News Feeds

Nevada officials have long presented themselves as a voice for compromise and conservation in debates over the Colorado River. The Las Vegas area, home to two-thirds of the state’s population and most of its economy, has become a model of urban water conservation. As the river has declined from overuse and a decades-long drought exacerbated by climate change, southern Nevada water planners built extensive water reuse facilities and implemented tight restrictions on new turf and fountains, dropping the region’s per capita water use by 58 percent in roughly 20 years. Meanwhile, in interstate negotiations over the management of the Colorado River, state representatives have positioned themselves as bridge-builders, sometimes referring to themselves as the “middle basin” between the river’s divided upper and lower basin states. 

When the federal government’s new management plan for the river was announced earlier this month, most observers thought Arizona, which stands to take the largest immediate cuts, would launch the first lawsuit over the plan’s implications for its water supplies. So it came as a surprise to many Colorado River experts when Nevada became the first to sue the federal government over the plan this week.

“I expected that there would be litigation, but it was surprising to me that Nevada fired the first shot,” said Anne Castle, former chair of the Upper Colorado River Commission,

Nevada’s lawsuit comes after more than two years of negotiations among the seven Colorado River states and the federal government over how to reduce water use on the declining river. The states failed to reach a long-term agreement before the river’s current management procedures expire in October, leaving the Interior Department to impose its own plan. The federal government’s plan largely relies on cuts to water use among the Lower Basin states — Arizona, Nevada, and California — to prop up water levels in the river’s largest reservoirs. Those reservoirs have been draining so quickly that the dwindling water depth could threaten hydropower and dam operations within months without intervention. 

Nevada argues that the federal government’s plan illegally forces it to take too much of those cuts. In a worst-case scenario, the plan could allow for a 71 percent cut to the Las Vegas area’s water supply, the state argued, calling it an unacceptable risk to the state’s largest population center and economic hub. Nevada believes this outcome results from a misreading of the law and also claims the government didn’t consider important alternatives to such drastic cuts.

This worst-case scenario, which experts say is an interpretation of the plan’s implications by Nevada, would become possible if reservoir levels continue to drop and if Nevada couldn’t reach an agreement with Arizona and California to help it absorb more of those cuts. Those three states already have such an agreement, which is incorporated into the federal plan and meant to last through 2028, at which point the plan allows the states to update the operations with a new agreement. Without an agreement, the federal government will implement cuts based on preexisting water rights and agreements, cutting the most from Arizona and leaning increasingly on Nevada and California as potential shortages increase. The plan was created through a decision-making process required under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which mandates that federal agencies gather public input and consider environmental and socioeconomic impacts of major decisions.

Read Next The Colorado River is vanishing — and the fixes are getting weird Jake Bittle

At first glance, the lawsuit seems like a departure from Nevada’s long-standing posture as the river’s conciliator, advocating consensus among the river basin’s seven states and 30 tribes, which hold vast water rights but are not formal members of interstate negotiations. John Entsminger, the state’s negotiator on the river, has repeatedly portrayed compromise as the state’s preferred path, telling a Las Vegas water conference just a week before the lawsuit that negotiation and cooperation were the state’s “first, second, and third choice.” 

But Nevada has consistently paired its call for consensus with a warning that it would defend its water if negotiations failed, and the state’s case seems less surprising in light of the drastic cuts it claims are possible under the federal plan. Unlike other states, Nevada sends its Colorado River water almost entirely to urban areas. That means cuts fall directly on the Las Vegas area, while other states can cushion the blow by fallowing agricultural fields.

“There is an absurdity to a plan that would require Las Vegas to cut 71 percent. That’s existential. Of course Nevada sued,” wrote John Fleck, water expert and author in residence at the University of New Mexico’s Utton Center, in a recent blog post. 

The lawsuit can also be read as a continuation of Nevada’s advocacy for consensus among the basin states and tribes. With the states unable to reach a long-term agreement and the federal government moving ahead with its own plan, Nevada is now using a different tool to make the same basic argument: that a federal decision without full buy-in from all the states can’t accommodate all their needs and find the innovative solution needed to manage the river.

Nevada argues in its suit that the legally required decision-making process that led to the federal plan failed to account for economic consequences to the Las Vegas area or consider creative alternatives to such drastic water cuts, such as changes to the structure of Glen Canyon Dam. Nevadans argue the process was too narrow and failed to consider solutions that would have avoided such massive theoretical water shortages in a major metropolitan area.

“Nobody can deny that the federal government did a ton of modeling and scenario analyses, but in terms of where the rubber meets the road, what were all the inputs, and what were some of the other analyses that could have been done?” said Kyle Roerink, former director of the Great Basin Water Network, an advocacy group for rural Nevada water resources.

How a court will see that issue has become complicated in the wake of a series of Supreme Court cases that reshaped the federal government’s responsibilities when conducting reviews under NEPA, especially with decisions that involve large, multifaceted infrastructure systems.

The suit, experts say, isn’t the cannonball-splash Colorado River experts have feared for years. That case, in which Arizona challenges the Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — on whether they have met their obligations under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, may still materialize. Such a case could force judges to determine fundamental questions about who bears responsibility for the river’s decline. The resulting court battle could last years and remove states’ control over the fate of the river. Castle describes this scenario as where the “really big risks are.” 

Still, Nevada’s lawsuit has cast uncertainty over the river’s near-term operations. Nevada hasn’t yet asked for an immediate restraining order against the federal government, which would request that a judge immediately vacate the plan. But if the state convinces a court to rule against the federal plan, it could throw a wrench in the initial two-year arrangement that was expected to keep Lower Basin states afloat in the near future. 

“We are disappointed to see Nevada filing suit here, and are concerned about what the ramifications will be for the operations plans in 2027 and potentially 2028,” said Jay Weiner in an interview, speaking in his capacity as counsel for the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, a senior water rights holder along the Colorado River in Arizona and California.

But experts agree this move, and even a theoretical Arizona suit, don’t strike a death knell for collaboration and negotiation on the river. States in the lower part of the basin may still negotiate regular arrangements to share shortages while litigation proceeds, while the possibility of a full seven-state agreement remains possible if negotiations resume.

Speaking at the Paris Las Vegas casino during the Colorado River Water Users’ Association conference in 2024, Navajo Nation Chief Counsel Bidtah Becker reminded the audience that water litigation and negotiation are not mutually exclusive: “You can get along and argue at the same time, and you develop long-term relationships through that.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Nevada preached peace on the Colorado River. Now it’s suing to protect its water. on Aug 28, 2026.

Screenshot

 

The Bent of the River Audubon Center is no sports stadium, but it was nevertheless the site of an exciting “grand slam” this year—just with birds, not baseballs. During a single session, their...

Walking through the serene spruce forest on Hog Island, you may come across an occasional old tree that stands out among the surrounding second growth. Forest ecologists call this a wolf tree. If you...

The Trump administration is demanding that Venezuela hand over control of more than a dozen of the country’s vast oil fields, according to reports from Axios. If the deal moves forward, the U.S. federal government would take ownership of the fields and would hand operational control to private oil companies. In response, Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, issued the following statement:

“President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are demanding Venezuela turn over ownership of more than a dozen Venezuelan oil production fields to the United States federal government. If this comes to pass, Trump will likely transfer operational control to U.S. oil companies, opening the door to Trump’s typical bilateral transactional corruption, bestowing lucrative opportunities for the oil companies he chooses to reward.

“In the nearly eight months since Trump’s illegal January 2026 Venezuelan invasion, the Trump administration has managed a $13 billion slush fund gleaned from its control over Venezuelan oil sales, with zero transparency, and little to no public oversight or accounting. The President has no authority to negotiate a deal where the federal government takes control over foreign oil production facilities, and Congress must intervene and put an end to Trump’s oil fueled imperialism.

“Trump hasn’t been shy about expressing his admiration of Gulf Monarchs’ oil slush funds, and his effort to establish a South American kleptocracy is an outrage. There’s been no improvement in human rights in Venezuela, so Trump’s move is further evidence that his illegal actions in Venezuela are all about controlling oil with no public accounting, transparency or oversight. This is yet another Trump gift for Big Oil.”

An on-the-clock, worker-to-worker education session trains farmworkers on the FFP’s protections, including its heat stress standards The Packer: “By pairing electrolyte access with shade and rest, the upgraded rules give agricultural workers critical defense against chronic heat-related health risks.” Oscar Londoño, co-executive director of WeCount! in Florida Trib: “We think the model pioneered by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is capable of doing what government can’t do right now, which is guaranteeing life-saving protections for workers.”

