News Feeds

La aritmética del fuego Por la Dra. Lebohang Liepollo Pheko Nos dijeron que enfriáramos las llamas mientras seguían incendiando el mundo. Llamaron amor a nuestro trabajo, deber a nuestro agotamiento, nuestra desolación y nuestro despojo se convirtieron en «desarrollo».

¿Quién cuida el fuego? Enfriar las llamas sin extinguir el fuego Por la Dra. Lebohang Liepollo Pheko I. Las economías que nos consumen Nos dijeron que enfriáramos las llamas mientras seguían incendiando el mundo. Llamaron amor a nuestro trabajo,

Who Tends the Fire? Cooling the Flames Without Extinguishing the Fire By Dr Lebohang Liepollo Pheko I. The economies that consume us They told us to cool the flames while they were still setting the world alight. They called our labour love, our exhaustion duty,

Donde los sueños de nuestres ancestres se encuentran con las memorias de nuestres descendientes: reflexiones sobre la construcción de lo común, el abolicionismo y las reparaciones Por Alison Chopel Introducción Hay dos corrientes del movimiento por la justicia racial en Estados Unidos con las que estoy comprometida y que, a primera vista, parecen dirigir su atención hacia distintas direcciones temporales: las reparaciones o justicia reparativa y el abolicionismo. Les activistas y académicue…

La forma básica que debe adoptar una sociedad alternativa sostenible y justa Por Ted Trainer Introducción Actualmente existe un amplio reconocimiento de que los sistemas actuales no solo no funcionan bien para nosotres, sino que también están generando una policrisis global que pronto deberá desembocar en un colapso mundial catastrófico. Existen numerosas propuestas sobre la naturaleza de un sistema más sostenible y justo. Quiero argumentar que, cuando se comprende adecuadamente la naturale…

Kelsey McCune wanted to study smart birds, so naturally, she turned to corvids. While working on a Ph.D. in behavioral ecology at the University of Washington, she made a puzzle box out of a log...

In North Carolina, large data centers are expected to start using massive amounts of energy over the next several decades — a shift that could lead to $50 billion in energy costs by 2050, according to a new report from Gov. Josh Stein’s office.

And without any major policy changes, customers could see their electricity bills increase by 70% over the next 15 years, the report estimates.

The report, released by Stein’s Energy Policy Task Force, estimates how much Duke Energy would need to spend on new power plants, power lines and other infrastructure in the next 25 years. Energy demand is expected to skyrocket over that period, and about 80% of new demand will come from large energy users like data centers.

“If nothing changes, families will have to foot data centers’ bill. That’s unacceptable. We need to bring real rate relief for North Carolinians,” Stein said at a Tuesday news conference.

…

Currently, Duke does not have a clean transition tariff, which would allow data centers to build their own energy sources and incentivize them to use renewable energy. The large load tariff it proposed earlier this month also didn’t include any incentives for data centers to build their own energy.

However, the utility told The N&O on Wednesday that it is “open to a clean transition tariff … if it can be designed in a manner that encourages investment in needed new resources while also offsetting costs for all customers.”

“We will seek to engage stakeholders in early 2027 to explore gaps in the current offerings and potential new features and options,” Duke spokesperson Bill Norton said.

Stein and Jackson have both pushed Duke Energy to include clean energy incentives in its current large load tariff proposal.

Yet in recent years, the utility has taken money from the Trump administration to keep its coal plants open longer and end its offshore wind projects. Duke also said in 2024 that it would look into a clean transition tariff — with support from data center developers — only for it to never materialize.

In response to Tuesday’s report, several environmental groups publicly praised the governor and attorney general for trying to push for more clean energy requirements.

“We now know the only affordable path to any data centers in our state is in tandem with clean energy,” said Dan Crawford, senior director of the N.C. League of Conservation Voters. “We should be weaning ourselves off expensive fossil fuels, not doubling down on these volatile fuel sources.”

Jim Warren, executive director of the advocacy group NC WARN, said his group wants to see more “assertive intervention” from Stein to require data centers to use clean energy. Stein’s press release advocates for North Carolina to “start cutting carbon emissions in the mid-2030s rather than later,” Warren noted.

This is horribly out of step with the 61 climate scientists pressing him to stop Duke Energy’s fossil fuel expansion immediately,” Warren’s statement reads.

Continue reading

The post Data centers could cost NC consumers $50B by 2050, Gov. Stein’s office estimates — The News & Observer appeared first on NC WARN.

By KAY MATTHEWS

Carson National Forest has accepted Sipapu Ski and Summer Resort’s latest plan for winter and summer expansion. The resort first submitted a Master Development Plan (MDP) in the early 1990s, with an amended MDP in 2012 and 2019. The acceptance by the Carson triggers a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis by means of an Environmental Assessment in 2027.

Notice of the acceptance was sent to three categories of the public: 1) all those on the Forest Service’s email listserve; 2) mandated consultations with tribes, land grants and acequias; and 3) local  agencies that will have authority in the NEPA process, such as the Department of Transportation, New Mexico Environment Department, and the Office of the State Engineer. Those on the listserve were told that the agency was not accepting comments at this time. The letter to the New Mexico Land Grant Council, identified as having “deep cultural, historical, and ongoing connections to the lands that may be affected by this project, “ asks the Council to comment by November 15: “The CNF [Carson National Forest] is requesting your participation and comments pursuant to 91 FR 17062 (2026-06537) of the Council for Environmental Quality Regulations, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR § 800), as amended.” I contacted the Carson for an explanation of what these regulations require, but haven’t heard back yet.

