pollution, they just move it around,” said Jacob Johns, a Wisdom Keeper of the Akimel O’Otham and Hopi nations.

    “They hand corporations a license to keep drilling, keep burning, keep destroying, so long as they can point to an offset written on paper. It’s the same colonial logic dressed up as climate policy,” Johns said.

    “What we have seen at this COP is a focus on symbolic presence rather than enabling the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples,” Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, wrote in a message after the conference concluded.

    Edson Krenak, Brazil manager for Indigenous rights group Cultural Survival and member of the Krenak people, didn’t think negotiators did enough to visit forests or understand the communities living there. He also didn’t believe the 900 Indigenous people given access to the main venue was enough.

    Sônia Guajajara, Brazil’s minister of Indigenous peoples, who is Indigenous herself, framed the convention differently.

    “It is undeniable that this is the largest and best COP in terms of Indigenous participation and protagonism,” she said.


    Protests showed power of Indigenous solidarity

    While the decisions by delegates left some Indigenous attendees feeling dismissed, many said they felt empowered by participating in demonstrations outside the venue.

    When the summit began on Nov. 10, Paulo André Paz de Lima, an Amazonian Indigenous leader, thought his tribe and others didn’t have access to COP30. During the first week, he and a group of demonstrators broke through the barrier to get inside the venue. Authorities quickly intervened and stopped their advancement.

    De Lima said that act helped Indigenous people amplify their voices.

    “After breaking the barrier, we were able to enter COP, get into the Blue Zone and express our needs,” he said, referring to the official negotiation area. “We got closer (to the negotiations), got more visibility.”

    The meaning of protest at this COP wasn’t just to get the attention of non-Indigenous people, it also was intended as a way for Indigenous people to commune with each other.

    On the final night before an agreement was reached, a small group with banners walked inside the venue, protesting instances of violence and environmental destruction from the recent killing of a Guarani youth on his own territory to the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project in Canada.

    “We have to come together to show up, you know? Because they need to hear us,” Leandro Karaí of the Guarani people of South America said of the solidarity among Indigenous groups. “When we’re together with others, we’re stronger.“

    They sang to the steady beat of a drum, locked arms in a line and marched down the long hall of the COP venue to the exit, breaking the silence in the corridors as negotiators remained deadlocked inside.

    Then they emerged, voices raised, under a yellow sky.

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the outcome of U.N. climate talks in Brazil

    [ad_1]

    After two weeks of negotiations, this year’s United Nations climate talks ended Saturday with a compromise that some criticized as weak and others called progress.

    The deal finalized at the COP30 conference pledges more money to help countries adapt to climate change, but lacks explicit plans to transition away from the fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas that heat the planet.

    The conference didn’t do as much as scientists thought the world needed. It wasn’t as meaningful as activists and Indigenous people demanded. Few countries got everything they wanted. And the venue even caught fire.

    But that disappointment is mixed with a few wins and the hope for countries to make more progress next year.

    Here’s what you need to know about the outcome.

    Leaders tried to nail down specifics on fighting climate change

    Leaders have been working on how to fight the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather and sea level rise, for a decade. To do that, every country had the homework of writing up their own national climate plans and then reconvened this month to see if it was enough.

    Most didn’t get a good grade and some haven’t even turned it in.

    Brazil, host of the climate conference known as COP30, was trying to get them to cooperate on the toughest issues like climate-related trade restrictions, funding for climate solutions, national climate-fighting plans and more transparency on measuring those plans’ progress.

    More than 80 countries tried to introduce a detailed guide to phase out fossil fuels over the next several decades. There were other to-do items on topics including deforestation, gender and farming.

    Countries reached what critics called a weak compromise

    Nations agreed to triple the amount of money promised to help the vulnerable countries adapt to climate change. But they will take five more years to do it. Some vulnerable island countries said they were happy about the financial support.

    But the final document didn’t include a road map away from fossil fuels, angering many.