Last week, we shared how the Fair Food Program’s new rule mandating the year-round provision of electrolytes across all participating farms is generating a wave of national news. Today, we want to share three more stories that dive deeper into the new rule — highlighting both its urgent importance in protecting farmworkers from the growing dangers of extreme heat and the power of the FFP model to inspire workers in other industries to build enforceable protections of their own.

The stories underscore two distinct aspects of an increasingly stark reality: The dangers facing workers in a rapidly warming world are growing every day, but workers are also increasingly building proven solutions capable of meeting those dangers head-on. And as the Fair Food Program continues to expand, the Worker-driven Social Responsibility model pioneered by the CIW is providing a roadmap toward enforceable protections for workers far beyond the fields where it was born.

This week, we’d like to share a few more news stories that dive deeper into the FFP’s new rule and explore its impact beyond just the fields where it is being implemented. To start, here is the produce industry’s leading outlet, The Packer, providing an overview of the new rule, its reach, and the unique enforcement mechanisms underlying the FFP:

Fair Food Program Rolls Out Year-Round Electrolytes to Protect Farmworkers From Heat Illness By pairing electrolyte access with shade and rest, the upgraded rules give agricultural workers critical defense against chronic heat-related health risks.

Fair Food Program (FFP) has instituted a new rule requiring all participating agricultural growers to provide electrolyte beverages or supplements to workers year-round, effective Aug. 1.

The mandate expands the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ existing Heat Illness Standards, which already mandate shade, cool drinking water, paid rest breaks, and heat safety training, to combat both acute heat illness and chronic conditions like long-term kidney damage.

“Sweating in the heat pulls electrolytes out of the body faster than water alone can replace them,” Roxana Chicas, associate professor at Emory University’s Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, says. “Making electrolytes available year-round, alongside shade, rest, and water, is a practical way to help keep workers safe from heat illness and to guard against kidney damage. Many growers already work hard to protect their crews in the heat, and this is one straightforward step that growers and workers can build into the daily work routine together,” she adds.

Unlike voluntary government guidelines, FFP standards carry binding market enforcement. Supported by agreements with 14 major retailers, including Walmart, McDonald’s, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s, participating buyers must suspend purchases from growers who fail to comply. The Fair Food Standards Council handles independent monitoring and enforcement through farm audits and a 24-hour complaint hotline.

Workers attend an education session as part of the FFP in New Jersey

“The health and safety of our employees is non-negotiable. It is incumbent on all employers to do everything possible to ensure that responsibility,” says Jon Esformes, CEO of Sunripe Certified Brands and a founding member of the FFP’s Working Group. “The formalization of what has been a best practice for some time is a singular action that is one of many to fulfill that responsibility. Here at Sunripe, and the Fair Food Program, we are always honored to lead the way.”

The Fair Food Program protects tens of thousands of farmworkers harvesting dozens of crops across 23 states and three countries, including the United States, Chile, and South Africa.

The importance of those protections becomes even clearer when viewed against the human toll of rising temperatures. More than 550 workers die from heat every year in the United States, according to La Jornada in its own coverage of the FFP’s new electrolyte rule. And for farmworkers — who labor for hours under the sun performing some of the most physically demanding work this country has to offer — the danger is especially acute.

But the FFP demonstrates that those dangers are not inevitable. Workers, growers, and buyers have built a system capable of identifying emerging threats, developing practical solutions, and, critically, ensuring that those solutions are actually implemented in the fields.

And just a few hours east of Immokalee, workers in Homestead’s massive plant nursery industry face many of the same dangers farmworkers confronted when the CIW began organizing more than three decades ago: extreme heat, wage theft, harassment, and retaliation. Inspired by the FFP’s example, those workers are now attempting to build enforceable protections of their own. 

To read about that effort, check out excerpts of The Florida Trib’s article below. To read the full article, click here, and to read more about how the CIW is working with WeCount! to help replicate the FFP’s protections in the plant nursery industry, read our post about that initiative here.

Weakened federal heat protection rules leave Florida workers sweating

…“There’s no way to talk about the ongoing fight for heat protections nationally without talking about what’s happening in Florida, both on side of the problem and more importantly on the side of the solution,” said Oscar Londoño, co-executive director of WeCount!, a human rights group pushing for heat safety protections in the plant nursery industry.

Dozens of American workers die from heat-related illnesses each year and thousands more are injured, according to federal statistics. Those numbers probably undercount heat’s true toll, since toiling under the sun gradually contributes to chronic illnesses such as kidney failure and raises the risk exhausted workers will have accidents like falls or crashes. In Florida, heat kills a worker almost every summer.

With few other options, workers are organizing protests and boycotts to pressure companies into giving them water and breaks, following the example of farmworkers in Immokalee, Florida, who won some of America’s strongest heat protections.

In Homestead, WeCount! is organizing plant nursery workers like Sandra along with plant buyers and community members to demand stronger labor protections as part of a campaign called Planting Justice.

“We think the model pioneered by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is capable of doing what government can’t do right now, which is guaranteeing life-saving protections for workers,” said Londoño.

A laboratory for change

In the absence of government regulations, Florida has become the national epicenter of workers organizing for heat protections.

Immokalee farmworkers created the most successful model. Starting in the ‘90s, tomato pickers organized protests against abusive employers. In 2001, they launched the Campaign for Fair Food and fanned across the country, visiting churches and college campuses to tell Americans about the dangerous labor conditions under which their food is grown.

The workers drafted a code of conduct that included protections from violence, wage theft and sexual harassment. They demanded Florida tomato growers agree to follow the rules, and they also called on fast food companies and grocery stores to buy tomatoes whenever possible from participating farms. Then they asked Americans to protest and boycott companies, starting with Taco Bell, until they agreed to join the program.

The pressure campaign worked. Nearly all Florida tomato growers agreed to follow the workers’ rules and submit to regular audits and inspections to guarantee compliance. The Fair Food Program (FFP) now covers more than 25,000 farmworkers in 23 states and three countries who grow more than a dozen crops. Fourteen retailers including Walmart, Trader Joe’s and Burger King have agreed to not buy produce from farms that break the rules.

Nely Rodriguez (speaking) and Lupe Gonzalo (to Nely’s right) of the CIW join plant nursery workers with WeCount! at a press conference on the Planting Justice initiative in Miami earlier this year.

Five years ago, the FFP added mandatory heat protections to its code of conduct. Participating farms have to give workers access to cold water, shaded rest areas and 10-minute breaks every two hours on hot days. Starting this month, they must also offer workers electrolyte drinks or supplements such as Gatorade year round.

“While the hope for federal heat rules now wanes, the FFP is strengthening its protections with mandatory, year-round electrolytes even as it expands to more farms across the country,” Coalition for Immokalee Workers co-founder Lucas Benitez said in an emailed statement.

Workers on South Florida tropical plant nurseries hope to follow suit. This year, they launched the Planting Justice campaign, which would build a similar program around houseplants. Organizers are calling on Costa Farms — the country’s biggest plant nursery, headquartered in Homestead, Florida — to become the first grower to join the program. As part of a national letter writing campaign, more than 2,000 people have written to Costa Farms to urge them to join…

That’s all for today, but stay tuned for more updates on the Fair Food Program!

The African continent’s hopes for a legally binding agreement to combat drought have been dashed again, as UN land restoration talks in Mongolia passed the issue onto the next set of talks in Egypt in two years’ time.

For over a decade, Africa has pushed for a UN protocol on drought risk management that would acknowledge drought as an issue requiring a regional and global – not just a national – response, potentially paving the way for more finance to help ensure water is available when drought hits.

A formal protocol would enable countries to transition from reacting to drought once it hits to “a proactive enabling mechanism to address drought and its effects such as migration”, said a Tunisian negotiator on behalf of the African Group of countries last week. Once land is regularly too dry and infertile to grow crops or graze animals, people often leave to seek a living elsewhere.

But this effort to adopt a protocol, led by Africa, has been resisted at successive land restoration COPs under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), mainly by developed countries, which argue that a legally weaker alternative – a framework – would be faster and cheaper to set up.

A traditional Mongolian Ger tent at COP17 (Photo: Anastasia Rodopolou/IISD ENB)

Governments at the previous COP in Saudi Arabia in 2024 failed to reach agreement despite talks running past midnight, while this year’s saw African officials coordinate a walkout from negotiating rooms on Wednesday morning, according to two sources at the talks.

Drought deal delayed until 2028

The IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a non-governmental organisation which unlike the media is allowed to watch and report on closed-door talks, said a call to suspend negotiations on Wednesday showed negotiations had reached “boiling point” and “made some jaws drop”.