All the letters state that the agency will be proposing an amendment to the Carson National Forest Land Management Plan. The development will fall outside the Special Use Permit (SUP) into the Inventoried Roadless Area.

The proposed plan includes:

• Expand the ski area 915 acres from the 238 current acres.
• Construct approximately 200 acres of new terrain, including approximately 51 new
  trails.
• Construct three new lifts (Chair A, Chair B, Chair C).

• Install one new carpet conveyor (Carpet 1) and relocate one existing carpet conveyor
  (Carpet 2, formerly Lift 2).

• Install snowmaking infrastructure on all new proposed trails for a total of approximately
  200 acres of snowmaking coverage and on all areas that do not currently have snowmaking.

• Analyze and potentially construct up to three snowmaking reservoirs.
• Construct an approximately 20,000 square foot restaurant at top of proposed Chair A and
  all associated utilities (water, electricity, and a septic system).
• Construct two ski team houses, a timing hut, and new maintenance shop.
• Construct a 1,000-foot mountain road between chairs A and B.
• Construct five new parking lots totaling 8.4 acres.
• Construct numerous summer activities including 30 miles of mountain bike trails, a mountain coaster, a zip line, challenge course, tubing activities, expansion of the disc golf course, and various hiking trails.

This latest MDP includes some proposals that were not included in the previous iteration presented to the public in 2025. Sipapu states that this presentation was only “an interim, reduced version of the proposal. The full set of projects included in the amended 2019 MDP is what the Forest Service has accepted.” The new developments include the possibility of three snowmaking reservoirs; maintenance building and ski team houses; a road between chairlifts; and the numerous summer activities. The need to amend the Forest Plan was also never discussed. In a previous public commitment, Sipapu agreed to remove Chairlift B, along the west side of the ski area, and reduce the expanded acreage to 700. The community of Las Mochas, which would be impacted by the chair, lobbied hard for its removal.

Over the years, perhaps the most controversial component of the expansion has been the issue of water rights. During many public meetings Sipapu has either claimed that the 2019 MDP was not contingent upon obtaining more water rights—their current allotment is 18. 46 afy—or that it would seek 56 afy. This is what is stated on the website:

“Sipapu is always looking for additional snowmaking water when it becomes available, regardless of this proposal. Any new water right would go through a separate review by the State of New Mexico and is not part of this proposal. If Sipapu acquires one in the future, it would provide the Forest Service with an updated water information analysis at that time.”

The ski area attempted to transfer water rights in 2021 from the Jicarilla Apache Nation. It was protested by Picuris Pueblo, downstream acequias in Dixon/Embudo, Amigos Bravos, and Carson National Forest. The application expired with no administrative action from the Office of the State Engineer, so no water was ever transferred.

It’s important for everyone concerned about this expansion to be ready to respond to the release of a NEPA document in 2027. NEPA will be contracted out to the SE Group, the same business that was Sipapu’s consultant on the MDP. The SE Group has been accused of a conflict of interest. This is Sipapu’s response: “Using a third-party contractor paid for by the applicant is a standard, long-standing Forest Service practice, and federal law allows it. SE Group works under the direct supervision of the Forest Service. The contractor must sign a statement that it has no financial interest in the outcome. The Forest Service independently reviews all of the work, controls the content of the analysis, and makes the final decision.”

Sipapu is going for the whole shebang.

Click for high resolution

 

 

 

This article by Sanket Jain first appeared on Yale Climate Connections and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Farmers around the world are spraying more chemicals than ever on their crops as they battle insect pests. Many of these small, hungry creatures have benefited from climate change, which has expanded their range, extended their breeding season, and made them harder to control with pesticides.

“As temperatures rise, managing pest attacks is becoming increasingly difficult as many of these pests multiply much faster,” said Laxman Mane, 50, who farms a plot of just under two acres in western India’s Haroli village, growing cauliflower, cabbage, cucumbers, okra, sugarcane and tomatoes.

“Earlier, none of these pesticides were required, but now if you don’t use them, you can’t cultivate any crop,” said Mane, who has been farming for three decades and now sprays chemicals on his cauliflower and cabbage weekly. He started out using dimethoate, then switched to another insecticide that only controlled the pests for about two years, he said. He has boosted the dosage, but heavier spraying has not solved the problem.

Pests and diseases reduce global crop yields by an estimated 20-40% every year, causing $220 billion in losses. Pesticide use in agriculture more than doubled worldwide between 1990 and 2024, reaching 3.92 million metric tons of active ingredients, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

Researchers have found that in some pest species, biological mechanisms that help them tolerate extreme heat can also help them withstand pesticides.

So as pests grow more resilient, experts say farmers also need to adapt. Many recommend integrated pest management, which includes monitoring fields and spraying only when it makes economic sense rather than on a calendar schedule. Farmers also should use natural predators to control pests. They need to adjust planting windows and, where available, choose crop varieties that better resist pests. Rotating chemical pesticides is recommended, as is taking care to make sure that pesticides do not kill off pollinators and other beneficial organisms.

But an integrated approach is difficult for smallholder farmers with limited access to training and resources.

“Poor farmers like me are left with no resort but to keep spraying,” Mane said.

Research from other countries points to similar concerns. A review study of African smallholder farming found that changing climatic conditions can increase pest problems and crop-loss risks in cotton, tomato, maize and cowpea.

Why some pests become harder to control

Warmer temperatures do not make every pest more resistant. In some cases, in fact, it’s the opposite. But in general, as temperatures rise, pests are expanding into new areas, appearing earlier in the season, or producing more generations in a year. Warmer conditions can cause some insects to develop faster.