    After the agreement was reached, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said Brazil would take an extra step and write their own road map. Not all countries signed up to this, but those on board will meet next year to specifically talk about the fossil fuel phase out. It would not carry the same weight as something agreed to at the conference.

    Also included in the package were smaller agreements on energy grids and biofuels.

    Responses ranged from happy to angry

    “Given what we expected, what we came out with, we were happy,” said Ilana Seid, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.

    But others felt discouraged. Heated exchanges took place during the conference’s final meeting as countries snipped at each other about the fossil fuel plan.

    “I will be brutally honest: The COP and the U.N. system are not working for you. They have never really worked for you. And today, they are failing you at a historic scale,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, a negotiator for Panama.

    Jiwoh Abdulai, Sierra Leone’s environment and climate change minister said: “COP30 has not delivered everything Africa asked for, but it has moved the needle.” He added: “This is a floor, not a ceiling.”

    The real outcome of this year’s climate talks will be judged on “how quickly these words turn into real projects that protect lives and livelihoods,” he said.

    Talks set against the Amazon rainforest

    Participants experienced the Amazon’s extreme heat and humidity and heavy rains that flooded walkways. Organizers who chose Belem, on the edge of the rainforest, as the host city had intended for countries to experience firsthand what was at stake with climate change, and take bold action to stop it.

    But afterward, critics said the deal shows how hard it is to find global cooperation on issues that affect everyone, most of all people in poverty, Indigenous people, women and children around the world.

    “At the start of this COP, there was this high level of ambition. We started with a bang, but we ended with a whimper of disappointment,” said former Philippine negotiator Jasper Inventor, now at Greenpeace International.

    Indigenous people, civil society and youth

    One of the nicknames for the climate talks in Brazil was the “Indigenous peoples’ COP.” Yet some in those groups said they had to fight to be heard.

    Protesters from Indigenous groups twice disrupted the conference to demand a bigger seat at the table. While Indigenous people’s rights weren’t officially on the agenda, Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said so far she is happy with the text because for the first time it includes a paragraph mentioning Indigenous rights.

    She supported countries speaking up on procedural issues because that’s how multilateralism works. “It’s kind of chaotic, but from our perspective, it’s kind of good that some countries have a reaction,” she said.

    Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurers, has published an analysis showing disasters caused more than $93 billion in damage across the U.S. in the first six months of 2025, and nearly 25% of that damage was uninsured. Meteorologist Chase Cain breaks down how climate change is amplifying disasters.

    [ad_2]

    Melina Walling, Anton L. Delgado and Seth Borenstein | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Proposed deal at UN climate talks doesn’t mention fossil fuels that many nations wanted

    [ad_1]

    BELEM, Brazil — Negotiators at the United Nations climate talks will soon decide on a newly forged final deal released on Saturday that does not include a plan to wean the world from the coal, oil and gas that is heating the planet.

    While guidelines wanted by 80 nations for a fossil fuel phase-out are not in the document called “Uniting humanity in a global mobilization against climate change,” the Brazilian presidency has promised it will join Colombia in coming up with an independent road map that’s not needed to be approved by all 190 nations.

    “While far from what’s needed, the outcome in Belem is meaningful progress,” said former German special climate envoy Jennifer Morgan, who is now a fellow at Tufts University.

    The conference leaders are aiming for an early afternoon meeting with all nations to approve the deal. Some nations could try to scuttle it if they prefer no deal to what they consider a feeble agreement, but Morgan said she doubted that any country will block the agreement. It was crafted after more than 12 hours of late night and early morning meetings in COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago’s office.

    “It’s a weak outcome,” said former Philippine negotiator Jasper Inventor, now at Greenpeace International.

    A fossil fuel transition plan will be in a separate proposal issued later by do Lago’s team that won’t carry the same weight as a deal accepted by nations at the conference.

    In the text, instead of a transition plan away from fossil fuels, the agreement “acknowledges that the global transition toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible and the trend of the future,” and says “the (2015) Paris Agreement is working and resolves to go further and faster.”