Negotiations resumed after a lunchtime meeting with the Mongolian COP presidency although governments were only eventually able to agree that they could not find consensus in Ulaanbaatar and should resume talks on an instrument to deal with drought in 2028.

Christine Colvin, WWF’s head of freshwater policy, told Climate Home News that, with droughts hitting from Honduras to the English region of Hampshire, something concrete – whether a protocol or a framework – is needed urgently “rather than the can being kicked down the road for another two years as will now happen with the protocol procrastination”.

Negotiators talk at COP17 (Photo: Anastasia Rodopolou/IISD ENB)

But, in a closing press conference on Friday, the Mongolian minister presiding over talks celebrated that governments had reached consensus on several “contentious” issues and that agenda items blocked at this year’s COP17 would be put on the agenda for COP18 in Egypt.

US blocks agenda items

Other agenda items that divided countries were on measuring land degradation’s effects on women, enhancing the involvement of civil society and women in land COPs, and the UNCCD working more closely and effectively with the UN’s climate and nature conventions.

On the COP’s opening day two weeks ago, the US representative said the Trump government objects to these agenda items “on their premise and no amount of negotiation will allow us to join consensus on these items. As such we request that they be struck from the agenda at which time we will then be able to approve it, saving us valuable negotiating time.”

A US State Department spokesperson later told Climate Home News that the US wants the UN “to get back to basics by refocusing on its core mandate, eliminating overlap, and reducing competition for scarce resources”.

The spokesperson added, “that means prioritising the concrete work member states created [the UN] to do – rather than diverting limited time, attention, and resources toward social and political agendas, including gender-related initiatives.”

A protester calls for Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and youth to be on the agenda of COP17 (Photo: Anastasia Rodopoulou/IISD ENB)

On COP’s first day, the European Union and Brazil pushed back against the blocking of these agenda items, with a Brazilian negotiator saying his country attaches “great importance” to them. But the Mongolian presidency directed governments to adopt the rest of the agenda without the controversial items, which were discussed privately with countries throughout the two weeks.

An EU statement, read out later by Irish minister Timmy Dooley, accused “some parties” (meaning national governments) of having adopted a “less constructive approach” and preventing “discussions on important matters from even commencing”.

The agenda items the US refused to engage with were never discussed and were only placed onto the agenda for the next COP on the last day. Those talks will take place in Egypt in two years’ time, with Donald Trump due then to be in his last year as US president.

No restoration without women

The blocking of the gender agenda item has stymied attempts, agreed on by governments at the last COP, to develop gender-specific indicators for the UNCCD’s next overall framework and to facilitate more women delegates at COPs. Women made up only about a quarter of delegates to COP15 in 2022, UNCCD analysis with the latest data shows

Criticising the move to keep gender off the agenda, the EU said in a statement that it welcomes “the attention being given at COP17 to women pastoralists and herders, recognising their contribution to sustainable land management and resilient rural livelihoods”.

The head of the UNCCD, former Egyptian environment minister Yasmine Fouad, said on Friday that “regardless that the agenda item was blocked”, she was proud that she and COP17 President Batmunkh Battsetseg had led the COP as women and attended the gender caucus (a meeting of groups supporting women at the talks).  

Yasmine Fouad and Batmunkh Battsetseg talk at the COP17 closing press conference (Photo: Kiara Worth/UNCCD)

“Without the women,” she told the closing press conference on Friday, “we will not be able to restore land, restore hope, restore life or restore even our children and grandchildren. And we will keep on pushing that agenda.”

The civil society agenda item aimed to allow NGOs to attend land COP negotiations, as they do at climate COPs, and included terms of reference for an Indigenous Peoples Caucus.

A representative of Indigenous Peoples told the COP’s closing plenary meeting that the group had “deep disappointment that the agenda of this COP has removed the dedicated space for indigenous peoples”. “We cannot restore the land while removing the voices of those who care for it,” she said. 

On Tuesday, the UNCCD’s deputy head Andrea Meza was asked about Indigenous Peoples’ participation. She said that the blocking of “one agenda item” is “generating uncertainty in the progress” towards creating caucuses for Indigenous Peoples and for Local Communities within the talks.

Because of the “complex geopolitical situation” making it hard to obtain consensus, coalitions of the willing have become more important, she added. 

Mining out, money in

Outside the formal negotiations, the summit was marked by a focus on the strongly Mongolian issues of the role played by pastoralists and rangelands like grasslands, as well as mining, in both degrading and restoring land.

Part of the conference was sponsored by Australian mining company Rio Tinto and its local partner Oyu Tolgoi. Their presence was protested by campaigners wearing T-shirts calling on the companies to “stop wasting drinking water” and to “get out of Mongolia”.

A campaigner protests at COP17 on Thursday (Photo by IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou)

The UNCDD and others praised the success of the summit in raising more finance for land restoration. The COP saw institutions like the Asian Development Bank and Global Environment Facility pledge money to combat land degradation, with the UNCCD estimating that $645 million of new commitments were made.

An estimated $355 billion a year is needed through 2030 to meet global land restoration commitments, compared with around $77 billion currently invested. Private finance accounts for only around 6% of global investment, according to the UNCCD.  

UNCCD chief scientist Baron Orr told a press conference that many of the announcements were public-private partnerships that use government money to “even the playing field” for companies that want to protect land, in a bid to ensure they are not disadvantaged compared with those that do not.

Such partnerships are a “huge opportunity”, he said, especially as “we’re not in a moment of public finance – public finance is tight in every country.”

The post Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

August, 2026.

The undersigned organizations, which have been monitoring the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations since 2022, wish to express our deep concern and alert the public to the following facts:

Since the beginning of 2026, only so-called “informal” meetings have been taking place between heads of government delegations, and according to available official information, these modality of meetings will continue to be held to address the fundamental issues for negotiating the Global Plastics Treaty. These meetings are conducted behind closed doors and in confidence, without access for observer organizations, which severely limits the transparency of the process and prevents informed participation by civil society. This situation creates a worrying lack of transparency surrounding key discussions for the future of the treaty and marginalizes the voices of civil society organizations that defend the public interest.

The situation is such that during this year it has been impossible for us to fully exercise this role due to the working modality adopted by the chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), Ambassador Julio Cordano.

While heads of delegations hold meetings to address the substantive aspects of the negotiations, observer organizations have been relegated to virtual meetings with the INC presidency. During these sessions, the only available interaction mechanism is a chat, which is clearly insufficient to foster genuine dialogue. These virtual spaces neither substitute for nor can replace direct interaction between observer organizations and government delegations, which is an essential component for ensuring effective and meaningful participation in the negotiation process.

This format of online meetings with the INC presidency only allows us to learn general guidelines and organizational aspects of the process, information that is largely already public and does not offer real opportunities to exchange perspectives with national delegations, present evidence and recommendations during substantive discussions, or contribute to strengthening the positions that governments bring to the negotiating table.

We firmly believe that the participation of observer organizations cannot be limited to receiving information about decisions already taken or about the planning of the process. Meaningful participation requires access to spaces where the contents of the treaty are discussed and the possibility of dialogue directly with government delegations before and during the definition of their positions. Excluding civil society organizations from these bodies reduces the transparency of the process and weakens the principles of participation and accountability that should guide the construction of a global treaty of this relevance.

We denounce this practice as contrary to the principles and standards of environmental democracy, which in our region are enshrined in the Escazú Agreement, particularly regarding access to information, public participation, and transparency in environmental matters. These principles require that decision-making processes be conducted with openness, timeliness, and effective participation of stakeholders.

Therefore, it is legally paradoxical that the president of the INC, who was a promoter of the Escazú Agreement in the region, adopts working methods that do not conform to the principle of progressivity, recognized in international environmental law as an obligation to advance in a sustained manner in the expansion and strengthening of access rights.

In this regard, the implementation of closed spaces and the restriction of substantive interaction between observer organizations and government delegations constitute a clear regression in the standards of participation previously achieved in the negotiation process itself, weakening the minimum democratic guarantees that should govern the drafting of an international instrument of this nature. Ultimately, these are implementing procedures that restrict the effective influence of observer organizations.

Even more concerning is the INC president’s request that observer organizations appoint representatives from among our organizations. Implementing this measure will widen the gap between our organizations and government delegations, limit the diversity of voices, and diminish the wealth of scientific, technical, territorial, and public policy contributions that our organizations directly share with our governments during negotiations.