When insects mature faster and produce the next generation more quickly, pesticide resistance can evolve more rapidly because resistant individuals have more opportunities to survive pesticide exposure and pass resistance traits to their offspring.

“In regions experiencing frequent heat waves, we could certainly see a decline in insecticide efficacy over time,” said Aline Guidolin, an entomologist and professor at the University of São Paulo’s Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture. 

Global warming will not help all pests. In places where pests are already close to the highest temperatures they can tolerate, extreme heat can make some pests less successful, said Sanford Eigenbrode, an entomologist and professor emeritus at the University of Idaho. However, he added, “In temperate latitudes, warming is more likely to increase pest developmental rates, making them more difficult to control.” 

One species that has developed resistance is the diamondback moth, a major pest of cabbage, cauliflower and other related crops. The past 50 years of global warming have expanded the area where it could survive winter by about 2.4 million square kilometers. Researchers have found that, on average, pesticide resistance levels were 158 times higher in areas where the moth could survive winter than in areas where it occurred only seasonally.

How warming can reshape pesticide resistance

Pesticide resistance depends on several factors, Eigenbrode said, including frequency of exposure, pre-existing resistance traits in a population, breeding and development characteristics, and the level of annual exposure.

“Warming climates can alter these factors,” he said.

Rising temperatures or other environmental factors can change which versions of certain genes become more common in a pest population. Evolutionary biologist Henry Chung, an associate professor at Michigan State University, said certain genes may be involved in both heat tolerance and insecticide resistance. Changing environmental conditions can make these gene versions more or less common over generations. This could make a population more or less resistant to insecticides.

“Environmental change can cause populations to be more resistant to an insecticide, or it can also cause populations to be more susceptible,” Chung said.

A pest could even become more resistant to one insecticide while becoming more susceptible to another.

Heat makes resistant pests harder to kill

In Brazil, researchers tested fall armyworms, a major maize pest, between 18°C and 32°C, comparing insects resistant to two insecticides with those that were not. At 28°C, they needed a concentration 340 times higher of spinetoram insecticide to kill resistant armyworms than they did to produce the same mortality level in susceptible insects.

At 32°C, the difference grew to nearly 590 times. 

Guidolin, who co-authored the study, said that at higher temperatures, the armyworms’ metabolism speeds up, allowing them to break down and detoxify insecticides faster. Higher temperatures enhance this defense mechanism, she said, making insecticides like chlorantraniliprole and spinetoram less effective.

To manage the growing challenge of pesticide resistance, Guidolin said farmers should follow insecticide-resistance management practices, including applying insecticides only at manufacturer-recommended rates, avoiding under-dosing and over-dosing. Farmers should also rotate between pesticides that work in different ways.

Still, “As temperatures rise, chemical rotation alone won’t be enough,” she warned.

Sanford recommends switching between pesticides that target pests in different ways, while protecting beneficial organisms, including pollinators.

Researchers try switching off genes that build resilience

Researchers in China studied Tetranychus truncatus, a spider mite that attacks more than 100 crops, including maize, cotton and soybean. They identified five genes involved in producing heat-shock proteins, which protect cells from stresses such as extreme heat and pesticides. Three of the genes became much more active at 38°C to 42°C. Two also became more active after exposure to sublethal doses of three acaricides.

When the team switched off these two genes, the mites became more vulnerable to both heat and acaricides. Mortality increased by up to 35% under heat, and by up to 38.8% after pesticide exposure, showing that the same biological defenses that help the mites cope with heat can also help them withstand pesticides. 

Farmers facing increasingly difficult pest-control challenges need solutions that protect their crops while slowing the development of pesticide resistance.

Raosaheb Yadav, 65, has cultivated cabbage since 1978. He grows three cabbage crops a year and said global warming has made each cycle harder. Pest numbers have increased, and so have the varieties of pests, forcing him to rely on more chemicals. He used to spray every 10 days; now he sprays more than once a week, he said.

He said farmers can no longer wait to spray until they see pests in their fields: “You miss one window, and the next day you will see several pests.”

To make matters worse, some of the insecticides he once relied on have also stopped working effectively, forcing him to use higher concentrations and add a sticker, an additive that helps the pesticide adhere to the plant surface and reduces the amount washed away by rain or irrigation.

The integrated practices recommended by experts could reduce unnecessary pesticide use and slow the development of resistance, but Yadav said he feels unable to weather any short-term losses that could come with switching tactics.

“A farmer can’t afford any losses here because the cost of production is already so high,” he said. If the pests do not die, farmers have little choice but to find another pesticide. “I never imagined pest control would become this difficult.”

//

26550RainfallThe Sanctuary recorded 4.81 inches of rain in October, which is 24% above average for October.  To date, we have received 81% of the rainfall we typically receive from June through...

Lower-volume fracking in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston is the wrong project, at the wrong time, in the wrong location, local representatives said today in response to news that a drilling company is to appeal against the rejection of its plans.

Proposed entrance to Europa’s gas site at Burniston. Photo: DrillOrDrop

A formal announcement on the villlage notice board this morning confirmed that Europa Oil & Gas had lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, nearly six months after North Yorkshire Council refused the company’s planning application.

The chair of Burniston Parish Council, Cllr Richard Parsons, told DrillOrDrop:

“Today we have found out that Europa Oil and Gas Ltd [EOG] will appeal the planning decision that went against their application, when heard by the North Yorkshire Council strategic planning committee nearly six months ago.

