News Feeds

The author Meghan Hart was a UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy (GSPP) Fellow and Greenbelt Alliance research collaborator between February and May 2026.

For decades, California has been building new homes in the wrong places. Between 1990 and 2020, nearly half of new housing development landed in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), where suburbs intermingle with fire-prone vegetation. 

State legislators and advocates are aware that building in WUI areas is increasingly problematic, threatening both natural habitats and our ability to meet our climate goals. The stakes have not been higher, but there are significant challenges—both structural and political—to redirecting new homes away from urban fringes and towards existing communities. 

Governance Challenges in Land-Use Planning

Land use planning is very decentralized. No one group, agency, or even layer of government is the primary driver of where to build in California. Each jurisdiction has its own rules and perspectives on what to build. Individual projects on the edge of town may seem to have a small impact, but in aggregate, this pattern of development takes a toll on natural habitats, air quality, and the health of our communities. Experts call these “spillover” effects, or the unintended costs of one person’s decision falling on others, who never had a say in the decision-making. 

Spillover effects are a signal that we need state-level intervention. In the past 10 years, lawmakers have passed legislation aimed at guiding development to reduce these effects by making it easier to build within existing communities. Recent successes include our co-sponsored Senate Bill 79, making it easier to build near transit, and strengthened support for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)  

Nevertheless, there’s a long way to go to make up for the sprawling development of the last 80 years.

Current Tools Fall Short

So, what state policies best meet the moment? To date, few tools exist to help advocacy organizations identify which legislative solutions have the greatest impact and move us closer to thriving, walkable communities. Without a research-based framework for evaluating novel policy ideas, it’s difficult to know where to focus advocacy energy.

Existing tools each capture part of the problem, but very few connect the need to protect habitats with the imperative to build in existing cities. The Terner Center’s Housing Development Calculator captures market forces well, but it is not intended to project statewide and doesn’t account for the impact of development on ecologically valuable lands. Conservation tools display environmentally sensitive areas, but don’t incorporate housing demand or the planning decisions that put those areas at risk. This gap exists for a good reason—it’s difficult to predict the long-term impact of a housing policy on production, since development is so dependent on interconnected market factors. Tracing how a policy might indirectly affect habitats and ecological processes is even harder to measure.

A New Framework

To work around the tradeoffs in measurement, I spent this spring as a fellow investigating how state land-use policies shape development patterns and using those findings to design an evaluation framework that captures both conservation and housing development dynamics. My research culminated in 5 main findings, which became the basis for the tool: 

1. Location-based housing policies offer many benefits for residents, including boosting new housing development in existing communities and away from ecologically significant and sensitive habitats. 
2. Although the state legislature has made progress, many barriers to compact development remain. The main challenges include political opposition at the local level, financial barriers, high costs of construction, and land readiness. 
3. Policies that split responsibilities across departments or require complex administrative processes increase a policy’s risk of failing to deliver on its intended outcome.
4. Economic levers—like taxes or subsidies—that rebalance the relative attractiveness of building in cities compared to urban fringes can benefit residents, but need to be carefully evaluated for which groups bear the costs. 
5. Some of the most effective state policies are those that offer the clearest expectations and provide defined, predictable guidelines for local governments to implement.  

I used these findings to build the evaluation framework, which works in three parts: 

First, we ask whether a policy idea is location-based. For policies that apply to specific places, we use an ecological risk map to assess whether the policies might impact sensitive areas, like valuable farmland, critical habitats, and areas at risk of wildfire.

In the second stage, we ask what outcome a policy is trying to achieve and how the design and implementation can help or hurt that goal. Based on the available details, we can estimate relatively how much land would be impacted and how significant the barrier to infill housing. Then, using a few more questions, we can estimate how likely the policy is to achieve its goal.  Combining the magnitude and likelihood produces a rough internal ranking that surfaces tradeoffs more intuitively than looking at either input on its own.

Finally, the framework collects practical considerations, including estimating the likely time to impact, noting the political environment, and capturing any current events the organization is aware of that may aid in decision-making. As a result, the framework produces a policy profile that brings more rigor to the organization’s legislative strategy.

The Big Picture

Land use decisions are hard to undo. This tool will help Greenbelt Alliance identify policies that move California closer to actually producing vibrant, connected communities and protecting the invaluable land we all enjoy. It gives the organization a shared language for discussing the tradeoffs and making the case to coalition members. Using the insights from the framework, the organization can push for policies that move California away from the fire-prone, fringe development of the last few decades, and towards the connected, sustainable communities that we know benefit both people and the environment. 

Header Photo: Gilroy aerial view. By Karl Nielsen/Greenbelt Alliance

The post A Framework for State-Level Land Use Policy appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

VANCOUVER — CHRIS SEVERSON-BAKER, executive director of the Pembina Institute, made the following statement in response to the Canada-British Columbia Cooperative Prosperity Agreement:“Today’s agreement between the federal and B.C. governments...

Today’s jobs report shows the labor market added only 57,000 jobs in June, with April and May hiring revised down by 74,000 fewer jobs than previously reported. The unemployment rate changed little at 4.2%. A total of 720,000 people left the labor force last month, pushing the share of Americans working or looking for work to its lowest level since March 2021. Beneath the headline, workers are less confident they can find a job, higher prices continue to eat into paychecks, and families feel worse about their financial situation.

The share of unemployed workers who have been without a job for at least six months remains above one in four, up sharply from one year ago, while a growing share of workers are stuck in part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time work. Though President Trump campaigned on saving “Black jobs,” the unemployment rate among Black Americans is far higher than the national rate, reflecting the president’s unequal economy. Under President Trump, the economy is leaving working families with fewer opportunities to get ahead.

Groundwork Collaborative’s Chief of Policy and Advocacy, Alex Jacquez, released the following statement:

“Today’s weak jobs numbers are grim warning signs of a struggling labor market. Job gains reflect temporary seasonal hires and other workers separated from the broader economy while the majority of the labor force is frozen. Working Americans increasingly report that their paychecks can’t keep up with Trump’s high prices, but are not confident they’ll be able to find better opportunities. They’re instead focused on trying to keep up with the president’s price hikes.”

Ringed plover

Snow25 celebrations are over, deep summer begins and Snowchange takes it slower in July, but cultural work continues.

In June we had major boreal forest restoration under way in North boreal Sámi forest of Alttokangas, where appr. one hectare of clear-cut areas was burned for revitalisation of a logged area. Peatland restoration proceeded in Koitajoki river catchment and plans for Arctic Circle peatland restoration were made, they will commence in July. Fisheries helped Onkamo lakes with the removal of bream, ide and other coarse fish.