    The annual talks this year are held in Belem, a Brazilian city on the edge of the Amazon rainforest. They were scheduled to wrap up Friday, but negotiators blew past that deadline and worked through the night.

    Some of the biggest issues include how to distribute $300 billion a year — a sum previously agreed upon — in financial aid for vulnerable countries hit hardest by climate change, getting countries to toughen up their national plans to reduce Earth-warming emissions and dealing with climate trade barriers. Poorer nations have requested a tripling of financial aid for adapting to extreme weather and other climate change harms. While that’s in the deal, the deadline has been moved back five years to 2035.

    Also included in the agreement is the final result of the Action Agenda, which was a list of initiatives aimed at making progress on past deals. That included: a promise of $1 trillion for improving energy grids and infrastructure; ramping up the production of biofuels; industrial decarbonization plans in developing countries; $5.5 billion toward a fund to pay countries to keep their forests standing; and other pledges of funding, including from the private sector, for projects in areas like farming and adaptation.

    Whatever deal is proposed still needs a consensus approval from what’s left of the nearly 200 nations that came to the two-week conference. Some delegates, observers and others had to leave Saturday morning when the cruise ships lodging them set sail.

    Earlier this week, do Lago issued what he had hoped to be a final proposal. It was roundly criticized by the European Union, small island nations and Latin American countries as too weak on fossil fuels and pushing nations to sharpen their new climate-fighting plans. But other countries including Saudi Arabia pushed back against the call to transition away from fossil fuels.

    “Oil producing nations are trying to hold on, to really stop the decline of fossil fuels,” Morgan said.

    Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had pushed for a stronger plan to move away from fossil fuels, as did more than 80 countries. But the earlier proposal by do Lago — a Lula appointee — didn’t even mention the words “fossil fuel.”

    Agreements coming out of COP30 technically have to be approved by consensus. But in the past, individual countries’ objections have been overlooked by the chair in the rush to gavel everything to the end.

    One of the points that negotiators will highlight is language sprinkled in the document that won’t be an explicit road map away from fossil fuels, but will refer back to previous agreements to maintain momentum and “live and fight another day,” said Alden Meyer, a veteran analyst for the European think-tank E3G.

    It’s not enough, Greenpeace’s Inventor said: “We need to reflect on what was possible and what now appears to be missing: the road maps to end forest destruction and fossil fuels and an ongoing lack of finance. We rise up, though, and continue the fight.”

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    ___

    This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alaska Native villages have few options and little US help as climate change devours their land

    [ad_1]

    JUNEAU, Alaska — Storms that battered Alaska’s western coast this fall have brought renewed attention to low-lying Indigenous villages left increasingly vulnerable by climate change — and revived questions about their sustainability in a region being reshaped by frequent flooding, thawing permafrost and landscape-devouring erosion.

    The onset of winter has slowed emergency repair and cleanup work after two October storms, including the remnants of Typhoon Halong, slammed dozens of communities. Some residents from the hardest-hit villages, Kipnuk and Kwigillingok, could be displaced for months and worry what their futures hold.

    Kwigillingok already was pursuing relocation before the latest storm, but that can take decades, with no centralized coordination and little funding. Moves by the Trump administration to cut grants aimed at better protecting communities against climate threats have added another layer of uncertainty.

    Still, the hope is to try to buy villages time to evaluate next steps by reinforcing rebuilt infrastructure or putting in place pilings so homes can be elevated, said Bryan Fisher, the state’s emergency management director.

    “Where we can support that increased resilience to buy that time, we’re going to do that,” he said.

    Alaska is warming faster than the global average. A report released last year by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium found 144 Native communities face threats from erosion, flooding, thawing permafrost or a combination.

    Coastal populations are particularly vulnerable, climate scientist John Walsh said. Less Arctic sea ice means more open water, allowing storm-driven waves to do damage. Thawing permafrost invites more rapid coastal erosion. Waves hitting permafrost bounce like water off a concrete wall, he said, but when permafrost thaws, the loose soil washes away more easily.