In this context, civil society organizations working to protect human health, planetary health, ecosystems, and independent science denounce our exclusion from discussion forums that define essential aspects of the treaty. This situation has limited our timely access to the debates, hindered our ability to understand the evolution of government positions, and restricted our capacity to contribute independent scientific evidence, technical expertise, and experiences from territories directly affected by plastic pollution.

Our role as civil society is to accompany the negotiations, understand and analyze the positions of our governments, and contribute to strengthening decision-making through evidence and independent recommendations free from industry conflicts of interest, incorporating the realities of the affected communities and territories and oriented towards the protection of the public interest, human rights, human and planetary health, and ecosystems.

For all the above reasons, we call upon the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee, Ambassador Julio Cordano, and the Board of Directors of the INC to reestablish mechanisms that guarantee effective, direct and meaningful participation of observer organizations in all stages of the negotiation process.

A global treaty on plastics can only aspire to be legitimate, solid and ambitious if it is built through a transparent, inclusive process that respects the principles of environmental democracy.

Signatories:

Acción Ecológica México, México   

Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil

Alianza Basura Cero Chile

Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador

AMAR Associação de Defesa do Meio Ambiente

Break Free From Plastic

Centro de tecnologías aplicadas de Argentina

CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra, El Salvador

Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración, Argentina

Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco, México

Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ -Guatemala

Colectivo Viento Sur, Chile

El Poder del Consumidor, México

FAS, PANAMA

FUNAM, Argentina

Fundación Agua Clara, Venezuela

Fundación PlastiCo. Project, Ecuador

Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración, GAIA 

Manos Abiertas La Bandada, Argentina

Mingas por el Mar, Ecuador

Organización Ecologista Piuke, Argentina

RADA, Chile

RAPAL, Uruguay

Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente. República Dominicana

Taller de Comunicación Ambiental, Argentina

Taller Ecologista, Argentina

Toxisphera Associação de Saúde Ambiental, Brasil

The post PUBLIC STATEMENT BYLATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ORGANIZATIONS ON THE LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE 2026 PLASTICS TREATY NEGOTIATIONS first appeared on GAIA.

Agosto, 2026

Las organizaciones firmantes de esta declaración que hemos dado seguimiento a las negociaciones del Tratado Global de Plásticos desde 2022 queremos expresar nuestra profunda preocupación y alertar a la opinión pública sobre los siguientes hechos:

Desde los primeros meses de 2026 se vienen realizando y, de acuerdo con información oficial disponible, continuarán realizándose únicamente reuniones denominadas “informales” entre jefes de delegaciones gubernamentales, en las que se abordan los temas fundamentales para la negociación del Tratado Global de Plásticos. Dichas reuniones se desarrollan de manera cerrada y confidencial y sin acceso para las organizaciones observadoras, lo que limita gravemente la transparencia del proceso e impide una participación informada de la sociedad civil. Esta situación genera una preocupante opacidad en torno a discusiones clave para el futuro del tratado y margina las voces de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que defendemos el interés público.

La situación es tal, que durante este año nos ha sido imposible ejercer plenamente este rol debido a la modalidad de trabajo adoptada por el presidente del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación (INC por sus siglas en inglés), embajador Julio Cordano. 

Mientras los jefes de delegación sostienen reuniones para abordar los aspectos sustantivos de la negociación; las organizaciones observadoras hemos sido relegadas a reuniones virtuales con la presidencia del INC. Durante las sesiones, el único mecanismo de interacción disponible es un chat, el cual resulta claramente insuficiente para propiciar un intercambio real. Estos espacios virtuales no sustituyen ni pueden reemplazar la interacción directa entre las organizaciones observadoras y las delegaciones gubernamentales, la cual constituye un componente indispensable para garantizar una participación efectiva y significativa en el proceso de negociación.

Esta modalidad de reuniones en línea con la presidencia del INC solo nos permite conocer orientaciones generales y aspectos organizativos del proceso, información que en gran medida ya es de carácter público y no ofrece oportunidades reales para intercambiar perspectivas con las delegaciones nacionales; presentar evidencia y recomendaciones durante las discusiones sustantivas; ni contribuir al fortalecimiento de las posiciones que los gobiernos llevan a la mesa de negociación.

Creemos firmemente que la participación de las organizaciones observadoras no puede limitarse a recibir información sobre decisiones ya adoptadas o sobre la planificación del proceso. Una participación significativa requiere acceso a espacios donde se discuten los contenidos del tratado y la posibilidad de dialogar directamente con las delegaciones gubernamentales antes y durante la definición de sus posiciones. Excluir a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil de estas instancias, reduce la transparencia del proceso y debilita los principios de participación y rendición de cuentas que deben orientar la construcción de un tratado global de esta relevancia.

Denunciamos que este proceder resulta contrario a los principios y estándares de democracia ambiental, que en nuestra región están consagrados en el Acuerdo de Escazú, particularmente en lo relativo al acceso a la información, la participación pública y la transparencia en asuntos ambientales. Dichos principios exigen que los procesos de toma de decisiones se desarrollen bajo criterios de apertura, oportunidad y participación efectiva de los actores interesados.

Por lo que resulta jurídicamente paradójico que el presidente del INC, quién fue promotor del Acuerdo de Escazú en la región adopte modalidades de trabajo que no se ajustan al principio de progresividad, reconocido en el derecho ambiental internacional como una obligación de avanzar de manera sostenida en la ampliación y fortalecimiento de los derechos de acceso.

En este sentido, la implementación de espacios cerrados y la restricción de la interacción sustantiva entre organizaciones observadoras y delegaciones gubernamentales constituyen una clara regresión en los estándares de participación previamente alcanzados en el propio proceso de negociación, debilitando las garantías mínimas democráticas que deben regir la elaboración de un instrumento internacional de esta naturaleza.  En definitiva, se están implementando modalidades que restringen la incidencia efectiva de las organizaciones observadoras.

Más preocupante aún es que el presidente del INC haya solicitado a las organizaciones observadoras designar representantes únicos entre nuestros integrantes. De implementarse esta medida, se profundizará la distancia entre las organizaciones y las delegaciones gubernamentales, limitaría la diversidad de voces y reduciría la riqueza de los aportes científicos, técnicos, territoriales y de política pública que las organizaciones trasladamos directamente a nuestros gobiernos durante las negociaciones. 

En este contexto, las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que trabajamos por la protección de la salud humana, la salud planetaria, los ecosistemas y la ciencia independiente, denunciamos que hemos sido excluidas de espacios de discusión en los que se definen aspectos esenciales del tratado. Esta situación ha limitado nuestro acceso oportuno a los debates; dificultado conocer la evolución de las posiciones gubernamentales y restringido nuestra posibilidad de aportar evidencia científica independiente, conocimientos técnicos y experiencias de los territorios directamente afectados por la contaminación por plásticos. 

Nuestro papel como sociedad civil es acompañar las negociaciones, conocer y analizar las posiciones de nuestros gobiernos y contribuir a fortalecer la toma de decisiones mediante evidencia y recomendaciones independientes libres de conflictos de interés de la industria, que incorporen las realidades de las comunidades y territorios afectados y estén orientadas a la protección del interés público, los derechos humanos, la salud humana y planetaria y los ecosistemas. 

Por todo lo anterior, hacemos un llamado al presidente del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación, embajador Julio Cordano, y a la Mesa Directiva del INC para que restablezcan mecanismos que garanticen una participación efectiva, directa y significativa de las organizaciones observadoras en todas las etapas del proceso de negociación. 

Un tratado global sobre los plásticos sólo podrá aspirar a ser legítimo, sólido y ambicioso si se construye mediante un proceso transparente, inclusivo y respetuoso de los principios de la democracia ambiental. 

Firmantes:

Acción Ecológica México, México   

Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil

Alianza Basura Cero Chile

Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador

AMAR Associação de Defesa do Meio Ambiente

Break Free From Plastic

Centro de tecnologías aplicadas de Argentina

CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra, El Salvador

Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración, Argentina

Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco, México

Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ -Guatemala

Colectivo Viento Sur, Chile

El Poder del Consumidor, México

FAS, PANAMA

FUNAM, Argentina

Fundación Agua Clara, Venezuela

Fundación PlastiCo. Project, Ecuador

Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración, GAIA 

Manos Abiertas La Bandada, Argentina

Mingas por el Mar, Ecuador

Organización Ecologista Piuke, Argentina

RADA, Chile

RAPAL, Uruguay

Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente. República Dominicana

Taller de Comunicación Ambiental, Argentina

Taller Ecologista, Argentina

Toxisphera Associação de Saúde Ambiental, Brasil

The post Organizaciones latinoamericanas y del Caribe ante la inexistencia de espacios de participación en las negociaciones del Tratado de plásticos 2026 first appeared on GAIA.