Alttokangas Sámi forest restoration burns

Several new sites, including boreal forests and large peatlands joined Snowchange in June. Out of these sites, now at 10,000 hectares, we have allocated Tongosoiva, a 100 hectare old growth forest to be the namesake site of one of our founders Eero Murtomäki, in Pelkosenniemi. This highlights the lifework he has done with nature and for nature. With these celebrations, we wish a great summer and see you in August!

Namesake site of Eero Murtomäki, in Pelkosenniemi, Arctic Circle.

Olive trees that took three generations to raise are burned in an afternoon. Wells are fouled. Animals are killed where they stand, or left behind when their owners are ordered out within the hour.

The post La Via Campesina Calls to Stop the War on the People of Lebanon, Their Land, and Their Bread appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Celebrating this Year’s Plastic Free July

In the more than ten years since Plastic Free July began, the global movement to reduce plastic pollution has grown into one of the world’s largest environmental campaigns. Every July, millions of people, organizations, businesses, and communities take action to reduce their reliance on single-use plastics while promoting more sustainable, zero waste alternatives.

At GAIA, Plastic Free July is an opportunity to highlight the urgent need to reduce plastic production, expand community-led zero waste solutions, and advocate for policies that protect both people and the planet. Together, we can stop plastic pollution while strengthening local economies, protecting public health, and building resilient communities worldwide.

Learn more about our plastics work

Why Plastic Pollution Is a Global Environmental and Health Crisis

The science is clear: plastic overproduction is causing a worldwide environmental and public health crisis. Plastic pollutes at each stage of its existence, from fossil fuel extraction, manufacturing, use, and disposal in dumps, incinerators, or the open environment.  Microplastics are found contaminating our food, drinking water, and even our bodies, and plastic contains thousands of chemicals, some of which are known to be toxic to humans. Single-use plastic is used for seconds before thrown away, where it will remain forever as trash, or burned in an incinerator– turning it into air pollution and toxic ash or sludge, threatening the health of communities nearby. Much of this waste is also shipped from higher income countries to areas of the Global South who then have to deal with the toxic burden of other people’s pollution, called “waste colonialism.” 

Plastic pollution affects every ecosystem on Earth. From oceans and rivers to agricultural soils and urban communities, plastic waste threatens biodiversity, contaminates food systems, and disproportionately impacts communities already facing environmental injustice. Reducing plastic production is one of the most effective ways to address the problem at its source.

How Plastic Production Contributes to Climate Change

Not only is plastic a threat to our health and environment but plastic is also a significant concern for our climate. More than 99% of plastics are made of fossil fuels, and if plastic’s life cycle were a country, it would be the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and unless the world takes action, primary plastic production will consume 21-31% of the global carbon budget by 2050. 

Reducing plastic production is not only a waste issue—it is also a climate solution. Every stage of the plastic life cycle generates greenhouse gas emissions, making plastic reduction an essential strategy for meeting global climate goals and protecting future generations.

Learn more about our climate work

The Plastics Treaty: A Battle for Production Reduction

Thanks to the advocacy of Indigenous Peoples and civil society organizations worldwide, in 2021 the United Nations began a process to develop a plastics treaty that addresses pollution at each stage of its life cycle, from extraction to disposal. GAIA members and other civil society leaders have been at each round of negotiations demanding a strong treaty that cuts plastic production. The process has been far from ideal: hundreds of Industry lobbyists are present, and petrochemical producing countries have worked to water down the treaty and stall negotiations. However, a large group of countries, particularly in Africa and other parts of the world most impacted and least responsible for the crisis, have not backed down on such topics as human health, a strong financial mechanism, and of course, reducing plastic production. As negotiations continue, GAIA remains committed to supporting ambitious governments and civil society organizations working toward a legally binding plastics treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics—from extraction to disposal—and prioritizes human health, environmental justice, and meaningful reductions in plastic production.

Check out our plastics treaty campaign page!

How GAIA and Communities Are Advancing Zero Waste Solutions

The zero waste solutions to the plastic crisis put forward by GAIA members around the world are gaining momentum: there is now even a United Nations Day of Zero Waste, and more and more countries are recognizing zero waste as a key climate solution. GAIA members are working with their cities to develop community-led zero waste systems that phase out plastic use while strengthening local economies, some of which were recognized by the United Nations in their list 20 Cities Towards Zero Waste this year. To date over 500 cities have committed to zero waste, and over 122 million people are living in a zero waste city. Our Zero Waste Academies have brought together over 500 participants from around the world to learn about how to develop and strengthen their zero waste projects. 

These community-led initiatives demonstrate that zero waste systems are not only possible—they are already delivering measurable environmental, economic, and public health benefits. By investing in waste prevention, reuse, composting and recycling instead of disposal, communities can reduce plastic pollution while creating local jobs and strengthening climate resilience.

Learn more about our zero waste work

Take the Plastic Free July Challenge

To get to a world free from plastic pollution, it’ll take both individual and collective action. Join us in the Plastic Free July challenge! Here are some actions you can take locally and in your daily life to reduce your plastic footprint:

• Bring your own bag to go shopping
• Ask for reusable foodware at your local establishments
• Bring a reusable bottle with you to stay hydrated and go waste-free
• Support local zero waste businesses 
• Choose products with minimal or refillable packaging whenever possible.
• Support policies and businesses that prioritize reuse over single-use plastics.

How You Can Help Reduce Plastic Pollution

Ending plastic pollution requires both individual action and systemic change. Whether you support local zero waste initiatives, advocate for stronger policies, or become part of GAIA’s global network, every action contributes to a healthier and more just future.

• Donate. Your donation supports GAIA and incredible grassroots leaders fighting pollution, building movements, and transforming transforming cities into places centered on community power, worker rights, racial justice, gender equity, sustainability, and resilience. 
• Find a GAIA member in your region. GAIA has members in Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, the U.S. and Canada, and Africa. 
• Already with an organization? Become a GAIA member! You will join an alliance of over 1,000 groups in over 100 countries, and gain access to materials that support local campaigning, regional and cross-regional power-building, and support from regional GAIA staff. 

Frequently Asked Questions About Plastic Free July What is Plastic Free July?

Plastic Free July is a global movement that encourages people to reduce their use of single-use plastics and adopt more sustainable habits throughout July and beyond.

Why is plastic pollution harmful?

Plastic pollution contaminates ecosystems, threatens wildlife, contributes to climate change, and exposes people to microplastics and harmful chemicals throughout the plastic life cycle.

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles that have been found in oceans, rivers, soil, drinking water, food, and even the human body. They are created as larger plastic items break down over time.

How does plastic contribute to climate change?

More than 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions occur during extraction, production, transportation, use, and disposal, making plastic pollution closely linked to the climate crisis.

What is the Plastics Treaty?

The plastics treaty is an international effort led through the United Nations to create legally binding measures that address plastic pollution across the entire plastic life cycle.

What is zero waste?