“We have not as yet received any formal notice.

“Although this comes as no surprise, we are somewhat concerned that EOG have not listened in any way to the serious concerns that over 1600 people expressed during the planning process.

“The planning committee listened, understood and delivered their decision in the most decisive manner.

“At Burniston Parish Council and in our community,  we are confident that having exposed the many flaws, inconsistencies and failure to gather  information, that any responsible applicant would include in such an application, for a planning meeting, the Planning Inspector will return the same refusal.

“At this Council we do listen to, understand and agree with the views of our community and the wider community. They reject the application in its entirety for all the right reasons.

“If anyone can find a suitable place for fracking and the underground dumping of chemicals, particularly so close to where people live, I can say with great certainty, it is not here.

“I expect the planning inspector, even if the request to hear this appeal is granted, to support the decision of the planning committee.

“Burniston Parish Council will continue to represent the views of this community and ensure those views are clearly heard in this process. We expect a similar response from North Yorkshire Council.

“The application for a fracking process that has been shown to be far from safe, is the wrong project, at the wrong time, in the wrong location.”

Chris Garforth, chair of the steering group of the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, said:

“This comes as no surprise. Within minutes of the council’s decision, Europa’s chief executive Will Holland boasted he was confident it would be overturned at appeal. That confidence doesn’t change the facts.

“North Yorkshire’s planning committee looked at the evidence and heard from around 1,600 objectors before voting against the application. They gave five robust reasons why the proposals were contrary to planning policy and regulations.

“The volumes of fracking fluid Europa proposes for the site remain greater than those that caused a 2.9 magnitude earthquake at Preston New Road in 2019. Our cliffs remain unstable. And we remain in a climate emergency in which opening new fossil fuel sites makes no sense, however they’re dressed up.

“We will study Europa’s grounds of appeal carefully and respond more fully in the coming days. Meanwhile, our message to Europa, and to the Planning Inspectorate, is the same as it was on 24 April: this community said no for good reason, and nothing in an appeal can change that.”

Friends of the Earth campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said:

“This appeal will only create more concern and uncertainty for local residents who are understandably worried about the impact of fracking on their community and environment.

“Now we need the government to act. Proppant squeeze is simply fracking by another name. Ministers must deliver on their promise to ban fracking for good by ensuring it includes all forms of this technique – including proppant squeeze. Failure to do so will leave many more communities at risk.”

Brazil’s COP30 presidency has unveiled a much-anticipated plan to halt forest loss around the world, saying a global target to end deforestation by 2030 remains within reach using existing national and international tools, but requires more finance behind it and everyone to go “faster and further”.

COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago told a press conference to launch the new roadmap in Brasilia that, while some countries pushed back against a global blueprint, it was developed as a way to inspire governments, business and civil society to focus on meeting commitments to protect forests.

“It’s all processes that already exist. All instruments that already exist. That’s one of the best conclusions: everyone can start acting today,” do Lago said.

The voluntary deforestation roadmap, along with another on transitioning away from fossil fuels, was promised by Brazil in the final hours of last year’s COP30 in the Amazon city of Belém after countries could not agree to include it in the formal Mutirão outcome.

Do Lago reiterated on Tuesday that the roadmap is not an official UN document, but rather a guide to implement targets already agreed three years ago at COP28 in Dubai, when countries took stock of national climate policies and agreed to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030.

Last year, global deforestation declined by 15% – the largest drop in recent years, achieved in large part thanks to Brazil’s tougher enforcement against illegal expansion of cattle-ranching – but countries remain far off track for the drop needed to achieve the COP28 target.

Former Brazilian environment minister Marina Silva, a close ally of newly re-elected President Lula da Silva and one of the main advocates of the roadmap, celebrated its launch and described it as “not a new path but a new way of walking” towards the global goal.

• Nov 3, 2026 News Africa launches long-delayed energy bank to finance fossil fuel projects The Africa Energy Bank’s main aim is financing oil and gas projects, underscoring support among many African governments for continued fossil fuel development Read more
• Oct 31, 2026 News COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature After a two-week stalemate, countries agreed to invite wealthy emerging economies like China to assume donor status and help fund biodiversity protection as finance falls short Read more
• Nov 3, 2026 News Canada, EU agree deeper cooperation on energy and cleantech supply chains Both sides have pledged to strengthen investment and trade cooperation to make cleantech supply chains more resilient to shocks Read more

What’s included in the roadmap?

The roadmap compiles a menu of policies to reverse deforestation and restore the world’s forests at both the national and international level, informed by more than 180 contributions from governments, civil society, the private sector and others. It focuses on ways countries can ramp up forest conservation, sustainable management and restoration, while tackling deforestation and forest degradation.

At the country level, it urges each government to follow a four-point plan, starting with identifying the drivers of deforestation in its territory, adjusting existing policies such as climate and biodiversity plans to address those drivers, setting targets according to available resources, and then implementing measures to reach them.

At the international level, it urges countries to co-operate on diverting trade-related incentives away from forest-destructive activities, and to strengthen prosecution of cross-border environmental crimes at the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC). It also calls for collaboration on forest monitoring platforms and developing unified indicators for tracking progress.

The document also identifies the next UN Global Stocktake of climate policies in 2028 as a key milestone when countries will have a last chance to review forest policies before the end of the decade.

Do Lago said some countries might want the roadmap to become a contribution to the next stocktake, adding that this document is “the first contribution for that discussion”, which will start at COP31 in Antalya and continue until COP33.

COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago looks over documents at the UN mid-year climate talks in Bonn, Germany on June 11, 2026 (Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth) Finance boost needed

To achieve the 2030 global target, the roadmap also says a major scale-up of financial resources will be required. The UN estimates that $84.5 billion was channelled into forest protection in 2023, which will need to increase to more than $300 billion a year by 2030. Nearly 90% of finance going to forests comes from domestic government budgets in developing countries, rather than international aid or private-sector investment.

The roadmap suggests that, since countries are already paying to look after their forests, they can act in two main ways: diverting domestic support away from nature-damaging activities, and building demand for “verified forest outcomes” such as paying to keep forests standing or creating forest-positive subsidies.

In the case of international finance, the document identifies several initiatives seeking to channel new public and private funds towards forest protection, including paying for carbon sinks – known as REDD+ in technical jargon – as well as through the newly established Paris Agreement carbon market.

The roadmap also singles out recent efforts to shift more private finance into solutions for nature, such as the Brazil-led Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) launched last year in Belém.

“The great challenge is not new policies, but scalability and acceleration to arrive at 2030 as promised, having ramped up efforts to end deforestation and forest degradation,” COP30 CEO and veteran climate diplomat Ana Toni said at the press conference.

Timeline requires quick implementation

Damian Fleming, senior director for forests at green group WWF International, said the roadmap “gets many of the fundamentals right” including on governance, regulatory and legal enforcement, community rights, finance, and the need to tackle degradation as well as deforestation.

However, he added that “the challenge now is speed” with 2030 just a few years away. “Countries need to use [the roadmap] to turbocharge action for results on the ground,” he said, urging governments to pursue deforestation-free supply chains and respect the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Anders Haug Larsen, director of international advocacy at the Rainforest Foundation Norway, highlighted the wide range of partners that can drive the anti-deforestation plan forward, adding he hoped that rainforest nations would now step up to champion it.

“Tropical forests are too important for fragmented approaches,” he said. “The roadmap can help bring together governments, Indigenous Peoples, investors and existing initiatives behind a common goal: ending deforestation and keeping forests standing.”

Natalie Unterstell, founder of the Talanoa Institute, a Brazilian climate think-tank, said the roadmap builds on Brazil’s “successful experience” of reducing deforestation, which has dropped to a record-low level, going beyond a simple focus on law enforcement but also identifying business and finance opportunities that bring positive results.

“The next step is for other governments and incoming COP presidencies to take ownership of this agenda, turn the proposed pathways into co-ordinated action, and use the 2028 Global Stocktake to assess collective progress. With only four years left, the roadmap needs a coalition of countries committed to delivering it,” she told Climate Home News.

The post COP30 roadmap says faster use of existing tools can halt forest loss by 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.

On a chilly December morning, I packed my snacks and binoculars, threw my coat on, and rushed out the door to meet my CBC counting group for my local circle in Fort Collins, CO. In doing so, I was...

Brazil has proposed a voluntary timetable to speed up the world’s transition away from fossil fuels (TAFF), fulfilling the promise it made to draw up the first global roadmap at last year’s UN climate summit in Belém. 

Through a “TAFF Mutirão”, named after the Indigenous Brazilian term for collective effort, the COP30 presidency sets out three stages for cutting the world’s reliance on oil, gas and coal up to 2033.

Countries are first encouraged to draw up national transition plans by 2028 in time to feed into the next global stocktake, the UN’s five-yearly review of progress on climate action. During the same period, Brazil’s blueprint suggests governments could take early steps such as reforming fossil fuel subsidies or stopping methane leaks at oil and gas sites.

• Oct 21, 2026 Investigations Turkish giant sponsoring COP31 cut climate goals then cashed in on oil boom COP31 sponsors should be screened for “climate integrity”. Yet Koç Holding has become a top partner while its oil refiner runs flat out and its climate targets slip Read more
• Sep 22, 2026 Energy UN chief urges countries to adopt fossil fuel transition plans with timelines In his last speech to the UN General Assembly, António Guterres for the first time called on every nation to deliver a plan to phase out coal, oil and gas while protecting workers Read more
• Jun 12, 2026 News European, island states seek clear future for global roadmap to cut fossil fuels Some European, small island and other nations argue the forthcoming roadmap should be part of UN climate talks, while Russia has resisted this idea Read more

In 2029 and 2030, Brazil sees the focus shifting to building an alternative energy system, by prioritising clean power, electric transport and heating, more efficient energy use and by rolling out the power grids and batteries that support them.

Only in the final stage, from 2031 to 2033, does the roadmap expect the main push to reduce fossil fuel production. By then, it argues, falling use of fossil fuels should allow producers to “adjust and diversify supply in step with demand”.

The roadmap acknowledges that fossil fuel demand must fall “substantially faster” to meet the 1.5C temperature goal, but warns that cutting supply too early would drive up prices and risk “losing societal support for the transition”.

Coordinated agenda

Pedro Brancante, a senior official at the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and one of the authors of the roadmap, said the document proposes both a global, coordinated agenda and accelerated action at the national level.

He told a webinar hosted by Climate Home News that Brazil sees the roadmap as a tool to organise the discussions around the fossil fuel phase-out and help that debate develop further without getting stuck on definitions or the different responsibilities of particular countries.

The COP30 presidency offered to draw up the roadmap in the dying hours of the Belém summit. A push by about 80 countries to start that work within the formal negotiations had been blocked by some fossil fuel-producing nations.

The 182-page document does not name any countries and it sets no deadlines for winding down fossil fuel production. But it offers countries a self-assessment tool to score themselves on how heavily they depend on fossil fuels and what capacity they have to move away from them.