    Wind and storm surge from the remnants of Halong consumed dozens of feet of shoreline in Quinhagak, disturbing a culturally significant archaeological site. Quinhagak, like Kipnuk and Kwigillingok, is near the Bering Sea.

    Just four times since 1970 has an ex-typhoon hit the Bering Sea coast north of the Pribilof Islands, said Rick Thoman, a climate specialist with the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness. Three of those have been since 2022, starting with the remnants of Merbok that year.

    The damage caused by ex-typhoon Halong was the worst Fisher said he has seen in his roughly 30 years in emergency management. About 700 homes were destroyed or severely damaged, estimates suggest. Some washed away with people inside and were carried for miles. Kipnuk and Kwigillingok — no strangers to flooding and home to around 1,100 people — were devastated. One person died, and two remain missing.

    At-risk communities can reinforce existing infrastructure or fortify shoreline; move infrastructure to higher ground in what is known as managed retreat; or relocate entirely. The needs are enormous — $4.3 billion over 50 years to protect infrastructure in Native communities from climate threats, according to the health consortium report, though that estimate dates to 2020. A lack of resources and coordination has impeded progress, the report found.

    Simply announcing plans to relocate can leave a community ineligible for funding for new infrastructure at their existing site, and government policies can limit investments at a new site if people aren’t living there yet, the report said.

    It took decades and an estimated $160 million for the roughly 300 residents of Newtok in western Alaska to move 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) to their new village of Mertarvik. Newtok was one of the first Alaska Native communities to fully relocate, but others are considering or pursuing it. In Washington and Louisiana, climate change has been a driving force behind relocation efforts by some tribes.

    But many villages, including Kipnuk and Kwigillingok, “don’t have that kind of time,” said Sheryl Musgrove, director of the Alaska Climate Justice Program at the Alaska Institute for Justice. The two are among 10 tribal communities her group has been working with as they navigate climate-adaptation decisions.

    Kipnuk before the last storm had been planning a protect-in-place strategy but hasn’t decided what to do now, she said.

    Musgrove hopes that in the aftermath, there will be changes at the federal level to help communities in peril. There is no federal agency, for example, tasked with coordinating relocation. That leaves small communities trying to navigate myriad agencies and programs, Musgrove said.

    “I guess I’m just really hopeful that this might be the beginning of a change because I think that there is a lot of attention to what happened here,” she said.

    With money from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2022 created the Voluntary Community-Driven Relocation Program and committed $115 million for 11 tribes’ relocation efforts, including $25 million each for Newtok and Napakiak. In Napakiak, most of the infrastructure is expected to be destroyed by 2030, and the community is moving away from the banks of the Kuskokwim River.

    That is not enough to move a village, and additional funding opportunities are scattered across other agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

    Sustained federal support is uncertain as the Trump administration cuts programs related to climate change and disaster resilience. Trump in May proposed cutting $617 million from the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ tribal self-governance and communities programs but did not specify which programs.

    The Department of Interior said in an email that new grant funding is “under review as part of a broader effort to improve federal spending accountability,” but that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was “helping tribes lay the groundwork for future implementation when funding pathways are clarified.”

    Other federal money that could help Alaska villages has already been cut. Federal Emergency Management Agency awards to Newtok and Kwigillingok for projects related to relocation didn’t arrive before the administration in April halted billions of dollars in unpaid grants.

    Trump has also stopped approving state and tribal requests for hazard mitigation funding, a typical add-on that accompanies federal support after major disasters.

    Even the data that villages need to assess how climate change is affecting them are at risk. The Trump administration has removed information related to climate change from government websites and has fired scientists in charge of the nation’s congressionally mandated climate assessment reports.

    ___

    Aoun Angueira reported from San Diego.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU Will Not Oppose Proposed COP30 Deal, Sources Say

    [ad_1]

    BELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -The European Union would not oppose a proposed deal on the outcome of the COP30 climate talks in Brazil, two sources told Reuters.