After three days of dialogue among 187 delegates from 20 countries, the Second Congo Basin Convening closes with a declaration that puts numbers, deadlines and a mandate behind its demands

Yaoundé, Cameroon — 27 August 2026. The Second Congo Basin Convening has closed in Yaoundé with the adoption of the Yaoundé Declaration 2026, a 24-point regional pact on agroecology, food systems, biodiversity and climate justice in the Congo Basin. Over three days, 187 delegates from 20 countries — governments, farmers’ and pastoralists’ organisations, Indigenous Peoples, women’s and youth movements, researchers, parliamentarians, regional institutions, funding partners and media — worked through the progress made since the first Convening in Kinshasa in 2023 and turned it into a single, shared document. The official closure was pronounced by H.E. Mounouna Foutsou, Cameroon’s Minister of Youth Affairs and Civic Education, represented by Dr Akede Metounge Erik, who received the Declaration on the Minister’s behalf and committed to sharing it with the relevant government ministries.

The Declaration does not deal in vague aspiration. It calls on governments and the African Union Commission to name agroecology explicitly in national and regional agriculture investment plans, with at least 30 percent of relevant budget allocations dedicated to it. It demands that community and customary land rights be secured, that free, prior and informed consent apply without exception to conservation and extractive projects, and that farmer-managed seed systems be protected in law. It urges the Green Climate Fund, the African Development Bank and other financing partners to open direct-access windows so that at least 20 percent of climate and biodiversity finance reaches farmer organisations, women, youth, Indigenous Peoples and local communities directly — and it calls for a dedicated regional financing mechanism for agroecology, so the transition no longer runs on project cycles.

Alongside these calls to decision-makers, the Declaration binds its own signatories to action: farmer and community movements commit to seed banks and farmer-to-farmer training; civil society to a permanent cross-basin consultation space; governments to public annual reporting on what has been allocated and delivered; regional bodies to harmonised policy and cross-border trade; researchers, private-sector actors and media each to their own stated commitments. To carry it forward, the Convening adopted a Congo Basin Regional Action Roadmap and mandated the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) to raise funding for the implementation of the Congo Basin Biodiversity, Climate and Agroecology Initiative (COBCAI) and to host the regional coordination unit, while each of the six Congo Basin countries establishes or strengthens its own national platform. Progress will be published annually and reviewed, call by call and commitment by commitment, at the Third Congo Basin Convening.

Four voices marked the closing session. Elisabeth Atangana, President of CNOP-CAM and Treasurer of the AFSA Board, begged the participants to repeatedly ask themselves: “What part of the Declaration depends on me?” The history of the Basin, she said, will be written by those who turn commitments into action, not by those who make the finest speeches.

Dr Million Belay, AFSA’s General Coordinator, reminded delegates how the region is read from outside: a carbon sink, and a place to extract minerals. Seventy-five percent of the world’s cobalt comes from Congo. The entire energy transition rests on it, which puts the people of the Basin at the centre of the global climate conversation. “We need resources, we need money,” he said. “But when we come back, we will do the work, whether there is money or not.”

Baba Adama, for the AFSA Citizens’ Working Group, argued that Yaoundé had strengthened the bridge between governments, communities and partners, and that protecting the Basin is everyone’s job. Dr Akede Metounge Erik closed with the line that may define what comes next: “Ecosystems do not negotiate. They regenerate or degrade.”

Read the full Yaoundé Declaration 2026:
[English version] · [Version française]

Since the complaint was filed, FirstEnergy, AEP and other Ohio utilities have planned more than $4.3 billion in local transmission without adequate oversight, the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel said.

As summers grow hotter, we’ll need new solutions for agriculture and the people who keep this industry going. Now, a study finds that the practice of coupling solar panels with farmland, known as agrivoltaics, isn’t only cooling for crops, but for people, too—decreasing heat by several degrees for both.

Many agrivoltaics studies have investigated the pros and cons of these hybrid landscapes in specific, real-world field scenarios. This study took a different approach, using a computer model to simulate the unique microclimates that develop beneath solar panels.

“We wanted to build a model so people can test these physics and new design ideas before spending money on hardware,” say Erfan Hosseini, PhD candidate at Princeton University, and Elie Bou-Zeid, researcher in civil and environemtal engineering at the university, and both authors on the new study. The model simulated the movement of air, heat and moisture between panels, soil, and plants, and then looked at the effects on those crops, panels—and the people tending to them. 

In this case, using data from tomato farms and simulating the effect of a typical New Jersey summer’s day, the model compared open-field tomatoes with crops grown under solar panel shading, and found something extraordinary. Tomato leaves would be at least 1.84 °C cooler under a patchwork of solar panels, it found, but up to 7.56 °C cooler during the heat of the day, compared to unshaded plants. 

This cooling effect would also reduce water loss from the leaves by 22.4% per day, and by 42.6% daily from both crops and soil. In turn, the air-cooling effects of this evapotranspiration would chill the solar panels themselves by 5.6 °C, reducing heat-related efficiency losses by 15%.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:Do solar panels hurt crop yields? It depends on where you farm. 

 

Despite the shaded tomatoes receiving 47% less direct sunlight, their photosynthesis declined by 31%—a figure that was lower than the researchers expected. This suggested, as other studies also have, that the benefits of a cooler microclimate offset the productivity losses of less sun. 

Most uniquely, the model revealed that the overall cooling influence had a benefit for people. Farm laborers would experience this as a 4.46 °C decline in average temperatures. In the simulated scenario, installing solar panels on tomato farms brought down perceived temperatures from 39 °C to around 35 °C. 

That’s a significant reduction in a warming world. “Outdoor workers bear the brunt of this heat, and their drop in productivity has wider socio-economic repercussions,” say Hosseini and Bou-Zeid. “Our results show that shading dominates and results in improved thermal comfort, improving workers’ health, wellbeing, and productivity.”

Solar panels are emerging as a key climate solution for energy, crops, and people. But before we roll them out across farmland at large scales, we’ll need to weigh up their pros and cons. “Agrivoltaics design is not one-size-fits-all,” the two researchers say. “That’s exactly why a tool like this is needed. It lets you find out before you build your first prototype.”

“We’d welcome working with growers and developers who want to try it on real sites.”

Bou-Zeid et. al. “Food, Energy, and Health Implications of Agrivoltaic Farms.” Journal of Advances in Modelling Earth Systems. 2026.

Image: Werner Slocum / NLR

Households and businesses are driving a solar boom in Africa, where rooftop arrays and other small systems account for the bulk of new solar installations. But this rapid buildout, which is driving solar additions to record levels, is largely unaccounted for in official statistics, analysts say.

Read more on E360 →

Headline News:

• “EU Countries Urged To Invest In Nature Restoration Plans And Close €65 Billion Annual Shortfall” • After a summer of record heatwaves, devastating wildfires, and drought, analysts urge EU countries to step up ecosystem restoration plans ahead of a 1 September deadline. The EU’s nature restoration funds face a €65 billion annual shortfall. [Euronews]

Mountains in Italy (Michael Kora, Unsplash)

• “200 Metric Tons Of Jellyfish Close Down Nuclear Reactors In France” • Reactor units in Gravelines, the largest nuclear power station in France, have once again been shut down due to an influx of jellyfish. A spokeswoman for the French operator EDF said that more than 200 metric tons of jellyfish had appeared since last night. [Yahoo]
• “Janus: More Than Twenty Commercial Nuclear Microreactors, Starting In 2028” • Five advanced nuclear companies will build, own, and operate over twenty commercial nuclear microreactors at five US Army installations under the Janus Program. The Janus Program is designed to put its first project into useful service by September of 2028. [POWER Magazine]
• “Tanker Pays Record $5.3 Million To Transit Panama Canal During Drought Caused By El Niño” • A liquefied petroleum gas tanker paid a record $5.3 million for priority passage through the Panama Canal ahead of El Niño-related restrictions. Panama had declared an elmergency when El Niño caused a severe regional drought is depleting water reserves. [Euronews]
• “Trump’s Secret Offshore Wind Payout Benefits Billionaire Donor” • A Washington Post report says one of Trump’s recent secret deals to cancel offshore wind projects and bolster fossil fuels will result in cash for one of Trump’s million-dollar donors to the tune of $900 million. RWE would pay it to a Trump donor for a gas project in Louisiana. [CleanTechnica]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

By Collins Azuike

SEDI Staff retrieving discarded organic waste on a Landfill in Otofure, Edo State

Sustainable Environment Development Initiative (SEDI) is committed to promoting sustainable environmental practices, focusing on organic waste management, waste reduction, and soil health. 