Fossil fuel “archetypes”

Across energy demand, supply and the wider economy, countries can place themselves in one of 12 “archetypes”, each with its own suggested first steps.

For example, countries where transport, industry and homes still run mostly on fossil fuels, and where energy demand is growing fast, are urged to meet that growth with electric and other low-emissions options rather than locking in new fossil fuel use. Major oil and gas producers with strong institutions and good renewable resources are told to manage an “orderly transition” of their production while expanding clean energy, then to redirect their infrastructure and skills toward new energy industries.

COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago told journalists on Tuesday that countries need to recognise themselves in the categories and use the frameworks as “food for thought” to plan the next steps.

COP30 CEO Ana Toni added that the presidency limited its time horizon to 2033 and did not try to think about 2050 or 2060 because “there is an urgency and these are short-term measures” that all countries can act upon now.

Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive

Brazil has yet to publish its own national roadmap away from fossil fuels. At the end of last year, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva asked his government to draft the roadmap’s guidelines by February 2026, but officials said on Tuesday that the document is still awaiting approval from the President.

Lula, who was recently re-elected, has backed the expansion of oil and gas exploration. In August, after Petrobras struck oil off the coast near the mouth of the Amazon River, he said drilling along Brazil’s northern coast could be “a passport to the country’s future”.

“Valuable blueprint”

The release of the roadmap was largely welcomed by analysts and campaigners. 

Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said Brazil has offered “a valuable blueprint” for the fossil fuel phase-out, adding that while “there is not one-size-fits-all pathway”, all countries need to plan their transition now.

 But he warned that suggesting that a reduction in fossil fuel supply could wait until the 2030s would be “a grave mistake” and guarantee a “chaotic transition”. 

Smoke rises from Yatagan thermal power plant near southwestern town of Yatagan in Mugla province, Turkey, February 24, 2021. (Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas) Smoke rises from Yatagan thermal power plant near southwestern town of Yatagan in Mugla province, Turkey, February 24, 2021. (Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas)

Kat Paterson, programme lead for global clean power diplomacy at E3G, said the roadmap puts the fossil fuel transition at the heart of both global climate cooperation and national economic planning. 

“As governments head to Antalya, the task is now for the COP31 presidency to carry Brazil’s work forward, and for countries to demonstrate their own plans to develop national roadmaps as pathways towards clean, resilient economies,” she added. 

Turkey, which hosts COP31 from next Monday, and Australia, which will preside over the negotiations, have not said whether or how they will take the roadmap forward at the summit.

At the press conference in Brasilia, the Brazilian officials stressed that the roadmap represents a call for action and not a formal document that needs to be adopted in the official talks.

“We are not suggesting negotiations, we are not suggesting the creation of a new entity,” said Corrêa do Lago. “Everything is around implementation, around institutions and processes in place that already exist and have been agreed beforehand.”

The post Brazil’s fossil fuel roadmap sketches out first global timetable appeared first on Climate Home News.

By KD Chavez, executive director, Climate Justice Alliance

On September 30th, the Senate proposed the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA). This bill would gut bedrock environmental laws created over half a century ago, make it harder for communities to stand up for themselves, and make it easier for polluting industries to sue the federal government to keep destroying our planet.

The laws it targets—including National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Clean Water Act (CWA)—helped our nation transition away from a legacy of cities blanketed with smog and at least one river catching fire from pollution.

BAAJA claims it will create more jobs and make things more affordable, but faster approvals alone do not guarantee good jobs, lower energy costs, or healthy communities.

The bill eviscerates legal norms and common sense in two ways: weakening current protections and establishing new provisions.

Weakening Current Protections

NEPA is the reason governments do environmental reviews for significant projects that could have an impact on the human environment and fall under federal jurisdiction (whether on federal land or receiving funding). This is often the process that triggers public comment periods where communities are able to share how a proposal will impact them, and experts can weigh in. The end result of that review is a final determination on the project’s permit: if it is allowed to build, and if it must take measures to mitigate impacts to the environment or human health.

Before they even get to that point, projects need to be considered a major federal action, and determine if they qualify for a categorical exclusion (CATEX). CATEX basically means the government has already assessed that type of project and determined it doesn’t have a significant impact on the human environment, so no need to go through an environmental review process. BAAJA expands CATEX to include natural gas pipelines, new infrastructure built within already established rights-of-way, and repairs to facilities that can increase capacity of projects of up to 20%.

Let’s use a specific example to clear up all that jargon: imagine a company just proposed building a data center on federal lands and didn’t plan on using substantial federal funding, if the nearby transmission lines needed to be upgraded to power it and they needed to build diesel powered backup generators onsite, under BAAJA the project wouldn’t trigger an environmental review process. Without this public review, there would be no way for the public or decision makers to understand how the proposed activity could cause significant impact to the environment, like air quality and water resources. And remember, federal lands aren’t just far-away, pristine natural spaces, they include Superfund sites and other properties next to homes, schools, places of worship, and businesses all around this country.

Another consequence of reducing the amount of projects that receive federal review is that it limits the ability of Tribes as sovereign nations to provide input on permitting processes. This is clearly intentional because BAAJA doesn’t stop there. As the Native American Rights Fund shows in their analysis of the bill, it goes “so far as stripping cultural protections and Tribal participation in the [National Historic Preservation Act].” These rights of Tribal Nations played significant roles in recent organizing fights including the Dakota Access Pipeline losing its initial operational clearances after the federal government acknowledged important issues surfaced by Tribal Nations and their members hadn’t been addressed, and the Resolution Copper Mine on sacred Apache lands Oak Flats being forced to re-initiate government-to-government consultation.