According to the Zero Waste International Alliance, zero waste is the conservation of all resources by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and materials without burning and with no discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human health. Zero waste is both a goal and a plan of action to achieve it. 

Plastic Free July reminds us that ending plastic pollution requires both everyday actions and ambitious regional and international policies. Communities around the world are already proving that zero waste systems, reduced plastic production, and environmental justice go hand in hand.

By supporting local solutions, advocating for a strong plastics treaty, and choosing to reduce plastic waste in our daily lives, we can help create healthier communities and a more sustainable future.

Join GAIA in building a world beyond plastic pollution—not just in July, but every day of the year.

The post Plastic Free July: How to Reduce Plastic Pollution with Zero Waste Solutions first appeared on GAIA.

Hydrogen is a promising clean-burning fuel for trucks, ships, and airplanes. The global demand for hydrogen has nearly doubled over the past two decades. But most hydrogen today does not come from a green source, over 95% comes from natural gas or as a byproduct of petrochemical processes.

At the same time, the world faces the environmental crisis of plastic waste. Researchers at the University of Cambridge have now come up with a practical solution for both problems.

They have made a device that uses sunlight to break down plastic waste and turn it into hydrogen. And it’s not just a lab curiosity. The team made it using simple methods and materials, and have tested it outside in the sunlight. “Converting waste streams into valuable products using clean energy sources is…an attractive strategy to address both energy and environmental concerns,” they write in the journal Nature Chemical Engineering.

The idea isn’t brand new. Chemistry professor Erwin Reisner and his team has been working on a way to do it for several years. Three years ago, they developed a solar-powered reactor that turns carbon dioxide and plastic waste into fuels and useful chemicals.

 

.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:Researchers crack the code for economically turning plastic waste into fuel

 

That previous device relied on light-activated catalysts based on semiconductor materials. Making panels with such materials typically involves suspending the small particles in solution, depositing them onto a substrate and heating it. The process requires high temperatures and harsh chemicals, which limits scalability and increases cost and complexity. The older reactor was about 5 cm x 5 cm, and the researchers only tested it in the lab under simulated sunlight.

The new device is significantly larger—about one meter square—and the team has now tested it under natural sunlight outside Cambridge’s chemistry department. The researchers make the panels at room temperature using simple gear.

Using a common paint sprayer, they first spray the light-absorbing material onto a glass panel. Then they coat it with a second layer made of specially designed molecules containing cobalt and zirconium, which serve as the catalyst.

The reactor extracted hydrogen from cut-up plastic drink bottles, as well as from glucose and cellulose, which are found in plant biomass waste. Glucose produced the most hydrogen, while cellulose gave less.

The spray-coating method cuts the cost to produce the reactors significantly, which should make them easier to produce at scale. But the hydrogen right now is still too expensive. According to a press release, the researchers still need to improve the durability and efficiency of the reactors.

Source: Ariffin Bin Mohamad Annuar et al. Photoreforming of solid waste on 1 m2 scale using single-source precursor-derived co-catalyst films. Nature Chemical Engineering, 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

CALGARY — Janetta McKenzie, director of the Oil and Gas program at the Pembina Institute, made the following statement with regards to today’s anticipated announcement from the Province of Alberta and the prime minister's confirmation that there is...

In Guatemala’s southwest region lies a large lake with a storied history.

Lake Atitlán is one of Central America’s most critical local sources of drinking water, and is surrounded by volcanoes, a thriving tourism industry and an ancient Mayan culture. The Sololá region has long been home to Indigenous communities who have been attracted to its fertile land and pristine natural resources. 

But in recent years, this site of natural beauty in Guatemala’s highlands has had to contend with the growing impacts of the climate and nature crises. Climate change is disrupting the rain cycle and significant areas of land show signs of erosion and loss of soil fertility. These changes are threatening crop production and pushing local people into food insecurity. 

Elena Wason, co-executive director at Natün, a local non-profit supporting Indigenous people, told Climate Home News that community leaders have “identified deforestation and the effects of climate change in their communities as among their greatest concerns”. Forest cover declined by an estimated 12% in the past two years alone.

Women are often the social group most exposed to these changes and Natün has focused its efforts on reviving Indigenous agriculture techniques in a bid to improve climate resilience and empower female farmers.

How to fight drought

The impacts of climate change on Indigenous communities can often lead to further environmental damage as farmers are forced to rely on unsustainable practices, such as cutting down trees to clear more land. This can accelerate water scarcity, soil erosion and ultimately food insecurity. 

Giving nature breathing room builds climate resilience

An ongoing adaptation project led by Natün has sought to reverse these impacts, working with local people to combine modern climate-smart agriculture and ancestral knowledge. The approach involves the use of drought-resistant crops, organic pest management and soil conservation techniques. This is increasingly recognised as an effective way to strengthen climate resilience. 

“Our approach is based on soil analysis and the use of locally resilient, endemic tree species, significantly increasing survival rates and ensuring sustainable water availability despite changing rainfall patterns,” Wason explained.

A farmer in one of the small family food gardens growing nutrient-rich crops. Image: Natün A farmer in one of the small family food gardens growing nutrient-rich crops. Image: Natün

A US$170,000 grant from the Adaptation Fund-UNDP innovation platform (through the AFCIA programme) also allowed it to scale. For example, Natün established over 300 family food gardens – small spaces with shared resources that focus on growing nutrient-rich crops.

The project was built for the long-term by embedding innovation within Indigenous knowledge systems, organic farming and Mayan land stewardship rather than imposing external solutions. In this way, it ensures that communities remain the architects of their own resilience. Diversified revenue streams, including carbon credits and replicable learning kits, further support its longevity.

Nearly all of the typical Mayan gardens are managed by women, with the project training up to 30 women in climate-resilient practices, such as seed bank management. The approach has paid dividends by bolstering local food security and providing almost 19,000 people with sustainable food sources.

Young South Africans take up sustainable agriculture for food security

“The project uses locally led innovation by helping to restore sustainable Indigenous Mayan practices, while empowering vulnerable communities and women to build resilience and adapt to climate change and bolster food security,” said Mikko Ollikainen, head of the Adaptation Fund. 

“Community-led approaches like these can have profound positive impacts on the directly affected communities and beyond by creating practical scalable solutions,” he added.

Growing incomes

The programme was expanded in 2025 with the creation of over 260 small poultry farms, further diversifying family incomes. The early results have been positive: two-thirds of families with both a garden and poultry now have surplus produce and incomes that have grown by an estimated $61 per month.

“These impacts especially benefit women, who not only make up 75% of programme participants and have taken leadership roles in managing community gardens, but also generally take on the responsibility of providing nutritious food for their families,” said Wason. 

The project follows an earlier $5.4 million activity in Guatemala, also funded by the Adaptation Fund, that focused on honey bee production, forest conservation and ancestral knowledge across Suchitepéquez and Sololá. The aim was to empower vulnerable communities and Indigenous populations to adapt to floods and landslides, while enhancing diverse production landscapes and livelihoods. 

