News Feeds

CCEJN’s Vision & Mission The Central California Environmental Justice Network’s (CCEJN) mission is to empower our communities and secure our children’s future by eliminating negative environmental impacts in low-income communities […]

CCEJN’s Vision & Mission The Central California Environmental Justice Network’s (CCEJN) mission is to empower our communities and secure our children’s future by eliminating negative environmental impacts in low-income communities […]

The Thematic Social Forum on Mining and Extractive Economy —TSF-Mining Latin America— invites you to take part in the webinar “Minerals and technologies for death and resistance for life: a geopolitics of peoples,” a space for reflection and dialogue on the geopolitics of critical minerals, false climate solutions, and the links between extractivism, digitalization, and militarization.

This gathering continues and deepens, at the Latin American level, the debates and proposals of the TSF-Mining Declaration, presented during the Peoples’ Summit at COP30 in Belém do Pará, Brazil. It is also part of a broader process of coordination, reflection, and mobilization on the way to COP31.

The webinar will deepen the debate on the geopolitics of critical minerals, false climate solutions, and the links between extractivism, digitalization, and militarization, while also sharing experiences of resistance and alternatives led by peoples and communities.

The activity will take place on July 9 at:

11:00 a.m. Central America
12:00 p.m. Colombia
1:00 p.m. Chile / New York
2:00 p.m. Brazil / Argentina
7:00 p.m. Madrid

Register here: https://forms.gle/RmdEmyLYzNCKAMcv5

Spanish-English interpretation will be provided.

ESPAÑOL – Webinar: Minerales y tecnologías para la muerte y resistencias por la vida: una geopolítica de los pueblos

El Foro Social Temático sobre Minería y Economía Extractivista —TSF-Mining América Latina— invita a participar en el webinar “Minerales y tecnologías para la muerte y resistencias por la vida: una geopolítica de los pueblos”, un espacio de reflexión y diálogo sobre la geopolítica de los minerales críticos, las falsas soluciones climáticas y los vínculos entre extractivismo, digitalización y militarización.

Este encuentro da continuidad y profundiza, a nivel latinoamericano, los debates y propuestas de la Declaración del TSF-Mining, presentada durante la Cumbre de los Pueblos en la COP30, en Belém do Pará, Brasil. Además, forma parte de un proceso de articulación, reflexión y movilización rumbo a la COP31.

El webinar buscará profundizar el debate sobre la geopolítica de los minerales críticos, las falsas soluciones climáticas y los vínculos entre extractivismo, digitalización y militarización, compartiendo también experiencias de resistencia y alternativas impulsadas por los pueblos.

La actividad se realizará el 9 de julio en los siguientes horarios:

11 h Centroamérica
12 h Colombia
13 h Chile / Nueva York
14 h Brasil / Argentina
19 h Madrid

Inscripción: https://forms.gle/RmdEmyLYzNCKAMcv5

One week after 40+ communities mobilized to call on the federal government to make a deal with the people, the Prime Minister made a clear choice.

He decided to double down on protecting Big Oil’s profits instead of prioritizing our communities, our climate, and our future.

Let’s break down what happened over the last 24 hours:

• Prime Minister Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith teamed up to unveil their plans for their West Coast Pipeline. They proposed dragging the one-million-barrel-a-day tar sands pipeline from Alberta all the way to the Delta port right outside of Vancouver.
• They confirmed the pipeline would be another publicly-owned project, with an extremely unclear private-sector partnership. In other words, we can get ready to expect $35-100 billion of our tax payer dollars wasted on building this dangerous pipe dream.
• Earlier that same day, Carney went to BC, striking a New Cooperative Prosperity partnership with BC Premier Eby and pledging to gut environmental protections to accelerate the expansion of LNG facilities.4

Canada is headed in a dangerous direction. Expanding tar sands and the fracked-gas industry is like pouring fuel on the flames of the climate emergency. Let’s make sure our Members of Parliament know that they need to stand up to oppose this agenda. Call on your MP to sign the People’s MOU and say no to new pipelines.

There’s power in raising our voices together. The People’s MOU was delivered to 40+ MPs across the country last week and, since then, thousands of others have e-mailed it to their Members of Parliament. We know that many Liberal MPs also have their doubts about Prime Minister Carney backsliding on climate. That’s why it’s so important to ensure as many of them as possible are confronted by their constituents and pushed to use their leverage in this fragile majority government to champion a different direction.

This week, heatwaves gripped communities across the country as we marked the 5 year anniversary of the 2021 Heat Dome where 619 people died from extreme heat. And yet, Prime Minister Carney kicked off the week with a special video speaking directly to Canadians and sharing that climate action isn’t “sustainable in the long run.”

But you and I both know, what’s truly unsustainable is expanding fossil fuels and cooking our planet. And to top it all off, the world is rapidly transitioning towards affordable, renewable energy, meaning that building a new oil pipeline locks us into a volatile, dead-end economy.

It’s time to stop fuelling climate destruction and funding our future. Tell your MP to back this vision.

The good news is that the odds are in our favour. Even pipeline companies aren’t ready to fully back the project because they know it’s a bad idea.

We also know that Indigenous-led resistance and people power can bring dangerous proposals like this to a halt. We did it before and we can do it again.

Blog by Atiya Jaffar, 350 Canada Country Manager

The post Carney wants to gamble away our future appeared first on 350.

The post How One State Can Impact the Nation appeared first on ANHE.

Across every region, member organizations mobilized to defend land, agroecology, rural communities, and social justice while resisting corporate control, violence, and environmental destruction.