What’s more, current law allows for judicial review up to six years after approval if someone can show the approving agency didn’t properly address concerns that were raised. BAAJA would limit that time to a mere 150 days. It also states that in order to sue, a party must have made a comment during review that “sufficiently detailed to put the applicable Federal agency on notice of the particular issue on which the party seeks judicial review.” Finally, it strips the court’s ability to issue preliminary injunctions that could stop construction while the case is determined. This mechanism for judicial review is what just stopped the first data center from being built on public lands in Nevada.

Essentially, the bill eviscerates communities’ democratic right for public comment on a project near, or in, their neighborhood, and it limits the legal options our communities have to fight bad projects in the courts—even when new impacts, harms, or new science is revealed.

Establishing New Provisions

Project Certainty and Disparate Impacts

BAAJA also focuses on the concept of project certainty. It’s an attempt from legislators to show corporations that once their permit has been approved, it is unlikely to be overturned. That might sound like common sense, especially given how hostile the Trump Administration has been to renewables. It’s also snake oil being sold to Democrats and a glaring handout to Big Oil and Big Tech, since it will prevent future administrations from reducing fossil fuel or AI data center build out on public lands.

BAAJA includes a section outlining “disparate treatment” for projects including a variety of mining and energy projects. This creates a pathway for corporations to sue the federal government if they feel their type of project has been discriminated against. On the surface, giving companies the power to sue the government over discrimination might sound positive—the current administration has stalled or canceled over 200 renewable energy projects and slowed down renewable energy permitting. However, it stipulates that they must be able to show an increase in federal authorizations or permit decisions or delays for that type of project compared to the most recent five calendar years. As Michael B. Gerrard of Columbia Law School pointed out in a recent expert opinion for Law.com, “One problem is that, depending on when a bill with this provision is enacted, the baseline will include two, three or four years of the second Trump administration, when there were many approvals of fossil projects and disapprovals or delays of many renewable projects. Thus any reversal of this pattern in a future administration could count as disparate treatment, making it more difficult to block fossil projects that the previous administration had approved.”

In a suit related to “disparate impacts”, a judge could award anywhere from half to the “total reasonably expected cost of construction of the project.”

For instance, since the federal government has already approved liquid natural gas export terminals or petrochemical plants in the past, if it chooses to not approve them in the future, the largest corporations on the planet could sue the government for billions in damages based on “disparate treatment.” Effectively corporations will be able to hold our taxpayer dollars hostage and tell the government, “let us build something that will harm people and planet, or hand over the money.” And, of course, this deregulatory deal does not have a single provision to address disparate impacts caused by fossil fuel pollution that hurt communities. The only thing it makes certain is that powerful project developers, such as AI data center developers, will profit at our expense.

Another Glaring Problem

Let’s set aside the issues with project certainty and disparate impacts laid out above, and assume BAAJA would be a boon to renewable energy like some proponents claim. Two major issues arise from this.

First, the report Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States: September 2026 Edition from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School found that by “the end of 2025, at least 888 state and local restrictions that were so severe they could have the effect of blocking renewable energy projects had been adopted.” This same report found local-level restrictions to “ordinances that impede the siting of utility-scale solar, wind, battery storage, and related transmission projects” in 46 states, while there were 19 state-level restrictions in place. Through the end of 2025 the report documents at least 567 contested projects.

Resistance to these projects, and the laws challenging them, are in large part being led by fossil fuel companies and their associated organizations, think tanks, and activists. We also cannot deny that when communities don’t like something and feel like their voices haven’t been heard, they’re going to fight against it—a company picking and choosing collateral damage isn’t being a good neighbor, regardless of whether they’re fossil fuels or renewables.

Despite the myth that community input delays projects, studies of energy projects have actually shown that lack of public engagement is cited as a major cause for delays. When people are excluded from decisions that affect their homes, health, and livelihoods, opposition is not irrational, it is predictable. Early and meaningful stakeholder engagement leads to better siting decisions, greater public trust, and faster project completion. BAAJA takes what has already become increasingly challenging, everyday people getting a say in what happens in their neighborhood, and promises to make it futile.

Understanding all this, we have been working to center impacted communities for years, including through the comprehensive input process we provided to build the Environmental Justice For All Act, first introduced in March 2020 by late Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Donald McEachin.

There Is an Answer – and It Is Community Led

While BAAJA might make it easier for some projects to get approval, it’s going to do more harm than good for our communities, our health, and our planet. It will fast track unpopular projects, especially pipelines and data centers. This proposed law takes away our power to determine our future, and hands it over to corporations, billionaires, and out-of-touch politicians.

Instead of BAAJA, we need durable permitting reform that:

• Puts communities at the table through early, ongoing engagement, and meaningful public participation.

• Accounts for cumulative harms by evaluating pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, public health, and existing environmental burdens.

• Strengthens the build out of responsible clean energy by modernizing transmission planning, strengthening federal oversight of interstate energy markets, and ensuring large energy users pay their fair share of grid costs.

• Invests in effective government through fully staffed agencies, stronger technical expertise, and better interagency coordination.

• Upholds constitutional Tribal sovereignty through meaningful government-to-government consultation and advancing Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.

• Ensures transparency and accountability through accessible permit information, environmental reviews, project status, and compliance records

What the people in power don’t want us to remember is that when we come together to stand up against an infrastructure project, we are practicing a fundamental right afforded to us in our constitution. It is what Democracy looks like the other 364 days a year when we don’t cast a ballot.