Advancing women’s rights and empowerment in climate adaptation

That project resulted in 6,093 hectares under forest management and conservation, nearly 1,500 beehives in operation, and 328 family gardens with the purpose of helping women adapt. Utilising such ancestral practices have helped to increase agricultural resilience in the Nahualate River basin, benefiting some 1,125 people.

Indigenous farmers in the Lake Atitlán region. Image: Natün Indigenous farmers in the Lake Atitlán region. Image: Natün Enduring benefits

The long-term benefits of the Lake Atitlán project will be in providing communities, especially women, with practical tools to respond to the environmental challenges of drought, storms and deforestation in the Sololá region. These challenges are becoming more pronounced as the climate becomes more extreme and unpredictable.

Guatemala is ranked among the most exposed countries to climate risk. The World Bank estimates that up to 83% of its GDP is generated in areas prone to disasters. As such, it is not only the people around Lake Atitlán who stand to benefit from sustainable farming techniques.

The Natün project is easily replicable by harnessing local knowledge and offering a practical model that can be adapted across Indigenous communities facing similar climate pressures. In a country with an Indigenous population of over 6 million people, this approach will be of importance to many other communities as they face similar existential crises in a warming world.

Adam Wentworth is a freelance journalist based in Brighton, UK.

The post In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods appeared first on Climate Home News.

The World Bank has scrapped its headline climate finance target under pressure from the Trump administration, but experts believe the survival of its wider climate programme should preserve support for clean energy and resilience in developing nations.

Following tense negotiations between its government shareholders, the global lender announced this week it would extend its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) while “retiring” its commitment to direct 45% of its financing to projects with climate benefits – a target it has already met.

“It could have been a lot worse,” said Danny Scull, a senior policy advisor at think-tank E3G. “I would have loved to see the most ambitious outcome possible, but it is far less likely we’ll see a scenario where the bank all of a sudden reverses its current trajectory and starts delivering less on climate,” he added. 

• Jun 26, 2026 Comment Climate adaptation in Africa needs investment, not imported solutions Across Africa, communities have implemented vital climate adaptation measures – but these need investment to scale Read more
• Jun 30, 2026 Comment With extreme heat now a public health crisis, local data can save lives The impacts of extreme heat vary widely across countries and cities, and approaches tailored using data can target solutions at vulnerable groups Read more

Introduced in 2021, the CCAP has been credited with overhauling the World Bank’s approach to climate finance after years of criticism over the development finance institution’s lukewarm support for cutting planet-heating emissions and building resilience to extreme weather and rising seas.

Since the CCAP began, the World Bank’s climate finance nearly doubled to $39.2 billion in 2025, with 48% of its financing showing climate “co-benefits” and exceeding the target first set at COP28. 

US attack partially rebuffed

With the CCAP due to lapse at the end of June, the US – the World Bank’s largest shareholder – mounted a campaign for the lender to axe the programme entirely. Last April, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly welcomed the plan’s upcoming expiration, urging the bank to “shift its myopic focus on climate” and abandon its “distortionary” 45% climate finance target. 

But Washington was left increasingly isolated during protracted negotiations in recent months as both European governments and a wide-ranging coalition of developing countries held firm on the plan’s extension, sources with knowledge of the discussions told Climate Home News.

In May, executive directors representing a bloc of nearly 100 countries, including China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Russia, sent a letter to the World Bank’s board requesting the CCAP be extended and calling for an independent review of the programme.

While the US had previously seemed unwilling to compromise with its European counterparts, that intervention got it to “back off from its most extreme positions”, E3G’s Scull said.

Focus on “outcomes”

In its statement on Monday, the World Bank Group said it would place less weight on the amount of money flowing into projects with climate benefits and shift its focus to “outcomes”, including indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions avoided and the number of people better shielded from climate risks.

The UK’s international development minister, Jenny Chapman, said in a post on LinkedIn this week that the extension of the CCAP is “a critical step forward”, adding that the stronger emphasis on results “is essential to ensure maximum impact, and the UK will hold the Bank to account to ensure delivery”.

Despite ditching its headline goal, the international lender is still expected to keep counting the volumes of climate finance for the vast majority of its activities. That’s because the individual entities belonging to the group continue to have their own climate targets embedded in their current mandates. 

World Bank climate funding greens African hotels while fishermen sink

For example, the International Development Association (IDA), which supports the world’s poorest nations, has committed to providing 45% of its funding to climate-related activities until 2028. And its larger lending arm, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), should keep aiming for 30% of its financing to have climate benefits. 

Joe Thwaites, a climate finance expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said these targets “can be a backstop against the bottom falling out”. “Client countries are emphasising that they want to see more investments in clean energy and resilience,” he added. 

No major change expected

The World Bank’s provision of climate finance is also crucial for wealthy countries’ efforts to meet a commitment to provide $300 billion a year for developing countries by 2035 under the new UN climate goal agreed at COP29 in 2024. 

That year, multilateral development banks (MDBs) accounted for around half of all climate finance provided by developed countries under the previous $100-billion-a-year goal, according to calculations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

UK development minister Chapman said this week that the bank “must continue to meet the expectations of the wider international community, including those set out at COP29”. There, MDBs said that by 2030, their annual joint climate financing for low- and middle-income countries would reach an estimated $120 billion.

Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest

Rajneesh Bhuee, just transition lead at campaign group Recourse, said it was a “blow” that the World Bank’s headline target had been dropped, but she doesn’t expect to see climate financing reducing – at least in the short term. 

“This is the [bank] management’s way of alleviating pressure from the US and ensuring they can have some sort of calm internally,” she told Climate Home News.

Thwaites said shareholder countries should hold the bank’s leadership accountable for delivering what countries have “agreed and need” on climate action.

“If World Bank climate finance does start to fall, donors should focus their support on other international financial institutions that continue to prioritise climate,” he added.

IMF also steps back from climate focus

Regional development banks outside of the Americas may be under less pressure to water down their climate mission. But the World Bank’s sister institution – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – has seen its enthusiasm for climate action ebb, according to a report released in June by its official watchdog, the Independent Evaluation Office.

The report said that in 2021, the fund placed great emphasis on tackling climate change, as shown by its flagship climate strategy published that year and the establishment of the Resilience and Security Trust in 2022.

But in the last year or so, it found “decreasing emphasis on climate-related issues” which coincided with IMF cost-cutting, “emerging geopolitical challenges” and reduced support for climate action from some unnamed IMF member countries.

Last year, US finance minister Bessent accused the IMF of “mission creep”, accusing it of spending too much time on climate action, gender and social issues. 