The post 2026 | June News Wrap: Updates from LVC Members Worldwide appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The World Bank has abandoned a target for 45% of the funding it gives developing countries to be “climate finance”, following months of pressure from the Trump administration in the US.

However, a concerted effort by developed- and developing-country shareholders has seen the bank hold onto its “action plan” for tackling climate change.

The multilateral development bank (MDB) – which is headquartered in Washington DC – is the single largest provider of climate finance globally, distributing $39.2bn in 2025 alone, primarily as loans.

Amid widespread aid cuts by developed countries, the World Bank and other MDBs have previously pledged to significantly scale up their climate finance over the next decade.

Despite scrapping its central target, the bank says it will continue to support the demands of its “clients”, many of which have explicitly stated their need for climate-related investment.

Here, Carbon Brief looks at the likely impact of the World Bank’s policy shift and whether it is – as one expert puts it – “mostly a symbolic victory” for the US.

• How does the World Bank support climate action?
• Why has the World Bank abandoned its climate-finance target?
• Why is the World Bank important for international climate finance?
• How will these changes affect global climate action?

How does the World Bank support climate action?

The World Bank is the oldest and largest MDB. It is tasked by its 189 member governments – the bank’s shareholders – with supporting development projects around the world. 

The US is the bank’s largest shareholder, followed, in order, by Japan, China, Germany, France and the UK. 

Every year, the bank provides billions of dollars – predominantly as loans – to developing countries. 

(One part of the World Bank, the International Development Association – IDA – specifically distributes grants to lower-income nations, as well as lower-interest loans.)

Through its financing, the World Bank also has an important role in “mobilising” private investments in developing countries.

In recent years, the bank has increasingly focused on helping developing countries to cut emissions and adapt their economies for climate change.

The World Bank provided $164bn in what it calls financing with climate “co-benefits” between 2020 and 2025.

The largest share of this funding – roughly one-fifth – went to clean energy and electricity access projects. Smaller shares went to areas such as public transport, water supply and sustainable farming.

As the map below shows, the largest recipients of the bank’s climate funds since 2020 have been emerging economies, such as Turkey ($10.3bn), India ($9bn) and Nigeria ($6.3bn). 

Map showing total climate-related finance received,$bn, between 2020-2025. Source: World Bank and Carbon Brief analysis.

Among the largest World Bank projects in recent years are two extensive programmes in India, totalling nearly $3bn, supporting renewables and green hydrogen. 

Others include $1.7bn for a Pakistan hydropower project, $926m for Iraq’s railways and $803m to boost “green development” in Colombia.

Despite the bank’s major role in providing climate finance to developing countries, it has faced heavy scrutiny from climate advocates.

In particular, they have noted the dominance of loans that push developing countries further into debt. The World Bank has also been criticised for a lack of transparency around how it classifies projects as “climate-related”, as well as “over-reporting” of climate finance.

Why has the World Bank abandoned its climate-finance target?

When World Bank president Ajay Banga – nominated by former US president Joe Biden – took over the institution in 2023, there were widespread calls for MDB reform.

Many of the bank’s shareholders wanted to see billions more dollars being channelled to support climate action. Later that year, Banga announced that the bank would ensure that 45% of the bank’s funding was climate finance by 2025.

This replaced an existing target of 35% for climate finance between 2021 and 2025, which had been set out in the bank’s second climate change action plan (CCAP). 

The CCAP is intended to “mainstream” climate action in the bank’s work. With it in place, the World Bank’s climate finance more than doubled from $17.2bn in 2020 to $39.2bn in 2025.

As the chart below shows, this meant the World Bank exceeded its 2025 goal, with climate-related projects making up a 48% share of total funding that year.

Share of World Bank finance with climate “co-benefits”, 2020-2025. Source: World Bank.

When Biden was replaced by Donald Trump as president in 2025, the US administration turned against international cooperation, including climate finance.

However, the US did not walk away from the World Bank, where it exerts considerable power as the largest shareholder. 

With the CCAP due to expire in July 2026, the US has spent months pressuring the bank and its shareholders to weaken or abandon the plan altogether.

US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent issued a statement during the 2026 World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) spring meetings in April 2026, in which he called for “jettisoning” the 45% climate-finance target. More broadly, he said:

“We welcome the coming expiration of the CCAP and…expect the bank to immediately shift its myopic focus on climate and financing volumes to one that emphasises high-quality, durable projects.”

This vision involves a push for the World Bank to finance more fossil-fuel projects, including drilling for new gas. (The bank has committed since 2019 to stop funding upstream oil and gas projects.)

The decision on whether to continue with the CCAP was negotiated behind closed doors by the board of directors – representing national shareholders. There were reports of “deep divides”.

A joint statement from 19 of the 25 directors last year affirmed the need for both a plan and a target. The US, Russia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all declined to sign up, while Japan and India abstained, according to Reuters.

There were reports of European nations championing a climate plan, bolstered by support from the developing countries that would stand to receive climate finance. The US call to drop the 45% target entirely was reportedly backed by Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Ultimately, the day before the CCAP was due to lapse, the World Bank announced what appeared to be a middle ground. It would drop both the 45% target and the 35% goal it had replaced, while also “extend[ing]” the CCAP.

UK development minister Jenny Chapman told a committee hearing in the House of Commons the next day that this marked a “compromise”. She said:

“It wasn’t clear we were going to get a CCAP at all and a bank without an action plan on climate is a problem for us – so that’s a good outcome.” 

Supportive shareholders had been pushing for a one-year extension of the plan. While the World Bank did not initially define the length, Chapman confirmed on LinkedIn that the plan had, in fact, been extended “indefinitely”. 