The organization works to establish composting facilities, divert organic waste from landfills, and produce nutrient-rich compost as a soil amendment, alongside public awareness campaigns, environmental policy advocacy, and capacity building in local communities. SEDI aims to create a circular economy where waste is turned into a resource.

SEDI is one of the implementing partners of the GAIA-led Multi-Solving Action to Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project. 

In this article, part of the series on the MAMRN project, we spoke with a Tom Aneni, The Executive Director of SEDI about their work as a partner in Otofure, Edo State, for the project.

In this project, several GAIA members are participating in various activities. Can you share some insights into the best practices for collaboration with other organizations in Nigeria?

Successful collaboration with other organizations, particularly in environmental projects like this one, requires clear communication, shared goals, and mutual respect for each organization’s strengths. Regular meetings and collaborative planning sessions ensure alignment and that everyone is working toward common objectives.

Leveraging local knowledge and expertise is vital, especially when addressing unique community challenges, and a flexible approach to local contexts is crucial for long-term success. Partnerships, like the one with GAIA, benefit from resource-sharing, whether financial, technical, or knowledge-based and create a more impactful project.

Could you share some perspective on the current waste crisis in Nigeria and how this project aims to address this?

Nigeria faces a major waste management crisis, with a significant proportion of organic waste improperly disposed of in open spaces or landfills, contributing to environmental pollution and health issues. Our project directly addresses this by setting up a composting facility that turns organic waste into valuable compost. 

This not only reduces waste sent to landfills but also improves soil health and promotes sustainable agriculture. By focusing on organic waste, we aim to reduce waste’s environmental impact, improve waste management infrastructure, and educate the public on sustainable practices.

Do you have a personal milestone or favourite moment in this project so far?

A personal milestone for us has been establishing the composting facility at Otofure, Edo State, Nigeria, which marks a significant step toward sustainable waste management in the community. Our efforts to raise awareness about the benefits of composting through our social media handles have also been incredibly rewarding. Seeing the public engage with our campaigns and embrace composting has been fulfilling, as it shows growing recognition 

of composting as a valuable practice for both waste reduction and soil health improvement.

We have seen these key themes emerge in this project (Organic Waste Management, Infrastructure Development, Waste Picker Integration, Capacity Building and Awareness Raising, Local Government Engagement, National Policy Advocacy and Emissions Monitoring). Could you share experiences (as applicable) on any of these topics within this project so far?

On organic waste management, the composting facility we established can successfully divert organic waste from landfills.

On infrastructure development, we have developed composting infrastructure at a key location in Otofure community, Edo State, designed to handle both small-scale and large-scale organic waste processing.

Waste picker integration has been a priority. We are providing waste pickers with training and resources to engage in the composting process, improving their livelihoods and empowering them as vital stakeholders.

For capacity building and awareness raising, our social media campaigns and training programs have raised awareness about the importance of composting and waste management, engaging communities, businesses, and local authorities to ensure the message reaches a wide audience.

On local government engagement, we are actively working with local governments to promote composting as part of sustainable waste management practices; this collaboration has been instrumental in scaling the project to more communities.

And on national policy advocacy, our team is advocating for the adoption of national policies that encourage organic waste recycling, focusing on laws that incentivize composting and waste diversion from landfills.

What is the path forward for your organization and possible next steps from this project?

Looking ahead, we plan to expand our composting facility to more communities, focusing on integrating waste pickers into the composting process and providing them with training and resources. We will also engage with local and national government officials to promote policy changes that support sustainable waste management.

Our goal is to develop a scalable model that can be replicated in other regions and contribute to nationwide improvements in waste management. 

We also aim to build stronger partnerships with businesses to promote compost use in agriculture and landscaping, while continuing our public education and awareness campaigns.

The post How SEDI is promoting sustainable environmental practices through the MAMRN Project first appeared on GAIA.

Burdened by rising fuel import costs and an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking heat, Pacific island nations are seeking to build support for a new regional fund ahead of COP31, intended to channel investment into renewable energy, community resilience and ocean protection, experts said.

Leaders from the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), including Australia and New Zealand, are expected to issue a call for global pledges to the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF) at a high-level meeting this coming week in Palau, seeking to build a new model for financing climate action.

The new regional fund was formally launched in May this year and is meant to “serve communities at a community level”, swiftly channelling investments for their projects on the ground, according to Fiji’s assistant minister for foreign affairs, Lenora Qereqeretabua.

“We are expecting pledges for the PRF, and these funds will go to communities that apply,” she told journalists at an online briefing. “We have organised it in such a way that it makes our application processes much, much easier than applying for global funding.”

Qereqeretabua added that she expects that PRF funds will be “utilised by communities to protect themselves from climate change and the effects of climate change.”

The Pacific Islands Forum meeting is expected to shape the region’s priorities ahead of this year’s pre-COP, hosted by Fiji and Tuvalu, and COP31, which will be co-led by Australia and Türkiye.

At COP31, a dedicated session on the climate finance needs of small island states will seek to drive pledges into the PRF. The fund has so far received about $172 million in capital – with about $67 million coming from Australia – and aims to close the year with $500 million.

• Aug 26, 2026 Oceans Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks The US and Saudi Arabia want to scrap shipping’s Net-Zero Framework and have swung behind a far less ambitious alternative Read more
• Aug 20, 2026 News As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31 Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans Read more
• Aug 24, 2026 Comment Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry  The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue Read more

Ocean heat and fossil fuel shocks

Leaders from the Pacific will meet in Palau from Sunday amid an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking ocean heat caused by this year’s “super El Niño”, according to Kevin Chand, Pacific ocean policy director at National Geographic’s Pristine Seas conservation project.

Leaders at the PIF are expected to put forward commitments towards new marine protected areas, which will be key for shielding ecosystems from future climate extremes, Chand said. The forum is expected to issue a statement on the need for ocean action at COP31, and announce commitments towards reaching the global goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and sea ecosystems by 2030.

Rising ocean heat could lead to food insecurity and lost government earnings in the region, as key fish stocks like tuna start migrating away from their coastline in search of colder waters, said Coral Pasisi, director of climate change and sustainability at the Pacific Community (SPC).

Climate shocks are deepening existing economic pressures, as Pacific nations have spent up to a quarter of their GDP on fossil fuel imports due to the war in Iran, according to a recent report by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia.

Wesley Morgan, one of the study’s authors, told journalists that partner nations “ought to be putting their money where their mouth is”, and should support the energy transition in the Pacific by covering the upfront costs of switching from polluting diesel to solar power, batteries and electricity grid upgrades.

China keeps Indonesia’s battery dream afloat but future less certain

Given the increase in climate-related shocks and sea-level rise, the PIF should also mention the need to phase out fossil fuel extraction and consumption, said Sindra Sharma, international policy lead at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN).

Last year’s COP30 failed to deliver a global roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels, which led to a group of countries – including several Pacific island nations – pursuing their own fossil fuel phase-out summit in Santa Marta, Colombia. Next year’s conference will be hosted by Tuvalu and co-chaired by Ireland, which should also receive backing from the PIF, Sharma said.

Both the chairs of the Santa Marta coalition and the Australian COP31 co-presidency have vowed to continue a push for this topic to be discussed at COP31.

A drought response brigade in Tuvalu in 2020. (Photo: Pacific Community) New fund to test allies

As local communities in the Pacific struggle to access global climate funds, the PRF’s planned model for quick, direct disbursements has “very solid and good” intentions, Sharma said, but it will need political and financial backing from donor countries.

“The proof is going to be when the fund actually starts operating and delivering to communities,” she added. “If there is too much bureaucracy in being able to access the funds, for example. These things will have to be scrutinised.”

The facility aims to deliver funds in two categories: one for climate adaptation and “disaster resilience”, and another for social and community resilience that includes areas like community capacity-building, education, data analytics and financial management, among others. It will launch its first call for proposals at the PIF.

Morgan added that Australia will need to “leverage global interests” so that funding is directed to the Pacific Resilience Facility “or else the Pacific won’t be able to trust Australia as a partner”. The country ratified the PRF treaty in May, triggering its entry into force.

“The perception [of Australia] in the region is genuinely divided, and it’s worth being honest about it,” Sharma said, adding that the pre-COP31 in Fiji, which is usually limited to a technical space for negotiations, will determine how meaningful Australia’s advocacy for the Pacific can be.