    “It’s lacking in ambition, it’s lacking in balance, but we won’t oppose,” a EU negotiator said. “Because it will provide much-needed money for adaptation to the poorest and most vulnerable.”

    (Reporting by Kate Abnett; editing by William James)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • With the world at a climate summit, White House pushes major environmental rollbacks

    [ad_1]

    As representatives from nearly 200 nations were wrapping up talks at the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit this week, the United States was not only absent, the Trump administration also introduced a series of sweeping proposals to roll back environmental protections and encourage fossil fuel drilling.

    The United Nations Climate Change Conference ended Friday in the Brazilian city of Belém, where delegates gathered to hammer out a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, boost climate action and limit global warming.

    For the first time in the summit’s history, the U.S. — one of the top emitters of greenhouse gases — did not send a delegation. Instead, the Trump administration this week announced a plan to open up new oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida for the first time in decades and proposed rule changes to weaken the Endangered Species Act and limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to protect wetlands and streams.

    “These rules double down on the administration’s refusal to confront the climate crisis in a serious way and, in fact, move us in the opposite direction,” said Jessie Ritter, associate vice president of waters and coasts for the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group.

    The White House told NBC News Friday that this week’s “historic” announcements aim to “further President Trump’s American energy dominance agenda.”

    “President Trump is reversing government overreach, restoring energy security, and protecting American jobs by rolling back excessive, burdensome regulations and creating new opportunities to ‘DRILL, BABY, DRILL,’” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “President Trump serves the American people, not radical climate activists who have fallen victim to the biggest scam of the century.”

    Ritter said the new proposals signal to the world just how much the U.S. has stepped back from any meaningful climate action.

    “I doubt that this surprises folks who have been watching in the international arena,” she said. “But it’s unfortunate, given the example the U.S. sets and what our leadership, or lack thereof, emboldens other countries to do.”

    The Trump administration’s announcement on Thursday that it intends to open up roughly 1.27 billion acres of coastal U.S. waters for oil drilling drew bipartisan pushback.

    Although the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for the oil and gas industry, hailed the program as a “historic step toward unleashing our nation’s vast offshore resources,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) pushed to uphold the current moratorium on drilling, which Trump extended during his first term.

    “I have been speaking to @SecretaryBurgum and made my expectations clear that this moratorium must remain in place, and that in any plan, Florida’s coasts must remain off the table for oil drilling to protect Florida’s tourism, environment, and military training opportunities,” Scott wrote Thursday on X, referring to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

    Across the country, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X that “Donald Trump’s idiotic proposal to sell off California’s coasts to his Big Oil donors is dead in the water.”

    “We will not stand by as our coastal economy and communities are put in danger,” he said.

    The drilling directive came just three days after the Trump administration proposed major limits to the Clean Water Act of 1972 that would undo protections from pollution and runoff for most of the country’s small streams and wetlands. The rule would narrow the definition of which bodies qualify as “waters of the United States” under the act.

    If finalized, the changes would mean that the fewest freshwater resources would be under federal protection since the law was enacted, according to Jon Devine, who heads the water policy team at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.

    “By EPA’s own estimate, only about 19% of the country’s wetlands would be protected against unregulated destruction and development if this were finalized,” Devin said.

    Wetlands act as buffers against flooding by absorbing and storing water during extreme rainfall and other high runoff events. As the world warms, coastal and inland flooding is expected to become more frequent and severe.

    “Many of the places that we already have in the U.S. that are increasingly flood-prone due to climate change are going to be even more in harm’s way,” Devine said.

    Wetlands and streams also feed into other bodies of water that serve as critical drinking water supplies across the country, so critics fear the policy could make drinking water unsafe in some communities.

    The third major environmental rollback announced this week was a set of four rules that would erode protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The proposed changes aim to make it easier to remove species classified as threatened or endangered and harder to add new protected species and their habitats to the list. The rules, if passed, would also allow the government to consider “economic impacts” in decisions to list or de-list species.