The bank said it would also engage an “independent evaluation group” to assess the CCAP, in line with a board request.

Gaia Larsen, director of climate finance at the World Resources Institute (WRI), tells Carbon Brief  that this evaluation will likely be “relatively free from political ideology” and could be “focused on how to make the CCAP more effective”.

Why is the World Bank important for international climate finance?

Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries – including major World Bank shareholders in Europe and elsewhere – are obliged to provide climate finance for developing countries.

This includes a target of $300bn a year by 2035, which is expected to largely come from developed countries. One significant way these nations can contribute to this goal is via their support for MDBs, particularly the World Bank.

The World Bank has described itself as “by far the largest provider of climate finance to developing countries”. Each year, it oversees half of all climate finance from MDBs and far more than any single donor country.

Many developed countries have, therefore, enthusiastically backed the World Bank’s climate efforts, as well as a “bigger” role for MDBs in development more broadly. The bank can lend sums that far exceed the amount of new public finance that individual nations are willing to commit.

This is particularly significant, given many of these nations, including the UK, Germany and France, have announced large cuts to their aid budgets in recent years.

Carbon Brief analysis suggests that roughly a fifth of the international climate finance provided and “mobilised” by developed countries in recent years can be attributed to their World Bank contributions, as the chart below shows. 

(This only accounts for the World Bank financing that can be linked to developed-country shares in the bank. Developing countries, such as China, also have significant shares, which are not included in the chart below.)

Developed-country climate finance provided and mobilised for developing countries. The share of World Bank finance that can be attributed to developed countries (blue), is calculated based on the collective shares in the bank held by developed countries. Source: World Bank, OECD, Carbon brief analysis.

MDBs – including the World Bank – have committed to providing $120bn in climate finance to developing countries by 2030. 

This was set to come from greater shareholder contributions, combined with a programme of reforms to free up capital.

If the World Bank continued to provide half of the MDB total, it would need to increase its climate finance by around 50%, from $39.2bn today to $60bn in 2030.

Therefore, experts see a “key” role for the World Bank in achieving not only the $300bn target, but also the more aspirational $1.3n target that countries agreed as part of the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG) on climate finance at COP29 in 2024. This includes the private capital it could “unlock” through its lending.

Joe Thwaites, international climate finance director at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), tells Carbon Brief that these “NCQG politics” are “quite important”. He says:

“The maths of the $300bn does not work if the MDBs pull back and so I think that’s why you’re seeing developed countries taking a stand.”

How will these changes affect global climate action?

To date, the World Bank has only released minimal details about its new climate plans. As such, experts say the impact on future climate finance remains uncertain.

Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, tells Carbon Brief:

“They have said they are going to retain all the same processes about climate-finance reporting. So, of course, there is a world in which, actually, climate finance continues to increase like it has been.”

Some of the World Bank’s internal organisations will, in fact, keep their climate-finance goals for the time being. For example, the IDA’s largely grant-based funding retains a 45% target for its current round, which will last until 2028 – the year of the next US presidential election.

However, WRI’s Larsen tells Carbon Brief that the changes, from a bank that was previously a “champion for climate action”, remain significant:

“This reality, reinforced by the elimination of the 45% goal, means that it would not be surprising to see a reduction in climate investments.”

In a statement, the World Bank said its “work on climate is and will remain firmly client driven”, noting that it supports nations undertaking their Paris Agreement climate plans.

Therefore, its climate focus may come down to whether there is demand for climate action from “client” countries receiving finance.

At an April event in discussion with the climate sceptic Bjørn Lomborg, Bessent said that global financial institutions should focus on growth, characterising climate action as an “elite belief”. 

The implication from the US Treasury secretary was that recipient countries are not interested in climate action. However, as reported by Devex, a group of World Bank shareholders representing nearly 100 developing countries, wrote a letter that appeared to push back against this framing. 

This “G11+” group, led by Brazil and China, said the bank “must remain firmly client-driven”, noting that countries are “following nationally determined pathways toward climate action”. NRDC’s Thwaites tells Carbon Brief:

“It’s one thing for the Europeans to talk about climate…This was the client countries [100 developing countries] saying: ‘No, we want this.’”

Recent research by the ODI thinktank found that 79% of developing-country officials polled wanted to see MDB investment in solar projects, 54% wanted hydropower and 47% wanted wind power. Only 13% wanted investment in gas-power plants.

Rishikesh Ram Bhandary, a senior development researcher at Boston University, has stressed the need for an “enhanced CCAP”, which could be supported by the bank’s new independent evaluation. Among other things, he tells Carbon Brief:

“The bank needs to make a more convincing case about how climate change is being integrated into development priorities rather than competing with them.”

Thwaites says he is hopeful that the outcome is “mostly a symbolic victory for the US”. 

However, he says major shareholders from Europe and elsewhere should make it clear to the bank that it is not “the only game in town” when it comes to climate finance. He says:

“If [the World Bank] are going to cave into one shareholder, when the vast majority of the other shareholders are supportive of continuing climate action, they can take their money elsewhere.”

The post Q&A: How will the World Bank’s abandoned finance goal affect climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Registered nurses at HCA HealthONE Swedish (a.k.a., Swedish Medical Center) in Englewood, Colo., voted to join National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, the country’s largest nurses union, in an election held on July 1 and 2, 2026.

Nurses at two Ascension hospitals in Wichita, Kan., are moving forward with their one-day strike on July 6 to protest hospital management’s refusal to address RNs’ deep concerns about safety at Ascension Via Christi St. Francis and Ascension Via Christi St. Joseph hospitals.