As Nigeria rails at loss and damage “mirage”, fund boss assures money is coming

The evaluation report found that the focus on climate change among the IMF’s management and executive board has weakened, and its flagship reports have not included any climate-related chapters since 2023. IMF head Kristalina Georgieva and other managers mentioned climate-related terms in speeches and statements to the board far less in 2025 than the preceding years, it noted. 

While most of the nearly 700 IMF’s staff surveyed welcomed the swing away from climate work, others bemoaned it and felt “self censored” when working to promote awareness of the risks of climate change to the global economy – which the IMF is tasked with protecting.

The post World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say appeared first on Climate Home News.

Headline News:

• “Firmus Secures 600 MW Energy Supply Agreement In South Australia” • Firmus announced a landmark 12-year wholesale energy supply agreement with Gunvor Group for 600 MW of firm renewable power to support Project Southgate. The project is part of its strategy to develop large-scale AI Factory campuses in regional Australia. [CleanTechnica]

Firmus battery sysem (Firmus image)

• “South Dakota Storm Strikes Two ENGIE Wind Farms” • A powerful storm hit South Dakota on June 29 damaging buildings, infrastructure, and turbines at ENGIE’s 250-MW Triple H and 200-MW North Bend wind farms. Reports said wind speeds of up to 131 mph had been recorded in the area. Collapsed turbine towers and blades are on the ground. [reNews]
• “Air Quality Is Improving Across Europe As Report Finds ‘Steady Decrease’ In Major Pollutants” • Europe’s air quality is getting better. The EU’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service says in its latest report that while some parts of the continent are still experiencing issues with local air pollution the overall outlook “remains encouraging.” [Euronews]
• “China’s Coal Use Flatlines As Solar And Wind Expand In 2025” • China’s coal consumption remained flat in 2025, as the country marked the first year in a decade without growth. The rapid expansion in renewable energy and structural shifts in industry reshaped the country’s power system. China installed 315 GW of solar capacity in 2025. [Asian Power]
• “Extreme Heat Forecast: What To Expect As Heatwave Hits Northeast” • A dangerous heatwave going on in the Midwest and South has moved into the East Coast. The heat index could reach 106°F in Boston, a scorching 111°F in New York, and 110°F in Washington, DC. Minimal overnight relief will make the heat even more dangerous. [ABC News]

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

What’s a winemaker to do on a warming planet? Much has been written about how climate change threatens viticulture around the globe — or at least, threatens to fundamentally change the practice. A long-lasting drought in Chile is forcing winemakers to rethink irrigation systems. Vintners in California must not only endure wildfires but also the smoke that comes with them and lingers, which can alter the taste of their grapes. Severe frosts in the Champagne region of France are also altering the acidity and flavor profile of vineyards’ grapes, although some growers are starting to lean into that. 

A new study out of Cornell University looks at three techniques that winegrape producers can use to adapt to warmer temperatures, ranging from relatively simple and inexpensive to potentially existential: Install shade cloth to shield precious grapes from the harsh effects of the sun; grow new varieties of grapes better adapted to the heat; or relocate to cooler climates. The researchers found that, for all three cases, when these changes are communicated to shoppers, consumers are willing to pay a premium for these climate-resilient wines — even if it means some of the name-brand recognition of, say, California’s Napa Valley is lost in the process. 

The idea behind the market study was both to help growers understand the climate adaptation strategies available to them, the costs associated with these decisions, and then finally, how consumers perceive them. 

“A producer can make all the changes in the world — but if they don’t resonate well with consumers, then it’s moot,” said Alex Susskind, one of the study’s co-authors and a professor of food and beverage management at Cornell University’s school of hotel administration. 

The challenge with the three strategies identified by the researchers — invest in new infrastructure, invest in new grapes, or get up and move — is that only two of them might be immediately obvious to consumers. If a vineyard in California installs shade cloths throughout its estate to protect grapes from sunburn, most shoppers would have no idea, unless it was somehow explicitly stated on the finished product, like on the wine label. 

On the other hand, if a producer in Napa Valley known for cultivating Cabernet Sauvignon grapes switched to its focus to Carignane grapes — or if that same grower relocated to Lake County, just an hour or two north — consumers would likely notice. In the third option, for example, those grapes don’t end up producing a bottle of “Napa Valley Cabernet anymore, that’s a Lake County Cabernet,” said Susskind. 

In other words, the touchpoints that guide many consumers’ choices — what winemaking region a bottle is from, what grape variety they use — change. Of all the options available to winegrape producers, Susskind said, relocating showed the “least desirability” among survey participants, meaning they were least willing to pay more for these wines. But crucially, respondents still said they would pay extra for wines made from these grapes. 

Read Next Indigenous cultural practices are a climate solution, report finds Joseph Lee

There are limits to the study. For one, it only considers adaptation strategies for winegrape growers and doesn’t explore climate mitigation strategies, which would help growers to decarbonize production and have an overall lighter impact on the climate. Additionally, only 300 participants answered the survey, most of them college graduates under 40 years of age. Included in the survey respondents were people who reported to “care about environmental issues and read labels on food products,” according to the study — two things not everyone does, or does every time they go shopping. And the researchers acknowledged that there may be a novelty factor at play here — over time, wine-drinkers’ willingness to pay more for these bottles may fade. 

Still, people in the industry feel that the results are promising. “This is genuinely valuable work,” said Jimena Balic, a winemaking researcher based in Chile. “The economics of climate adaptation in wine are badly under-documented, and putting real numbers to ‘go, stay, or change’ plus the finding that consumers will pay a premium for adaptation, is exactly the kind of evidence growers need.”

Balic believes that winegrowers are not likely to invest in any adaptation strategies unless they are likely to pay off. She added that for winegrape producers, adaptation is more likely to be implemented in a more piecemeal way rather than wholesale. Maybe producers plant different varieties of grapes in one part of their land and install shade cloth in another to maximize output. And heat isn’t the only climate threat facing vineyards: While some regions may face drought, others might see unpredictable rainfall, as well as hail, frost, and pests. “Wine risk is multifactorial,” said Balic, “and each hazard carries its own cost and its own adaptation choices.” She would like to see further research expand on these challenges. 

Similarly, the results of the study didn’t surprise Greg Jones, a wine climatologist and CEO of a winery based in Oregon. “But there’s so many other caveats,” he added. From his point of view, much depends on educating the consumer around the viticultural process and how wine gets made — and then doing more education around how climate change is affecting growers. Whether consumers can perfectly hold all of those things in their mind is something the industry is still figuring out. 

“We have a system where the consumer is hard to read,” he said. 

Jones, who has spent the last 25 years studying the impacts of a changing climate on winegrape production, among other things, said he felt encouraged by the Cornell team’s research. “The research says something important, people would be willing to pay more for [these wines],” he added. He hopes it will lead to further studies on adaptation and consumer preference. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline People are willing to pay more for climate-proof wine, study shows on Jul 2, 2026.