    Taken together, Ritter said, these three proposals are consistent with the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.

    “These decisions prioritize short-term gain, often for a few industries and special interests, at the expense of things that have been widely bipartisan and important issues for people for decades,” Ritter said.

    The impacts of the changes might not all be apparent right away, she added, but the scale of the long-term consequences could be immense.

    “It’s truly not an exaggeration that this is going to touch all Americans in some way,” she said. “Everything is connected, and it’s hubris to think that we can have these massive negative effects on our streams and wetlands, our animals, our coastal waters, without impacts to humans.”

    Research from the Environmental Voter Project shows Americans don’t view climate change as a political issue, so what will that mean for the 2026 midterm elections? Chase Cain talks with Nathaniel Stinnett on the latest episode of NBC’s video podcast series Predictable.

    [ad_2]

    Denise Chow | NBC News

    Source link

  • The Climate Impact of Owning a Dog

    [ad_1]

    This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

    I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. It’s not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It’s a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki.

    Until recently, I hadn’t devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox. Then I read an article in the Associated Press headlined “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog.”

    The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examined how people perceive the climate impact of various behaviors—options like “adopt a vegan diet for at least one year,” or “shift from fossil fuel car to renewable public transport.” The team found that participants generally overestimated a number of low-impact actions like recycling and using efficient appliances, and they vastly underestimated the impact of other personal decisions, including the decision to “not purchase or adopt a dog.”

    The real objective of the study was to see whether certain types of climate information could help people commit to more effective actions. But mere hours after the AP published its article, its aim had been recast as something else entirely: an attack on people’s furry family members. “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog,” one Reddit user wrote. Others in the community chimed in with ire, ridiculing the idea that a pet Chihuahua could be driving the climate crisis and calling on researchers and the media to stop pointing fingers at everyday individuals.

    Goldwert and her fellow researchers watched the reactions unfold with dismay. “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset,” she said. “They definitely don’t,” she added. “You can quote me on that.”

    Loki grinning on a hike in the Pacific Northwest.

    Photograph: Claire Elise Thompson/Grist

    [ad_2]

    Claire Elise Thompson

    Source link

  • G7, EU Leaders to Discuss Ukraine Peace Plan on Sidelines of G20 Summit, Sources Say

    [ad_1]

    BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The E3 countries, European Union leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa, Japan and Canada will discuss Washington’s proposed peace plan for Ukraine on Saturday afternoon on the sidelines of the G20 Summit, sources familiar with the matter said.

    The E3 is an informal security alliance of France, Britain and Germany.

    (Reporting by Julia Payne; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • G20 Leaders Meet in South Africa Seeking Agreement, Despite US Boycott

    [ad_1]

    JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) -Leaders of the Group of 20 top economies gathered for a U.S.-boycotted summit in South Africa on Saturday, seeking a deal on a draft declaration drawn up without U.S. input in a surprise move that a senior White House official described as “shameful”.

    G20 envoys have agreed on a draft leaders’ declaration ahead of the weekend summit in Johannesburg, in which several of the top agenda items are about climate change. The draft was drawn up without seeking U.S. consensus, four sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

    One of those sources confirmed late on Friday that the draft made references to climate change, despite objections from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who doubts the scientific consensus that warming is caused by human activities.

    Trump has indicated that it will boycott the summit because of allegations, widely discredited, that the host country’s Black majority government persecutes its white minority.

    The U.S. president has also rejected the host nation’s agenda of promoting solidarity and helping developing nations adapt to weather disasters, transition to clean energy and cut their excessive debt costs.

    The boycott had put a dampener on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s plans to trumpet South Africa’s role in promoting multilateral diplomacy, but some analysts suggested it might benefit it, if other members embrace the summit’s agenda and make headway on a substantive declaration.

    It was not clear what concessions had to be made on the language to get everyone to agree. The United States had objected to any mention of climate or renewable energy in the discussion, and some other members are often reticent about it. 