Within the soil, a group of unique microbes are working overtime to shield wild plants from salt stress. Now researchers have shown that those naturally-occurring microbes can be successfully transferred to a range of crops and, crucially, can boost their growth.

The obliging microbe, a type of bacteria called Pseudomonas, was identified lurking around the roots of plants exposed to high salt levels, a situation expected to grow worse as climate change causes rising sea levels that push salty water further inland from the coast. 

Researchers on a new Science Advances paper observed that while other bacterial colonies died off under salty conditions, Pseudomonas microbes continued to thrive around the roots of wild soybean plants. They think this is because the bacteria contain specialized genes, and it suggests that the microbes hold a competitive advantage under salty conditions. 

On a hunch, they isolated samples of these resilient specimens and set about testing how well they did in other crops. 

They found that when they inoculated the roots of several crops with these bacteria, the microbes thrived almost universally. Particularly around salt-stressed sorghum, maize, tomato and rapeseed, Pseudomonas populations grew significantly, increasing from 22% to 41%, compared to just 1% to 21% in the control experiments. They weren’t a good match for every crop: populations of Pseudomonas did not flourish around rice and wheat plants, for example.

 

.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:What doesn't kill a soil microbe makes it stronger

 

Recalling the abundance of this microbe around wild soybean plants, the researchers then focused on what it could do for the economically-important and widespread domesticated soybean.

They found that not only did the bacteria swiftly colonize soybean roots—their numbers rising twofold under salt stress—but compared to controls the inoculated soybeans also experienced a significant growth boost under salty conditions, developing considerably longer roots and also forming more lateral ones. The soybeans showed increased salt tolerance in greenhouse experiments, and in open field experiments too. 

The question is how the microscopic soil residents seemed to be facilitating this remarkable resilience in plants, something the researchers still don’t have a full answer to. But further investigation gave them some clues—particularly as they noticed that lignin levels in the cell walls of inoculated soybeans increased by between 30 and 35% under salt stress, compared to non-inoculated plants. 

Lignin is an ingredient that increases stability and support in plant tissues, and the researchers theorize that something about the Pseudomonas microbes triggers enhanced lignin synthesis in plants, which shields them against rising salt. 

Next steps are to uncover precisely how the microbes do this. With that information in place, these bacteria may become a tiny but crucial key to future crop survival, the researchers say. “If scientists can harness this natural process, it could mark the beginning of a new era in climate-resilient agriculture.”

Zheng et. al. “Pseudomonads associated to salt-stressed plantsfacilitate stress adaption of soybean through enhancedlignin biosynthesis.” Science Advances. 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

Maxwin merupakan singkatan dari Maximum Win, yaitu batas kemenangan tertinggi yang dapat diperoleh dalam satu permainan atau satu putaran sesuai ketentuan yang telah ditetapkan oleh pengembang game. Nilai kemenangan maksimal ini berbeda-beda pada setiap judul permainan dan biasanya dinyatakan dalam kelipatan nilai taruhan.

Memahami Cara Kerja Permainan Slot

Permainan slot modern menggunakan teknologi Random Number Generator (RNG), yaitu sistem yang menghasilkan kombinasi simbol secara acak. Dengan sistem tersebut, setiap putaran bersifat independen dan tidak dipengaruhi oleh hasil putaran sebelumnya. Artinya, tidak ada pola atau waktu tertentu yang dapat menjamin kemenangan.

Apa yang Dimaksud dengan RTP dan Volatilitas?

Selain Maxwin, terdapat dua istilah yang sering dijumpai, yaitu RTP (Return to Player) dan volatilitas.

RTP merupakan persentase teoritis dari total taruhan yang dikembalikan kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang. Misalnya, RTP sebesar 96% bukan berarti setiap pemain akan menerima kembali 96% dari uang yang dipertaruhkan, melainkan merupakan nilai statistik berdasarkan jutaan putaran.

Pentingnya Bermain Secara Bertanggung Jawab

Para ahli mengingatkan bahwa permainan slot pada dasarnya dirancang sebagai bentuk hiburan dan tetap mengandung unsur risiko finansial. Oleh karena itu, pemain disarankan untuk:

• Menentukan batas anggaran sebelum bermain.
• Tidak mengejar kerugian dengan terus meningkatkan taruhan.

Kesalahan yang Sering Dilakukan Pemula

Pengamat industri hiburan online menyebutkan bahwa banyak pemain baru masih memiliki beberapa kesalahpahaman mengenai permainan slot, di antaranya:

1. Menganggap terdapat pola pasti untuk memperoleh Maxwin.
2. Percaya bahwa kemenangan dapat diprediksi berdasarkan jam bermain.
3. Tidak memahami aturan permainan sebelum memulai.
4. Bermain tanpa menetapkan batas anggaran maupun waktu.

Padahal, karena menggunakan sistem RNG, hasil setiap putaran tetap bersifat acak dan tidak dapat dipastikan sebelumnya.

Kesimpulan

Istilah Maxwin merupakan bagian dari mekanisme permainan slot yang mengacu pada batas kemenangan maksimum yang tersedia dalam suatu permainan. Namun, keberadaan Maxwin tidak berarti kemenangan tersebut mudah diperoleh. Setiap hasil permainan tetap ditentukan oleh sistem RNG yang bekerja secara acak.

Bagi pemula, memahami konsep dasar seperti RTP, volatilitas, paylines, serta fitur bonus akan membantu mengenali cara kerja permainan secara lebih objektif. Yang tidak kalah penting, selalu mengutamakan permainan yang bertanggung jawab dengan menetapkan batas waktu dan anggaran agar aktivitas bermain tetap berada dalam koridor hiburan.