Under Gustavo Petro, Colombia became a leading voice for phasing out fossil fuels. Now, his ally has lost to hard-right Trump favourite Abelardo de la Espriella, who backs more oil and “fracking to the max”. What could the shift mean for Colombia’s climate leadership?

From “natural resources” to "natural disaster" and “sustainability,” the language used in environmental and development discourse doesn’t just describe the world, it shapes what is seen and prioritized.

From Indigenous-led governance to worker-owned cooperatives, scattered experiments may offer a blueprint for a pathway out of our global predicament.

Declaring, "I believe in America, I believe in us," an active duty Air Force major was arrested Wednesday for a non-violent act of civil disobedience after he publicly called for Trump to be impeached, removed and convicted for his scores of impeachable offenses. Citing the "foundational oath" he took to defend the country "against all enemies foreign and domestic" - most vitally a lawless president - Major Jason Watson insisted, finally, "The bill must come due."

Watson's action came after a press conference with advocacy groups including About Face Veterans, Defenders of Our Republic, Removal Coalition, its newly launched Remove the Regime, and Free Speech For People, which has gathered over a million signatures urging Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump for his hundreds of crimes. Also present was Rep. Al Green, the only member of Congress to have filed impeachment articles. Declaring this "an existential moment for our nation," Free Speech president John Bonifaz praised Major Watson for "the kind of courage our democracy demands (in) stark contrast to those who continue to look away as President Trump commits unprecedented abuses of power."

Watson introduced himself by citing his 17-year career in the military before swiftly adding, "Who I am is immaterial. In the grand scheme of things I'm a nobody. What's more important is what I have to say, and the price I'm willing to pay to say it" - which is substantial. Thanking allies "working to restore responsible governance to our country," he repeated the "foundational" oath he first swore over 20 years ago, and has since repeated "many times since," to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," which "binds us all together as Americans." We have all "played a part in getting us into this mess," he added, but undeniably "the burden of culpability" falls most heavily on the executive branch, "and the bill must come due."

Matter-of-factly, he offered a hefty list of high crimes and misdemeanors: The "unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ authority" with military action against foreign countries, absent the requisite emergency scenario, in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran; the granting of power to an unelected person to shut down large swaths of the government; the detaining and sending of residents without due process to a foreign country; the abuse and murder of those exercising their First Amendment rights, etc etc. After each, he added, "For this, the president and vice-president must be impeached convicted, and removed." He was there not as a Democrat - "I am not a Democrat" - but to call on Americans to peacefully "join me in the defense of our republic."

Video of his speech then briefly cuts out; when it returns, he is walking slowly, deliberately, toward the Capitol steps, an area that is open to the public but where protest is prohibited. Several Capitol Police stand to the side, nervously watching. In somber, lonesome silence, he climbs the stairs; mid-way, he stops and holds up a sign that reads, "Impeach. Convict. Remove." The watching crowd cheers. After a brief huddle, a couple of officers arrest him. As he is led away, his hands cuffed behind him, his dignity intact, the crowd breaks into chants of "Shame!" and, "Who do you serve? Who do you protect?" Excellent questions. We, and many weary, grieving, enraged Americans, salute him and his good trouble.

Forty years after the world’s worst man-made disaster at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Belarus is aggressively expanding its nuclear ambitions, declaring its readiness to build a second plant. This effort is bankrolled and managed by Russia, which has already financed two reactors in Ostrovets and is now planning a third. But how did the nation that suffered most from the Chornobyl catastrophe come to embrace the “peaceful atom”, and why have anti-nuclear activists been unable to halt this trajectory?

The explosion at Chornobyl on 26 April 1986 left Belarus as the primary “target” of the radioactive plume. Due to prevailing winds in the disaster’s immediate aftermath, approximately 35 per cent of all caesium-137 fallout in Europe landed on Belarusian soil, despite the plant being located in Ukraine. 

The radiation forced the evacuation of 470 villages and towns. Some were literally buried – homes and farmstead buildings bulldozed into the earth to contain high doses of radiation. Estimates suggest that between 140,000 and 300,000 Belarusians left their homes forever; some fled voluntarily, while others were forcibly relocated by the state. 

Belarus was also forced to withdraw 2,640 square kilometres of agricultural land from use – an area larger than the territory of Luxembourg. Radiation contaminated over 20 per cent of the country’s farmland, permanently altering the economic structure of what was once a predominantly agrarian nation. A quarter of Belarusian forests absorbed dangerous radionuclides like a sponge, making the gathering of berries, mushrooms, and the use of firewood hazardous even four decades later. 

In the first decade following the disaster, Belarus faced an unprecedented surge in thyroid cancer, particularly in the Gomel and Brest regions. Cases among children skyrocketed tenfold – a direct consequence of the “iodine shock” caused by Soviet authorities concealing the disaster while people celebrated May Day outdoors. 

Nowadays, official data suggests that one in ten Belarusians – including 180,000 children – still lives in radioactive contamination zones. Their bodies are exposed daily to low doses of radiation through local food and the environment. 

Meanwhile, state propaganda has begun to “forget” Chornobyl, framing its consequences as a historical event that has been successfully overcome. Assistance programs have been curtailed, and benefits for “liquidators” (recovery workers) have been revoked. Today, Belarus is ploughing land once deemed contaminated, grazing livestock on it, and harvesting timber from radioactive forests for export. Official health statistics no longer link thyroid disease or oncology to the 1986 disaster. Belarusians are being told that radiation is no longer a threat – and may even be beneficial. Yet warnings can still be found between the lines of specialised journals, which, for instance, continue to advise fishermen on how to cook fish that may contain caesium-137. 

The Kremlin’s geopolitical leash  

Despite the collective trauma of Chornobyl, President Alexander Lukashenko decided to build Belarus’s first nuclear power plant in 2008. The regime marketed it as a cutting-edge, safe project that would grant Belarus energy independence and cheap electricity. 

Defying expectations, the site chosen for the nuclear power plant was not in the already contaminated zones, but Ostrovets, a pristine area near the border with Lithuania (an EU and NATO member). On clear days, the cooling towers of the Belarusian NPP (BelNPP) in Ostrovets are visible from Gediminas Hill in Vilnius. 

Lacking the technology and capital to complete the project independently, Lukashenko turned to Russia for a 10-billion-dollar loan. Predictably, the Russian state nuclear enterprise Rosatom became the general contractor. The construction was plagued by scandals: the first reactor vessel was dropped during installation, and the second was damaged during rail transport. Nevertheless, the plant was inaugurated in November 2020, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the October Revolution in typical Soviet fashion. 

At the ceremony, Lukashenko remarked: “A little time will pass, and we will fully realise what a feat we have accomplished with the support of our elder brothers… I’m only half-joking when I say that since we’ve learned how, we should build a second plant.” 