This time, Pacific nations want to use the pre-COP in early October as an opportunity to demonstrate the challenges their largely low-lying islands face and to advocate for their political priorities, including a renewed global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C by cutting emissions faster and deeper. World leaders are due to visit Tuvalu to experience the frontline of rising sea levels, although Australia and Fiji have yet to confirm who will attend.

“In Bonn, Australia was largely missing on the negotiated outcomes that we so urgently need to see. It’s not enough to get Pacific priorities on the agenda. Agenda placement is not delivery,” Sharma added.

The post Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Across the country, the electricity needs of data centers have been a major driver of the widespread resistance to speedy development. The rapid buildouts of data centers have raised concerns that residential and small business utility customers will end up shouldering the costs, and about the health and climate impacts because much of the new capacity relies on burning fossil fuels. The rush has also given rise to a popular refrain: Make the data centers provide their own electricity.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro recently announced a moratorium on “any AI data center that does not bring, develop, and pay for their own power,” citing electricity costs in a post announcing the move on Instagram. Texas Governor Greg Abbott blocked new data centers from connecting to the state’s power grid. A drumbeat of calls for data centers to make their own power has been sounding for months among regulators, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders. Proponents of this approach argue it will shield utility ratepayers from data center costs. And it might.

But new guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency about “islanded” power plants — those built to serve a single facility rather than the electricity grid — shows there aren’t as many reliable safeguards against the environmental and climate impacts. The EPA published guidance last month clarifying that the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain Program “does not apply to power generation facilities that are not connected in any way to the larger electricity grid.” It’s part of a broader effort, experts said, to loosen regulations for data centers and the power plants built to serve them.

The Acid Rain Program is just one component of the complex federal air pollution law, which can require one facility to obtain numerous Clean Air Act permits, according to Mindy Goldstein, director of Emory Law School’s environmental law program. Exempting islanded power plants from the acid rain provisions means one fewer permit that independent power plants built for data centers need to obtain, though the EPA’s guidance and several experts contend such plants were never covered by the program.

In 1990, the Acid Rain Program was added to the Clean Air Act to address the emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from large power plants. From the beginning, the program applied only to utility power plants, or those producing electricity for sale primarily for use by the public. It largely captured coal plants that were old enough to have avoided other Clean Air Act regulations, according to University of Texas energy law and politics professor David Spence. Newer gas plants that were already subject to the rest of the Clean Air Act joined later.

Compliance with the Acid Rain Program requires power plants to continuously monitor their emissions and report that data — something, Goldstein said, that states can’t mandate outside of the Acid Rain Program or another program that applies in fewer states. The monitoring inherent to the program has worked; sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power generation have dropped significantly since the ’90s. 

Read Next Trump just killed the EPA’s ability to fight climate change. It may backfire. Jake Bittle

“The anchor of the Clean Air Act is a set of programs that are, in the end, the responsibility of states and counties to implement targeting that local pollution,” said Joe Goffman, a former EPA official who’s now with the Environmental Protection Network. “Local regulators will have to decide, and communities will have to ultimately demand, some kind of system that reveals what the emissions profile of these things are.”

Now, following the EPA’s guidance, state agencies have lost one of their most reliable tools to gauge the impact of these data center power plants.

The dedicated data center power plants now being proposed and built come as the entire electric utility sector races to adjust to a new reality. After years of fairly steady demand, the advent of generative artificial intelligence and the hyperscale data centers that run it presented the electricity industry with massive projected load growth for the first time in decades. It’s shifted the trajectory of an industry that was trending away from fossil fuels.

“For a long time, we just didn’t have anybody building gas plants at all because wind and solar are cheaper,” Spence said. “Then along came data centers with their incredibly large demands for power that has to be 24-7 and a lot of money to spend on these things.”

OpenAI has announced a 9.2-gigawatt natural gas plant, to be built by the U.S. Energy Department, at the site of a data center in Ohio. In Texas, Amazon is planning a 7.65-gigawatt gas plant and Nexus has proposed a 6-gigawatt plant. These projects would be some of the largest power plants of any type in the country, but smaller plants are cropping up, too. The EPA’s guidance on islanded power plants cites a 500-megawatt natural gas plant being proposed for an unspecified data center. Microgrid developer VoltaGrid has applied for a permit to build a 90-megawatt facility in Georgia to power a Serverfarm data center.

It will be up to state environmental agencies to issue permits for these projects. Though Goldstein stressed that EPA’s guidance is only that — it’s not a binding rule. State regulators can still do more than the minimum that federal rules demand.

In a statement, the EPA said the Acid Rain Program guidance “expands opportunities for companies to develop and operate islanded power generation facilities for data centers. This will give developers greater flexibility in where and how quickly they can build new facilities while helping to protect the environment and reducing burdens on communities’ electric grid.”

EPA has also proposed a more formal rule change that would further streamline the permitting process for data centers and power plants alike. Under that proposal, new pollution sources classified as “minor” would no longer require public notice and comment before permits are issued.

“The proposal also does not demand that states make particular revisions to their programs and does not alter emission standards or weaken environmental protections,” the agency said in a statement. “This approach is intended to reduce administrative burden and responsibly speed up permitting, supporting American economic development and energy dominance.”

That change, if implemented, would apply to any new power plant classified as “minor” rather than only islanded ones. But the overall trend of federal policy adds up, Goldstein said.

“This is a piecemeal approach to trying to clear the way for data center siting and for the siting of corresponding electric generating units,” she said. “It seems like a continuous knockdown of dominoes to clear the way for these data centers, and they’re leaving states and communities to hold it back.”

Some plants being built to serve data centers, meanwhile, are trying to skirt even local permitting. 

VoltaGrid and Serverfarm applied for state permits for their proposed power plant and backup generators in Georgia, but the Georgia Environmental Protection Division recently issued violation notices to both companies for beginning construction before getting those permits. A lawsuit by the NAACP alleges that xAI did not even apply for permits before building a 495-megawatt power plant in Mississippi to power a data center in Memphis, Tennessee. 

Within the broader context of the utility sector’s race to meet data center demand with fossil fuels, the rash of non-grid gas plants that fall outside some of the regulatory and environmental controls in place for grid-connected plants may raise some eyebrows — though Spence believes it’s unlikely to do more than that in the current political climate.

“If AI had been invented in 1975, all of this growth would have been regulated because politics of regulation was starkly different then than it is now,” he said. “The partisan environment in Congress is not conducive to regulating this explosive growth.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The rush to power data centers is weakening the Clean Air Act on Aug 28, 2026.

In this month’s Ask a Climate Therapist column, we’re tackling two questions at once — each examining similar themes of burnout and paralysis from two very different vantage points. Wherever you are on your own path of climate engagement, I hope the advice will resonate. 

Dear Leslie,

I have been working in sustainability for over 24 years. I’m tired, demoralized, feeling pretty beaten. I try to live by the motto that you only fail when you stop — but with a heavy heart I feel I’m nearly at the point of giving up. Do I give up, and say I tried? Or how do I continue trying in a world that I have little influence or control over?

 —An Exhausted Specialist

I’m 31, and I know more about climate change than anyone I work with. Twice now I’ve driven to a neighborhood canvassing event and left without getting out of the car. The only way I can explain it is that I’ve started to believe that nothing I do could make the slightest dent in the immensity of the planetary crisis. It sounds true when I say it out loud, but I can’t tell if it’s clarity or just fear dressed up as reasoning.

—Frozen Activist

Submit a question for a future Ask a Climate Therapist column

Dear Exhausted Specialist and Frozen Activist,

You’re arriving at the same boulder from opposite directions: One of you has been pushing against it for 24 years with shaking arms, and the other has backed off because you’ve decided that you can’t possibly budge it. And I get it. It’s painful to track worsening climate impacts knowing that they were coming, and to then assume the burden of failure.

What I see in common with your struggles is a belief that you need to be equal to the scale of the crisis. What I would offer you instead is the reality is that none of us can do it alone, and when we try, we’re on the road to burnout. 

Ask a Climate Therapist tackles your questions about how to navigate the emotional side of climate change, with leading climate-aware therapist Leslie Davenport. Have a question? Ask it here!

Cultural shifts happen through collective efforts that don’t always arrive in a straight line, and can be hard to see from our limited individual vantage points. Slow progress in your corner of the work isn’t a fair measure of what’s being done throughout the system; that requires a group mindset, not an individual one. 

Think about what it takes to restore a wetland, pass a new policy, retire a coal plant — these things can take years of unseen groundwork before anything tangible changes. 

But when we put the blame on ourselves as individuals for society’s slow pace of progress, we feel overwhelmed, and then our brains start working overtime to prevent that. That’s what leads to reactions like freezing (Frozen), or walking away (Exhausted), or even intellectualizing until the bad feelings fade.