Headline News:

• “Denmark, Portugal, And Lithuania Lead The Way As The EU Share Of Electricity From Renewables Hits 46%” • The EU’s share of electricity generated from renewables continues to grow, new Eurostat data reveals. In the first quarter of 2026, it reached 45.5% of the total electricity generated. This is up from 42.7% in the same period in 2025. [Euronews]

Wind turbines in Portugal (Afonso Coutinho, Unsplash)

• “New “Air” Battery Makes Larger Electric Aircraft Possible” • The idea behind lithium-air batteries is to use oxygen from the air as a key ingredient, thereby saving considerable weight while potentially boosting energy density far beyond the capacity of ordinary lithium-ion technology. US startup Air Energy may have found a way to do that. [CleanTechnica]
• “Brussels Pivots From Climate Mitigation To Adaptation As Heatwaves Expose Vulnerabilities” • The European Commission, seeing that European policies fail to match the quickening pace and impacts of climate change, pledged to “double down” on efforts to mitigate climate change following last week’s extreme and deadly heatwave in Western Europe. [Euronews]
• “Nova Scotia Green Light For 1.2-GW Onshore Giant” • Nova Scotia has granted environmental assessment approval for the 1.2-GW Ocean Lake wind project. The project will include up to 158 turbines and is being developed by EverWind NS Holdings Ltd and Membertou Development Corp. It will generate enough electricity for about 404,000 homes. [reNews]
• “One Year Since One Big Beautiful Bill: Fewer Jobs, Higher Bills, More Pollution” • In the year since Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into law the Trump administration reduced over $7.5 billion in clean energy investments. And Americans are facing soaring energy bills, more toxic emissions, and continued economic instability. [CleanTechnica]

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

Rich Wilson is CEO of the Iswe Foundation and co-founder of the Global Citizens’ Assembly.

The numbers are stark. According to the 2026 Global Report on Food Crises, 266 million people across 47 countries experienced high levels of acute food insecurity last year, nearly double the figure recorded a decade ago. 

Meanwhile, disruptions to oil, gas and fertiliser flows through the Strait of Hormuz drove a 46% month-on-month spike in urea prices early this year, sending agricultural price indices up 8% and raising the spectre of a global affordability crisis.

This is not a blip. It is a new baseline. The EAT-Lancet Commission concluded that food systems now account for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions and are the largest single contributor to the climate crisis. The science has been clear for years. 

Now some of the solutions to the problem are becoming socially acceptable too. 

• Jul 3, 2026 Finance Billions unlocked as Green Climate Fund agrees to spend more and save less The board of the UN’s flagship climate fund allows management to invest more of its money in projects in developing nations and keep less in reserve Read more
• Jul 1, 2026 Energy Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future? Battery energy storage systems (BESS) could drive clean tech manufacturing in Africa but shortfalls in finance and data are still limiting deployment at scale Read more

Earlier this year, people from more than 60 countries and territories, selected not by vested interest, but by lottery, spent seven weeks examining the evidence on food and climate for the latest Global Citizens’ Assembly. They heard from scientists, farmers and industry. They worked through 42 hours of structured deliberation, engaging with some difficult trade-offs. 

They were not asked to endorse a predetermined conclusion. They were asked an open question: what changes, if any, should we make to how we grow, share and eat food, so that everyone has enough to nourish themselves while tackling the causes and impacts of climate change?

Phase down industrial animal farming

Their answer was unambiguous. They voted to protect forests. They voted to phase down industrial animal food production. They voted for supply chain reform and corporate accountability, explicitly rejecting the idea that the burden of change should fall on individual consumers. All 22 of their Calls to Action passed with over 85% support, a super-majority of randomly selected people from every region of the world, in agreement. 

Consider what the assembly was actually being asked to decide. Industrial animal food production is the primary driver of tropical deforestation. Protecting more land as forest and ecosystem means less land available for the expansion of industrial production. That is a real trade-off, with real consequences for real livelihoods. Politicians have spent years avoiding it. 

Food systems are the missing ingredient from the COP30 menu 

These randomly selected people looked at the evidence, deliberated across time zones and cultures, and chose the forests, with 64% in strong support and a further 20% in favour. People from livestock farming communities voted for change. Not because they were told to. Because deliberation led them there.

We estimate there have now been more than 7,000 citizen participation initiatives worldwide in the last decade. They have been organised because, as our 2025 report: People in the Lead demonstrated, people are now consistently and significantly ahead of politicians on issues ranging from climate to AI governance.

The people know best

What the research consistently shows is that ordinary people, given proper evidence and time, produce recommendations that are more effective and more aligned with public values than what emerges from elected legislatures. The gap in global governance is no longer primarily between science and the public. It is between citizens and their political leaders.

That gap matters for more than procedural reasons. When policy treats people as passive recipients rather than active participants, it leaves out the very actors whose behaviour, trust and consent the transition depends on. Institutions that speak only to other institutions, and negotiate only with state actors and industry lobbies, are missing out on the trust and energy of the people they are supposed to serve.

Governments, left to their own devices, are not moving fast enough to prove that argument wrong. At COP30 in Belém last November, countries failed to agree on a fossil fuel phaseout roadmap, and even full implementation of every submitted national climate plan still leaves the world on course for 2.3 to 2.8C of warming. 