    Three out of four of South Africa’s planned top agenda items – preparing for climate-induced weather disasters, financing the transition to green energy, and ensuring the rush for critical minerals benefits producers – are largely about climate change.

    The fourth is about a more equitable system of borrowing for poor countries.

    The United States will host the G20 in 2026 and Ramaphosa said he would have to hand over the rotating presidency to an “empty chair”. The South African presidency has rejected the White House’s offer to send the U.S. charge d’affaires for the G20 handover.

    (Reporting by Tim CocksEditing by Ros Russell)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Turkey and Australia Confirm Agreement on COP31 Split-Hosting Deal

    [ad_1]

    BELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -Turkey will host the COP31 climate summit in 2026 with Australia leading the negotiation process, a document released at the COP30 summit in Brazil showed on Friday, confirming an earlier announcement that a split hosting arrangement was expected.

    The statement was issued by Germany after a meeting of the Western European and Others Group, which was tasked with selecting the 2026 host.

    The deal, which resolved a lengthy standoff with both vying to host the U.N. climate talks, set out that Turkey will serve as the venue while delegating negotiating responsibilities to Australia.

    “If there is a difference of views between Türkiye (Turkey) and Australia, consultations will take place until the difference is resolved to mutual satisfaction,” the statement said.

    A pre-COP summit will be held in a Pacific Island country, and Australia will lead the year-long process that shapes the agenda and priorities ahead of COP31.

    (Reporting by William James; Editing by Himani Sarkar)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • UN climate talks go into overtime as divisions over fossil fuels persist

    [ad_1]

    United Nations climate talks in Brazil have gone past their scheduled deadline as countries remain deeply divided over a proposed deal that contains no reference to phasing out fossil fuels.

    Negotiators remained in closed-door meetings on Friday evening at the COP30 summit in the Brazilian city of Belem as they sought to bridge differences and deliver an agreement that includes concrete action to stem the climate crisis.

    A draft proposal made public earlier in the day has drawn concern from climate activists and other experts because it did not contain any mention of fossil fuels – the main driver of climate change.

    “This cannot be an agenda that divides us,” COP30 President Andre Correa do Lago told delegates in a public plenary session before releasing them for further negotiations. “We must reach an agreement between us.”

    The rift over the future of oil, gas and coal has underscored the difficulties of landing a consensus agreement at the annual UN conference, which serves as a test of global resolve to avert the worst impacts of global warming.

    “Many countries, especially oil-producing countries or countries that depend on fossil fuels … have stated that they do not want this mentioned in a final agreement,” Al Jazeera’s Monica Yanakiew reported from Rio de Janeiro on Friday afternoon.

    Meanwhile, dozens of other countries have said they would not support any agreement that did not lay out a roadmap to phasing out fossil fuels, Yanakiew noted.

    “So this is a big divisive point,” she said, adding that another major issue at the climate conference has been financing the transition away from fossil fuels.

    Developing countries – many of which are more susceptible to the effects of climate change, including more extreme weather events – have said they want richer nations to shoulder more of the financial burden of tackling the crisis.

    “So there is a lot being discussed … and negotiators say that this might likely continue throughout the weekend,” Yanakiew said.

    The deadlock comes as the UN Environment Programme warned ahead of COP30 that the world would “very likely” exceed the 1.5-degree Celsius (2.7-degree Fahrenheit) warming limit – an internationally agreed-upon target set under the Paris Agreement – within the next decade.

    Amnesty International also said in a recent report that the expansion of fossil fuel projects threatens at least two billion people – about one-quarter of the world’s population.

    In a statement on Friday, Nafkote Dabi, the climate policy lead at Oxfam International, said it was “unacceptable” for any final agreement to exclude a plan to phase out fossil fuels.

    “A roadmap is essential, and it must be just, equitable, and backed by real support for the Global South,” Dabi said.