Your part in this transformation was never about matching the magnitude of the problem: It’s about finding a way to stay in it that’s personally sustainable. Your effort matters, even though it’s never going to be enough on its own — and you can carry that tension without letting it flatten you. Learning to live with the not-knowing, the incompleteness, the years without a clean resolution, is an essential part of the work, too.

There’s a practice I like to use that helps you hold that tension without asking one feeling to cancel out the other. It’s called “Even As.” Make a statement naming the harder truth first, then follow it with one that’s also true, like in the examples below. 

“I’m exhausted by 24 years of pushing, even as I still feel needed in this work.”
“I’m afraid to start participating, even as I feel pulled to take a first step.”
“I’m frustrated by the limits of my capacity, even as I recognize that I’m not alone in this work.”

Try writing a few “Even As” statements of your own. Take a moment to notice what feeling is most present for you right now, and start the sentence that way. Then consider what else may be true. You don’t have to try to reconcile the conflicting feelings.

Burnout often feels like you’re pinned between two polarized choices — push harder or give up. Naming both truths with “Even As” eases that pressure. It can also help you look up from the pain points you’re feeling as an individual and reconnect with the broader mission that you are one part of. 

Take the third example above. It opens up a larger view that includes collective effort, so you’re not carrying the exhausting weight alone. What if your focus was less on the boulder and more on the flow of the river wearing away the stones? A river is a mighty force made up of many drops of water, and it ebbs and flows. Try taking a friend canvassing with you; let a colleague join something you’ve been spearheading; sit in on a new climate group’s meeting and listen to what’s being built. Before you know it, your doubts just may be overpowered by your satisfaction in doing your part in the great work that lies ahead of us — and you may discover pockets of progress you couldn’t see before. 

In this with you,
Leslie

P.S. If the “Even As” exercise resonates with you, find it and more in my new book Transforming Climate Anxiety.

I’m Leslie Davenport, a licensed therapist, educator, speaker, consultant, and internationally recognized voice on the emotional and psychological dimensions of climate change. If you’ve got a question about climate and mental health, please consider submitting it for a future column. Submit a question for a future Ask a Climate Therapist column More from Ask a Climate Therapist

• Ask a Climate Therapist: How do I avoid getting trapped in the system I hope to change?

  A young engineer has a vision for changing their industry, but worries about slowly becoming a cog in the machine. Therapist Leslie Davenport offers advice for staying creative.

• Ask a Climate Therapist: Is it still ‘catastrophizing’ if the threat is real?

  Licensed therapist Leslie Davenport breaks down some of the tools that can help manage anxiety in the face of mounting climate catastrophe.

• Ask a Climate Therapist: Why should I plan for my future when I feel we don’t have one?

  Licensed therapist Leslie Davenport offers advice to a young reader staring down a world of uncertainty.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How to deal with burnout on a burning planet on Aug 28, 2026.

Somersett, a short drive from downtown Reno, Nevada, is a peaceful place where homes with sweeping, high-desert views line cul-de-sacs, and roads meander through shrubland, trailheads, and golf courses. But in the summer, months of low humidity and hot weather prime the landscape to burn. On the morning of August 22, it did.

In just a few days, strong winds carried the flames of the Hawk Fire more than 23 miles, placing some 90,000 people on evacuation notice as dense smoke and orange skies blanketed the city. By Wednesday, dozens of houses had been destroyed. Two weeks earlier, the Bug Fire burned 150 square miles just north of the same area.

It’s the latest in an era of worsening wildfires in the United States, where more than 7.9 million acres have burned this year. A similar story is playing out in Canada, where First Nations and residents of Ontario have borne the brunt of more than 5,100 fires across the country. Scientists say climate change has made these fires, along with others in Europe, significantly more likely to happen. This year’s blazes in the Western U.S. were exacerbated by record-low winter snowfall, depriving the landscape of the moisture that typically seeps from snowpack throughout the summer, and by extreme and long-lasting heat waves that baked the landscape. 

And the fires have highlighted another, deadly piece of the puzzle: suburban sprawl. 

“What’s happened over the last decades is we’ve had explosive population growth in naturally fire-prone areas,” said Tim Brown, director of the Western Regional Climate Center at the Desert Research Institute in Nevada. “People are moving in to where fire happens.”

The wildland-urban interface, which researchers often call the WUI, is the phrase given to places where housing is sandwiched between paved city centers and forests or grasslands. Researchers have been raising the alarm about the fire risk posed to homes in these areas since the 1980s. As humans burn more fossil fuels and warm the planet, longer and more severe droughts will likely make that risk worse. Reno is the fastest warming city in the United States, according to the nonprofit Climate Central.

These half-wild, half-suburban neighborhoods remain one of the most rapidly growing types of land in the country, although development has slowed compared to the surge between the 1990s and 2010s. In some places, housing scarcity in cities has pushed home buyers to the outskirts of towns, where building is generally cheaper and faces fewer permitting or zoning requirements.

People are also attracted to living with more space, near outdoor recreation areas with beautiful scenery. More than a third of all homes in the continental U.S. are now considered to be in the wildland-urban interface.

The consequences of all that growth are now on display. A recent study in Natural Hazards, a Nature journal, found that the expansion of this kind of housing in tandem with climate change quadrupled the risk of destructive wildfire in California. In January 2025, the Eaton and Palisades fires broke out in the shrubby sprawl surrounding Los Angeles, forcing more than 200,000 people to evacuate and burning down thousands of structures. Earlier this month, three large wildfires struck suburban areas of Spokane, Washington, the state’s second-biggest city. 

“Maybe we need to stop calling it the WUI and call it what it is: fire-prone,” Brown said. 

People search the wreckage after three large wildfires burned more than 900 structures in Spokane, Washington, earlier this month.
Mario Tama / Getty Images

The Hawk Fire in Reno followed a familiar pattern. After the blaze started on Saturday morning in Somersett, gusty winds and dry, quick-to-light grasses helped it balloon by thousands of acres and quickly spread to other areas. The fire eventually shut down U.S. Route 395, a major thoroughfare that hugs part of the border between Nevada and California.

Chris Buckley, a public information officer with the U.S. Forest Service, said that the chances of a fire increase as more people move into one of these areas. In just the last 15 years, Reno’s population has grown by 26 percent to more than 283,000 people. 

“It’s a very beautiful place to make your home,” Buckley said. “But during this type of weather in this part of the country, anything that can cause a spark is just so dangerous.” Like the vast majority of wildfires, she said, the Hawk Fire was human-caused. 

Evacuating from neighborhoods in these fire-prone areas can be especially fraught. Roads are often narrow and connected by a single road with only one way out. During the recent wildfires in Spokane, the rush of fleeing traffic caused hourslong jams, leaving families sitting in their cars as the flames closed in. Similar scenes of gridlock unfolded during the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California, and drives that normally took 25 minutes took hours.

“Our roads are not built for all people to leave all at once,” said Brett Taylor, who helps prepare these kinds of communities for wildfires with the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District near Reno. Evacuating early, before mandatory orders, can help avoid gridlock and free up resources, he said. “We really lose our effectiveness if all we’re worrying about is evacuating people and not fighting the fire.”

The flames are just the start of the danger. As the planet warms, researchers estimate that wildfire smoke is on track to kill 70,000 Americans each year by 2050. When fires break out in cities like Reno or Spokane, the burning of cars and plastic objects, rather than just trees and grasses, can create smoke that is especially toxic. Studies estimate that the Los Angeles fires exposed millions of people to high concentrations of chromium-6, a cancer-causing toxic metal. “You can smell the difference in the smoke,” Taylor said.

Recently, California and other states have tightened wildfire-safety rules requiring homeowners in fire-prone areas to clear vegetation around their houses. Removing these plants can boost the chances that a house will survive a wildfire. The odds are even better for homes built with materials or techniques that prevent embers from getting in. “Many homes burn from the inside out,” Brown said.

In dry and hot places like Reno and Truckee, wildfire outbreaks are practically inevitable, Taylor said. He visits homes in the region to advise homeowners what changes they can make to better protect their property. His district is also spending millions of dollars from various state, federal, and other sources to thin or cut down trees and grasses — measures that can slow or block fires from spreading. “We’re making a dent,” he said. “But it’s a tiny fraction of what needs to be done.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In the American West, wildfire comes for the suburbs on Aug 28, 2026.

The Trump administration's "restructuring" plans for the Forest Service will torpedo federal capacity to manage national forests, close regional offices, and shutter more than half of its research labs.