Thousands march in a COP30 protest calling for climate justice and protection of the Amazon among other things in Belem, Brazil on November 15, 2025. Photo: Artyc Studio Thousands march in a COP30 protest calling for climate justice and protection of the Amazon among other things in Belem, Brazil on November 15, 2025. Photo: Artyc Studio Citizens’ track at COP

But the Brazilian presidency grasped something important. Among the conference’s more significant outcomes was the formal launch of a Citizens’ Track within the UNFCCC process, a mechanism for connecting the global participation field to intergovernmental climate negotiations. Türkiye and Australia, who together hold the COP31 presidency in Antalya this November, now have the opportunity to strengthen and institutionalise what Brazil began.

In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods

The question before us is no longer whether citizens can contribute to solving these problems. Across the world, in local food networks, in community assemblies and in participatory planning processes, they already are, quietly generating more ambitious and more legitimate solutions than those emerging from formal diplomatic channels.

What is required now is the political courage to connect people to power. Not to consult citizens and file the results. Not to invite them to observe while the real decisions are made elsewhere. But to recognise the public as partners in perhaps the most consequential governance challenge of our time.

The post As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Over 4,000 workers in Ontario’s social services organized with OPSEU are either on strike or locked out in a province-wide fight for better wages, backpay...

The post Despite what Doug Ford thinks, social services are Worth Fighting For first appeared on Spring.

ROYALGACOR berupaya menghadirkan sistem yang mudah dipahami tanpa mengurangi kelengkapan fitur yang tersedia. Pengguna dapat menemukan berbagai menu secara lebih terstruktur sehingga proses pencarian informasi maupun penggunaan layanan menjadi lebih efisien.

Pendekatan seperti ini memberikan manfaat yang cukup besar. Waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk memahami cara kerja platform menjadi lebih singkat, sementara risiko terjadinya kesalahan saat mengakses berbagai fitur juga dapat diminimalkan.

Stabilitas Sistem Mendukung Pengalaman Pengguna

Selain kemudahan penggunaan, stabilitas layanan merupakan faktor yang tidak kalah penting. Platform digital yang mampu menjaga performa secara konsisten cenderung memperoleh tingkat kepuasan pengguna yang lebih tinggi.

ROYALGACOR berupaya menghadirkan sistem yang tetap responsif ketika diakses melalui berbagai perangkat. Optimalisasi ini memungkinkan pengguna memperoleh pengalaman yang relatif stabil baik menggunakan komputer maupun perangkat seluler.

Meski demikian, performa sebuah layanan tetap dipengaruhi oleh berbagai faktor eksternal, seperti kualitas jaringan internet, kapasitas perangkat yang digunakan, hingga kondisi lalu lintas data pada waktu tertentu. Oleh karena itu, pengalaman setiap pengguna dapat berbeda meskipun mengakses platform yang sama.

Layanan Pelanggan yang Responsif

Dalam dunia layanan digital, dukungan pelanggan memiliki peran yang sangat penting. Tidak semua kendala dapat diselesaikan secara mandiri, sehingga keberadaan tim bantuan menjadi salah satu indikator kualitas pelayanan.

ROYALGACOR menyediakan layanan pelanggan yang ditujukan untuk membantu pengguna memperoleh informasi maupun solusi ketika menghadapi kendala tertentu. Respons yang cepat dapat membantu mengurangi waktu tunggu sekaligus meningkatkan rasa percaya terhadap layanan yang digunakan.

Di sisi lain, efektivitas layanan pelanggan juga bergantung pada kompleksitas permasalahan yang dihadapi. Pertanyaan yang bersifat umum biasanya dapat diselesaikan lebih cepat dibandingkan kasus yang memerlukan proses verifikasi tambahan.

Fitur yang Terus Mengikuti Perkembangan

Perubahan kebutuhan pengguna mendorong platform untuk terus melakukan pembaruan. Inovasi tidak selalu berarti menghadirkan fitur baru dalam jumlah banyak, melainkan juga menyempurnakan sistem yang sudah ada agar semakin relevan dengan kebutuhan saat ini.

ROYALGACOR menunjukkan upaya pengembangan melalui penyempurnaan berbagai aspek layanan, mulai dari peningkatan kenyamanan penggunaan hingga optimalisasi performa sistem. Langkah semacam ini penting karena ekspektasi pengguna terhadap layanan digital terus meningkat dari waktu ke waktu.

Meskipun demikian, setiap pembaruan juga memiliki tantangan tersendiri. Adaptasi pengguna terhadap perubahan antarmuka maupun fitur baru memerlukan waktu, sehingga proses pengembangan perlu dilakukan secara bertahap agar tetap memberikan pengalaman yang positif.

Keamanan Menjadi Fondasi Kepercayaan

Keamanan merupakan salah satu aspek yang tidak dapat dipisahkan dari layanan digital modern. Pengguna semakin sadar akan pentingnya perlindungan data sehingga mereka cenderung memilih platform yang memberikan perhatian terhadap aspek keamanan.

ROYALGACOR berupaya membangun lingkungan layanan yang lebih aman melalui pengelolaan sistem yang mendukung perlindungan aktivitas pengguna. Selain itu, kesadaran pengguna juga memiliki peran penting dalam menjaga keamanan akun, misalnya dengan menggunakan kata sandi yang kuat dan tidak membagikan informasi pribadi kepada pihak lain.

Kolaborasi antara sistem keamanan platform dan kebiasaan pengguna yang bijak menjadi kombinasi yang mampu menciptakan pengalaman digital yang lebih nyaman.

Peluang Pengembangan di Masa Mendatang

Persaingan layanan digital akan terus mengalami perubahan seiring berkembangnya teknologi. Platform yang mampu beradaptasi dengan cepat biasanya memiliki peluang lebih besar untuk mempertahankan loyalitas pengguna.