    “Developed countries who grew wealthy on their fossil fuel-based economies must phase out first and fastest, while financing low‑carbon pathways for the Global South.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • At UN climate conference, some activists and scientists want more talk on reforming agriculture

    [ad_1]

    BELEM, Brazil — With a spotlight on the Brazilian Amazon, where agriculture drives a significant chunk of deforestation and planet-warming emissions, many of the activists, scientists and government leaders at United Nations climate talks have a beef. They want more to be done to transform the world’s food system.

    Protesters gathered outside a new space at the talks, the industry-sponsored “Agrizone,” to call for a transition toward a more grassroots food system, even as hundreds of lobbyists for big agriculture companies are attending the talks.

    Though agriculture contributes about a third of Earth-warming emissions worldwide, most of the money dedicated to fighting climate change goes to causes other than agriculture, according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

    The FAO didn’t offer any single answer as to how that spending should be shifted, or on what foods people should be eating.

    “All the countries are coming together. I don’t think we can impose on them one specific worldview,” said Kaveh Zahedi, director of the organization’s Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment.

    Research has generally shown that a plant-based diet can be better for health and the planet. But many people in poverty around the world who are hardest hit by climate change depend on animal sources of protein for survival. People in higher-income countries have more options for a healthy diet without meat. But those people still tend to contribute more to climate change with their dietary choices.

    “We have to be very, very aware and conscious of those nuances, those differences that exist,” Zahedi said.

    When world leaders gather every year to try to address climate change, they spend much of their time in a giant, artificial world that typically gets built up just for the conference.

    One corner of COP30, as this year’s conference is known, featured the alternative universe of AgriZone, where visitors could step into a world of immersive videos and exhibits with live plants and food products. Those included a research farm that Brazilian national agricultural research corporation Embrapa built to showcase what they call low-carbon farming methods for raising cattle, and growing crops like corn and soy as well as ways to integrate cover crops like legumes or trees like teak and eucalyptus.

    Ana Euler, executive director of innovation, business and technology transfer at Embrapa, said her industry can offer solutions needed especially in the Global South where climate change is hitting hardest.

    “We need to be part of the discussions in terms of climate funds,” Euler said. “We researchers, we speak loud, but nobody listens.”

    AgriZone was averaging about 2,000 visitors a day during COP30’s two-week run, said Gabriel Faria, an Embrapa spokesman. That included tours for Queen Mary of Denmark, COP President André Corrêa do Lago and other Brazilian state and local officials.

    But while the AgriZone seeks to spread a message of lower-carbon agriculture possibilities, industrial agriculture retains a big influence at the climate talks. The climate-focused news site DeSmog reported that more than 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists are attending COP30.

    On a humid evening at COP30’s opening, a group of activists gathered on the grassy center of a busy roundabout in front of the AgriZone to call for food systems that prioritize good working conditions and sustainability and for industry lobbyists to not be allowed at the talks.

    Those with the most sway are “not the smallholder food producers, … not the peasants, and … definitely not all these people in the Global South that are experiencing the brunt of the crisis,” said Pang Delgra, an activist with the Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development who was among the protesters. “It’s this industrial agriculture and corporate lobbyists that are shifting the narrative inside COPs.”

    As Indigenous people pushed to be heard at a COP that was supposed to be about them, some also called for countries to honor their knowledge of land stewardship.

    “We have to decolonize our thoughts. It’s not just about changing to a different food,” said Sara Omi, from the Embera people of Panama and president of the Coordination of Territorial Leaders of the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests.

    “The agro-industrial systems are not the solution,” she added. “The solution is our own ancestral systems that we maintain as Indigenous peoples.”

    ___

    Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @melinawalling.bsky.social. Follow Joshua A. Bickel on Instagram, Bluesky and X @joshuabickel.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Startup’s Bid to Dim the Sun

    [ad_1]

    The gloomy arguments in favor of solar geoengineering are compelling; so are the even gloomier counter-arguments.

    [ad_2]

    Elizabeth Kolbert

    Source link