However, the following years were marked by technical failures and unscheduled shutdowns. Six years after its launch, experts note that the plant has failed to deliver cheaper energy; in fact, electricity prices in Belarus have risen. Furthermore, the country now faces the massive expense of building its own spent nuclear fuel storage. 

The structural mismatch in Belarus’s energy strategy became painfully clear in 2024. According to the energy ministry, fully absorbing the output of just two nuclear units would require an annual demand surge of 18.5 billion kWh. However, with domestic consumption growing by a mere 6 billion kWh over the last five years, the project has become a white elephant. To make BelNPP economically viable, the country would need to consume in a single year what the plant has cumulatively generated over the past five. 

As a result, Belarus has effectively been placed on a 10-billion-dollar geopolitical leash. “Energy is the backbone of the economy, and in this, we are dependent on Russia,” notes Irina Sukhiy, an anti-nuclear activist and expert with the Green Belarus Alliance, which brings together Belarusian NGOs, experts, local communities, and activists. “If our eastern neighbours choose, they can cut off gas or stop supplying nuclear fuel.” 

Vanishing hopes for еxport 

In February 2025, the three Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) officially decoupled from the BRELL grid (connecting Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and began dismantling infrastructure on their borders with Belarus and with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. 

“We no longer have ties with Russia and Belarus; the energy system is in our hands,” declared Lithuanian Energy Minister Žygimantas Vaičiūnas. This synchronisation with continental Europe, accelerated by Russia’s war in Ukraine, dealt a serious blow to Minsk’s export ambitions. Lithuania, once the primary hub for Belarusian electricity, has not only closed its borders but also legally banned the purchase of energy from Ostrovets. 

A year before, Lithuania’s nuclear power safety regulator, VATESI, had issued a formal demand to the Belarusian Ministry of Emergency Situations, insisting that the BelNPP halt operations until all outstanding safety concerns are fully addressed. VATESI underscored that since the project’s inception, Minsk has prioritised rapid construction and commissioning over rigorous quality control – a particularly alarming strategy for a facility located a mere 40 kilometres from the Lithuanian capital. “This irresponsible approach is increasingly manifested in frequent unplanned shutdowns and power fluctuations,” the regulator noted, suggesting that such systemic instabilities were likely overlooked or ignored during the critical construction and installation phases. 

Beyond technical failures, VATESI accused the Belarusian regime of systemic opacity. The regulator claimed that Minsk consistently conceals critical data regarding BelNPP’s unstable performance, emergency scrams, and protracted maintenance periods. Rather than accepting vague official explanations, the Lithuanian authorities are now demanding full disclosure on radionuclide emission limits, the publication of all international expert mission recommendations, and transparent reports on their implementation. Such data, the regulator insists, is indispensable for the accurate modelling and forecasting of potential radioactive releases in the event of a major accident. 

Meanwhile, Minsk shows no signs of slowing its nuclear expansion. Following the 2023 commissioning of the second unit at the Ostrovets plant, the regime signalled a further push in 2025 with plans for a third reactor. According to Energy Minister Denis Moroz, this new unit is slated for operation between 2035 and 2038. This trajectory has drawn a sharp rebuke from Vilnius. Lithuanian presidential adviser Deividas Matulionis said that the third unit represents a qualitative leap in the regional threat level. He warned that, while the first two reactors were already a source of deep concern, a further expansion would pose an even more formidable security challenge. 

According to Evgeny Makarchuk, an energy security specialist at the International Strategic Action Network for Security, this stance has deprived Belarus of access to the Nord Pool power exchange market. Under different political conditions, Belarus could export up to 2.1 billion kWh per year, generating revenue of 230 million euros. Instead, the BelNPP generates a huge surplus of electricity with nowhere to sell. Ukraine is closed due to the war, and Poland maintains a strict sanctions regime. While this surplus could theoretically flow eastward, Russia itself suffers from excess capacity and has no need for Belarusian kilowatts at market prices.  

“Strategic isolation has effectively turned Belarus into an energy island,” notes Sukhiy. The Ostrovets plant was originally conceived as a profitable route to Western markets, but the collapse of the BRELL network has turned it into a structural dead end. Instead of a bridge to Europe, the plant now functions as an isolated asset, operating solely within the Kremlin’s broader energy and political manoeuvres. 

Tightening control 

Technical incidents at the Ostrovets plant have sparked concern in Europe about whether Minsk has learned the lessons of Chernobyl. The regime’s secrecy and the lack of independent monitoring only exacerbate the atmosphere of persistent mistrust between Belarus and its neighbours. 

The tension further increased at the end of 2025, when the Russian defence ministry announced the deployment of the nuclear-capable hypersonic Oreshnik missile system in Belarus. Lukashenko presented the move as a means to ensure Belarus’s security.  

According to Lithuania’s national security threat assessment, the BelNPP has now become the central element of the regional threat. By deploying the Oreshnik missile system and tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, the Kremlin has effectively blurred the lines between civilian energy production and aggressive military strategy. Lithuanian intelligence emphasises that the persistent lack of transparency regarding the plant’s operations and the proposed expansion of the facility are being used as psychological leverage against Vilnius. 

Beyond the safety concerns, officials view Russia’s state-owned giant, Rosatom, as a tool of geopolitical influence.  

Belarus has effectively been placed on a 10-billion-dollar geopolitical leash.

The (r)evolution that never happened 

Today, the BelNPP has become a monument to Belarus’s authoritarian regime. Dmitry Kuchuk, an environmental policy advisor to exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, believes this is a problem the future must solve. “You can’t just flip a switch and close it immediately. We will need a serious audit of the plant’s condition and safety before deciding its fate,” he says. As the former head of the Belarusian Green Party, Kuchuk personally advocates for the plant’s closure: “The sooner the better for the budget and the country’s development”. 

However, the Belarusian government has turned a deaf ear to the warnings of experts and environmental activists. “Belarusians are categorically opposed to nuclear power, and it must be understood that the decision to build the NPP was made by Lukashenko alone. He ignored even his own Academy of Sciences, whose experts argued that the country simply did not need such a plant and that existing capacities were sufficient,” says Kuchuk. 

Belarusian authorities did initially signal a pivot towards renewable energy development. In 2010, the country passed a law on renewable energy sources (RES), which aimed to incentivise producers and provide tax breaks. However, the subsequent pivot toward nuclear energy effectively brought the development of renewables to a standstill.  