ROYALGACOR memiliki kesempatan untuk terus meningkatkan kualitas layanannya melalui inovasi yang berorientasi pada kebutuhan pengguna. Pengembangan teknologi, peningkatan performa sistem, serta penyempurnaan pengalaman pengguna menjadi beberapa aspek yang berpotensi memberikan nilai tambah di masa depan.

Namun demikian, keberhasilan pengembangan tidak hanya ditentukan oleh inovasi teknologi. Kemampuan memahami masukan pengguna dan menerapkannya dalam proses penyempurnaan layanan juga menjadi faktor yang tidak kalah penting.

Penutup

Keunggulan sebuah platform digital tidak hanya tercermin dari banyaknya fitur yang ditawarkan, melainkan juga dari bagaimana seluruh layanan tersebut mampu bekerja secara selaras dalam memberikan pengalaman yang nyaman, efisien, dan mudah diakses. ROYALGACOR menunjukkan upaya untuk menghadirkan layanan yang berfokus pada kemudahan penggunaan, stabilitas sistem, dukungan pelanggan, serta pengembangan yang berkelanjutan.

Pada akhirnya, penilaian terhadap kualitas sebuah layanan tetap bergantung pada pengalaman masing-masing pengguna. Dengan memahami berbagai aspek yang memengaruhi kinerja platform, pengguna dapat menilai secara lebih objektif apakah layanan yang tersedia telah sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan harapan mereka dalam memanfaatkan layanan digital.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) will have nearly $6 billion more to spend on emissions-reduction and climate adaptation projects in developing countries, after its board agreed to a management proposal to reduce the proportion of money it has to keep in reserve.

At a meeting in Tajikistan this week, the government representatives who make up the fund’s board endorsed the proposal to revise its financial rules so that it no longer has to set aside one dollar for every dollar it spends.

Instead, the buffer amount will be decided based on a new, looser methodology. The GCF’s chief financial officer, Darren Tan, told board members that the old rules had led to too much cash building up in the fund’s reserves and “constrained the resources that we could deploy”.

The fund has a portfolio of 360 projects to which it has allocated $20.5 billion, but it has struggled to collect all the pledges made by donors as the US has failed to deliver billions and other wealthy nations are now making cuts to their funding for climate work in developing countries.

• Jul 2, 2026 Finance World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say Even though the global lender has ditched a headline goal for its financing with climate benefits, it has decided to continue its climate action plan in the face of US pressure Read more
• Jul 1, 2026 Energy Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future? Battery energy storage systems (BESS) could drive clean tech manufacturing in Africa but shortfalls in finance and data are still limiting deployment at scale Read more
• Jun 30, 2026 News Ocean summit stays silent on new wave of offshore oil and gas expansion At this month’s Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, campaigners warned that ocean protection requires governments to halt new offshore fossil fuel projects Read more

The new system has been independently validated and is supported by the GCF’s trustee, the World Bank. Tan said the approach is still prudent enough that the fund will remain “financially resilient even under adverse conditions”.

The change “allows the fund to do more with the same resources”, Tan concluded, adding that “this translates directly into greater climate impact”. The shift leaves the fund with $5.65 billion to put into projects instead of around $1 billion under the previous rules.

The reforms follow wider moves to get funders of climate action to do more with their money. In 2023 and 2024, the World Bank lowered its equity-to-loans ratio from 20% to 19% and then 18%, freeing up around $7 billion a year for it to invest.

At their meeting in Dushanbe, GCF board members broadly welcomed the proposal, although several complained they had not been given enough time to consider reforms of such importance.

“No brainer”

While developed countries were all supportive, developing nations’ responses were more mixed. Some called for the new system to be implemented immediately but others urged a slower roll-out and raised concerns that the changes would lead the fund to give out more loans and fewer grants.

Canada’s representative said the approach is “considered standard practice across the climate finance architecture”, the UK said it “seems sensible”, France called it a “no-brainer” and New Zealand said it would “grow the funding pie”.

GCF board meeting participants pose in Dushanbe (Photo: GCF)

Germany’s Annette Windmeisser said it “responds to the COP29 decision to triple outflows from the mutilateral climate funds”. This goal was agreed after a push from small island and least developed countries but – with funding from wealthy governments faltering – the GCF is looking at controversial options like borrowing from banks to meet it.

Japan’s Kazuho Taguchi hinted at similar motivations for supporting these reforms. “Efficient use of limited public resources” is essential, he said, because “it is unrealistic to expect public finance from developed countries alone to meet the full scale of need”.

Bigger share for loans?

Some developing countries strongly supported the reforms too, including Gambia representing the least developed nations, Costa Rica and Uruguay.

Others urged caution. Georgia’s Nino Tandilashvili said the “outside world… want more projects from us” but also “financial sustainability of this fund”.

Botswana’s Balisi Gopolang echoed this and Ghana’s Antwi Boasiako-Amoah said the fund’s models should be tested against performance and the changes should be implemented slowly and piloted first.

Boasiako-Amoah also said he was concerned that the new methodology would be used to increase the proportion of the fund’s money that is loaned out to developing countries rather than distributed as grants. As the money is intended to be returned, loans are less financially risky to the GCF than grants.

Ghana’s Antwi Boasiako-Amoah and Canada’s Andrew Hurst talk at the board meeting in Dushanbe (Photo: GCF)

The board’s decision approving the reform incorporated this concern by noting that the “risk appetite or financial instrument mix” of board spending decisions should not be influenced by the new policy.

Liane Schalatek, who monitored the meeting for the Heinrich Böll Foundation, told Climate Home News that the reforms give the GCF “some breathing room” for the next year or two, after the Trump administration reneged on US pledges and the UK halved the contribution it had promised for 2024-2027.

But, Schalatek added, “it does not solve the fundamental question of whether developed countries are willing to stick to their obligations under the Paris Agreement and the [UN climate regime] that still requires them to provide substantial inputs into the GCF for the next replenishment period from 2028-2031.”

The post Billions unlocked as Green Climate Fund agrees to spend more and save less appeared first on Climate Home News.

Submission by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice for the Belem Technology Implementation Programme

We are pleased to make this submission on the topics for the global dialogue to be held under the Belem Technology Implementation Programme (BTIP) in 2027, as mandated by the Belem decision on the Technology Implementation Programme adopted at CMA.7. 

We believe these dialogues should serve not only as a platform for information exchange and learning but also provide a space for exchanging views and identifying actionable solutions for addressing political and systemic barriers related to technology transfer, including intellectual property rights (IPR), trade restrictions and financial accessibility for developing countries. At the same time, any solutions identified through these dialogues should not come attached with more conditionalities for developing countries. 

We stress that discussions should focus on both adaptation and mitigation related technology needs of developing countries so that they can be supported in a comprehensive manner in the implementation of their climate actions. 

We would also like to reject the discussion of any technological solutions that may be considered to have mitigation potential but are unproven in terms of their actual impact. We reject particularly any kind of speculative technologies that would need to be implemented at a large scale and involve a modification of atmospheric systems such as engineered Carbon Dioxide Removal, Carbon Capture and Storage and Utilization (CCUS) and Direct Air Capture. Studies have shown that a majority of such projects have failed to achieve any kind of substantial amount of emissions reduction.  

DCJ prioritizes the following four topics for dialogue:

1. Strengthening implementation of climate related environmentally sound technology priorities in developing countries through provision of financing: Under this topic, discussions could focus on ways by which implementation of technologies as identified by developing countries can be enhanced, especially through a stronger linkage between the Operating Entities of UNFCCC’s Financial Mechanisms (like the Green Climate Fund, Global Environment Facility, Adaptation Fund) and its Technology Mechanism. Developed countries have a legal obligation under the UNFCCC to provide support to developing countries for the technology development and transfer. They also have a legal obligation under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement to provide means of implementation to developing countries, which includes finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building as key pillars. Discussions under this topic could focus on tracking how much support has actually been provided by developed countries for financing the technology needs identified in developing countries’ Technology Needs and Assessment (TNAs), Technology Action Plans, Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plans, and other relevant documents. Such a discussion would allow an understanding of the key barriers and enablers faced by developing countries while accessing funding to implement their technology needs. 

2. Addressing identified financial barriers and enablers for technology development and transfer in developing countries: Developing countries often face various barriers for accelerating their technology development and innovation. These include financial and economic, regulatory and legal barriers, and gaps in the capacities of developing countries to build required technology capabilities, including endogenous development of technologies. Development of climate related technologies like renewable energy requires high upfront investment which needs access to large sums of capital. The cost of access to such finance for developing countries is often very high which makes it difficult for them to undertake such projects to advance their climate action. Further, developing countries are often required to adhere to regulatory standards that are designed according to the conditions that exist in developed countries, which makes it much more difficult for them to adhere to those standards. Additionally, technology transfer from developed countries can also be accompanied by conditionalities which constrains the ability of developing countries to pursue their technology requirements as per their needs. Discussions under this topic could focus on these issues, identify actionable solutions that international financial institutions and developed countries can undertake so that such the barriers therein can be addressed. Thereby allowing developing countries to access predictable finance in a manner that does not add to their debt. 

3. Addressing trade barriers to and enablers for technology development and transfer, including intellectual property rights (IPR) and policies:  Developing countries pay huge sums of money in the form of royalties for accessing technology from developed countries. In 2023, developing countries have paid an estimated USD 98.7 billion in Intellectual Property Royalties, and received only USD 16.6 billion, which amounts to a deficit of 589%. The amount developing countries have paid to developed countries is one third of the USD 300 billion goal set under the New Collective Quantified Goal on Finance (NCQG). Discussions under this topic could focus on identifying ways by which payment of such royalties and barriers related to IPR and associated policies can be removed or reduced to ease developing countries’ access to crucial climate related environmentally sound technologies. Discussions could also focus on enhancing the use of flexibilities related to IPR as provided under Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights for the transfer and development of such technology, as proposed by the Africa Group in the WTO.  

4. Strengthening international cooperation for technology transfer and development: Discussions under this topic could focus on ways by which international cooperation can be enhanced for increasing access to technology by developing countries. Some areas that could be discussed include the creation of a global technology and voluntary patent pools of climate related technologies, cooperative IPR arrangements like cross licensing, technology standards agreement and other forms of technology sharing. Discussions could particularly focus on the barriers and enablers for the creation of such cooperative arrangements. 

The post Submission by DCJ regarding the Belém Technology Implementation Programme appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

While the U.S. celebrates its 250th anniversary, political attention is drifting away from climate change just as warming accelerates and Earth's life-support systems approach collapse. From disappearing federal climate data to record-breaking heat, denial is giving way to something more dangerous: collective delusion.

Industrial agriculture relies on more than tractors and diesel. From synthetic fertilizers to depleted soils, the modern food system is deeply tied to fossil fuels, leaving farmers, ecosystems and food security increasingly vulnerable. Amid the polycrisis, we must rebuild food systems by valuing the natural world and supporting human communities.

A new proposal would shrink the public’s right to comment on the rulebooks that govern grazing, logging, and permits across the national forests. Comment now.