In 2018, a study titled “Energy [r]evolution”, supported by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, showed that Belarus had the potential to reach 92 per cent renewable energy by 2050. The report examined two distinct scenarios. The first was based on existing state strategies, which prioritised natural gas and the expansion of nuclear power. The second was a “revolutionary” scenario focused on the aggressive development of solar and wind energy. “Our research demonstrated that Belarus possesses enough potential to transition to 92 per cent renewable energy by 2050. And that was based on technology available back in 2018,” says Sukhiy from the Green Belarus Alliance. “Naturally, such a transition requires significant upfront investment. However, these calculations show that, in the long term, this path is more economically viable than the scenario chosen by the state.” 

It is symbolic that Belarus’s first wind turbine – a 250-kilowatt Nordex unit standing 50 meters tall – appeared in 2000 as part of a project to assist those resettled from the Chernobyl zone. It was installed near the village of Stakhoutsy, close to Lake Narach in the country’s most pristine region. By road, it stands just 60 kilometres from the BelNPP – and even closer as the crow flies. 

Path to a green future 

Belarusian civil society, now largely operating from abroad, is rethinking national and regional security through the prism of energy. “It’s impossible to build a free state if its ‘energy heart’ runs on foreign fuel, is serviced by foreign specialists, and is burdened with foreign debt,” proclaims Sukhiy. 

“By creating a vision of a green Belarus and working on a green transition, we are laying the foundation for Belarus’s independence, reducing its critical dependence on Russian energy resources, and ensuring that Belarus becomes a modern country rather than remaining stuck in the past,” she adds.  

Central and Eastern Europe’s post-communist history suggests that during any democratic transition, Moscow might attempt to crush reforms by “turning off the tap”. In 2006, after the “Orange Revolution” brought a pro-Western government to power in Ukraine, tensions between Moscow and Kyiv escalated. Russia’s Gazprom cut off gas supplies to Ukraine following a dispute over pricing and debt. Another incident occurred in 2009, when Russia stopped all gas flows through Ukraine to Europe.  

In Moldova, after pro-European forces came to power in 2020-2021, Russia sharply increased gas prices, forcing Chișinău to seek new suppliers, including those in Romania and other EU countries. This crisis was a clear instrument of political pressure. 

However, according to energy security expert Makarchuk, “this does not mean that the future is predetermined. Crises occur where there is a lack of preparedness. If we start acting now, the consequences can be mitigated, and disasters for the people and the economy can be avoided.” 

To achieve this, Belarus will have to make a series of critical strategic decisions in the very first hours of its genuine independence from the Kremlin. The diversification of the energy market and a departure from total reliance on Russian energy sources must become a prerequisite for any future democratic transition. 

“Technically, I see opportunities to completely break our dependence on Russia. We have our own oil refineries capable of processing up to 24 million tons of oil, while our domestic market requires only six million tons. We have assessed our oil import capacity: approximately 1.5 million tons can be obtained from Lithuania and about two million from Poland. All of this can be processed to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil. Furthermore, crude oil and petroleum products can be imported by rail,” Makarchuk notes. 

Ultimately, securing Belarus’s sovereign future depends on sustained solidarity and strategic cooperation among its neighbours. This path cannot be taken in isolation; it requires coordinated regional efforts and strong support from the broader European community to transform Belarus’s energy independence from a national dream into a pillar of European security. 

This will be difficult, given that Belarus has sided with Russia, distancing itself from and alienating its neighbours. However, experts will not insist on a green transition for Belarus.“The assertion that Belarus cannot exist without Russian oil and gas is not entirely accurate. Yes, the stakes are high: in 2023, the gap between preferential prices for Russian gas and global market prices was 4.2 billion dollars. However, with sound policy, careful preparation, and supply diversification, the crisis can be overcome. It need not be a catastrophe for the Belarusian people,” Makarchuk adds. 

As for the Ostrovets power plant, experts agree that its presence during Belarus’s transformation will help balance the country’s energy system. However, in the long term, Belarus can meet its energy needs without the plant, especially given the country’s strong potential to develop renewable energy sources. Whether the political will for such a major change exists, however, is another question.  

Last week, the nine convicted anti-ICE protestors were sentenced to a barbaric amount of time ranging from 30 to 100 years. One of them, who wasn’t even at the protest,…

More than 150 years ago, Frederick Billings returned to Vermont after making his fortune during the California Gold Rush where he had witnessed miners clearing forests, eroding hillsides...

In April 2026, Greenbelt Alliance was thrilled to endorse the Wolfe Road Housing development in Cupertino, an infill project that will create over 250 affordable homes in the city. Developed by Eden Housing, this project is specifically designated to support our educator workforce and provide affordable housing options to these essential workers.  

The Wolfe Road Housing development is aligned with Greenbelt Alliance’s climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—development criteria in several ways. Keep reading to learn how!

Affordability, Accessibility & Engagement 

Wolfe Road Housing increases the affordability and variety of housing in Cupertino. With nearly all 251 units designated as affordable, Greenbelt Alliance is assured that this project will meet the needs of our educators and low-to-middle-income households. This vibrant new community will be adjacent to the shopping district on Stevens Creek Blvd and give residents access to a handful of bus options nearby. Additionally, the inclusion of over 200 bike parking spaces and new bike-pedestrian trails will make it easier for people to get around.

We appreciate the dedication of Eden Housing in supporting the housing needs of our region and engaging with the existing neighborhood. Born out of new connections and listening workshops, this is a project that is thoughtful in its approach and mindful of the various concerns raised by the community. 

Sustainability & Resilience 

As part of those community conversations, Wolfe Road Housing will now introduce lovely native plant landscaping and tree-lined streets that are both aesthetically pleasing and cooling on increasingly hot summer days. The buildings will have an all-electric design, heat pumps for water heating, rooftop solar, and low-flow water fixtures. Paired with EV charging and sound attenuating windows, the developers demonstrated their priority to center both environmental and community needs. We also would like to note that Wolfe Road Housing is neither in a flood risk area nor faces wildfire risk thereby ensuring the project’s resilience in the long-term. 

A metrics comparison based on GreenTRIP—a tool created by Transform that models traffic and greenhouse gas impacts of residential projects in California—underscores the project’s environmental benefits:

• 3,869 fewer miles driven every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.
• 48% fewer GHG impacts every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.
• 20% less parking use every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.

We believe that Wolfe Road Housing is a significant new project in Cupertino that will make the city more accessible and affordable to more people. Greenbelt Alliance hopes the project will inspire cities in Santa Clara County and around the Bay Area to be audacious and redouble their efforts to grow in more sustainable ways.  

Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented— Development Endorsement Program goals call for fully protecting the Bay Area’s greenbelt, directing growth within existing communities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and accomplishing both in a way that equitably benefits all Bay Area residents. Our Endorsement Program supports projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. By promoting climate SMART development, we can create thriving, resilient neighborhoods with ready access to transit and housing choices for all of the Bay Area’s people. Find out more about our Endorsement Program here. Feel free to contact our team for more information. 

The post Greenbelt Alliance Endorsed: Wolfe Road Housing in Cupertino appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.