On the heels of the mid-term elections, in which the people have given a clear mandate to Congress to support and center people and democracy rather than corporate interests, now is not the time to settle and cede ground to those who see our neighborhoods as their dumping grounds: the corporations, and people running them, who see our loved ones as line items. This attempt at deregulation is the worst yet, with over 75 rollbacks, sacrificing working class people, and locking in pollution and injustice for decades to come.

Ultimately, the name of this bill says it all, it’s a bait and switch: putting buzzwords important to constituents in the title so legislators feel compelled to vote for it, regardless of what the fine print says.

We, the constituents, need to fight to stop this bill, ensure our elected leaders listen to the people and defend our rights, and then encourage them to pass common-sense and durable permitting reform that centers the people and planet.

The post New Permitting Bill in Senate Would Lock in Fossil Fuel Dominance for Generations appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

Targeted changes can minimize the most negative consequences of the permitting bill’s overreaching provisions, writes former FERC Chairman Mark Christie.

Workers at Indonesian nickel plants power the renewable energy industry. But the costs are steep.

Along the coast of Sulawesi Island in Eastern Indonesia, workers at the biggest nickel industrial park in Asia, Indonesia Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP), produce the nickel that is found in stainless steel, carbon steel, electronic devices, electric vehicle batteries and other consumer goods. Foreign companies and the Indonesian government grow rich from the speculation over demand for renewable energy technology and electric vehicles. Workers have paid a steep cost for doing the actual labor needed for nickel production. 

Between 2015 and 2025 there have been 107 worker deaths and 240 injuries at Indonesian nickel plants, 40 of which occurred at IMIP. In response, workers have been organizing to demand better occupational safety and health protections. They have often been met with union busting tactics and hostility.

IMIP is a sprawling 4,000 hectare industrial park that employs over 98,000 workers. Indonesia has strongly prioritized developing its nickel industry in the last decade, and currently produces 60% of the world’s nickel supply. According to research from 2023, nickel industrial parks in Morowali, Obi Island and in Halmahera supply a group of nine factories that account for 40% of electric vehicle battery production making them a key part of the supply chain. Yet, the benefits of this growth have remained concentrated among Indonesian politicians and foreign investors, particularly from China and Korea. 

Workers raise concerns about unsafe mine waste, long hours, and health issues

Some of these deaths have occurred in facilities where companies store toxic waste from mining, specifically in high pressure acid leaching tailings facilities. A report that Earthworks published earlier this year warns of the dangers that these facilities pose for workers, communities and the environment. Richard Labiro, director of the organization Yayasan Tanah Merdeka, stated that, “In Indonesia right now, these tailings facilities are a disaster by design. The risks created by the huge and growing amount of toxic waste are borne by workers, local communities, and the environment.” Just this year a worker at IMIP was killed when a tailings landslide buried the excavator he was operating. 

Some researchers have speculated that the high number of workplace accidents and fatalities might be linked to the long work hours that appear to be a common experience among workers at IMIP. One work schedule at the industrial park involves working 12 hours for two shifts in a row which often results in a 60 hour work week. According to the WHO, working long hours is a “serious health hazard” and is the “largest occupational disease burden.” 

Furthermore, workers have noticed growing health issues that merit further study and better access to treatment options. Recent research has shown significant air pollution around IMIP, specifically fine particulate matter (PM) levels that surpass the WHO guidelines by up to 10 times the limit during pollution peaks. High levels of PM have been linked to respiratory, cardiovascular, and cognitive problems. Workers at IMIP experience respiratory issues and health impacts from heat, noise and chemical exposure on the job. But beyond the unhealthy work conditions, the poor design and lack of regulation of these facilities, especially HPAL waste management facilities, cannot be ignored.

Workers pay the cost and offer solutions when mining isn’t safe

When we talk about frontline communities impacted by mining, it is important to remember that workers are often among those first impacted due to their proximity to projects. In the case of tailings management, there are clear examples of workers bearing the brunt of tailings mismanagement. One of the most horrific tailings failures, the Brumadinho failure in Brazil in 2019, had such a high fatality rate because the worker cafeteria was constructed directly below the tailings dam and the dam failed during workers’ lunch break. 

In Indonesia, workers and civil society organizations are sounding the alarm as tailings facilities have caused workplace fatalities at multiple nickel sites, pointing to a systemic problem with tailings management and workplace safety across the industry. Workers often have valuable insights into the safety of mine waste facilities, and protecting whistleblowers from retaliation can help prevent accidents. Due to their expertise, workers and labor unions should also be an integral part of decisions made regarding occupational health and safety.

Workers reject recent contract negotiations as PT IMIP negotiates in bad faith

Last month, labor unions at IMIP underwent negotiations for a new employment contract. However, the outcome was rejected by union members, who allege that the company failed to follow proper procedures—altering the final draft of the contract so that it no longer reflected the agreements reached during negotiations—and, ultimately, disregarded many key demands. 

On Saturday, October 31, workers occupied the offices of PT IMIP to protest the new contract, as well as the manner in which the negotiation and contract drafting process was conducted. They plan to continue their protests at government offices from November 3 – 7, to demand that negotiations restart in an open and transparent manner.

Workers protest at PT IMIP headquarters. Photo courtesy of FSPIM.

The membership of FSPIM, a union federation that organizes workers across three provinces in Indonesia, demands for IMIP management to: 

1. provide a living wage that increases in line with inflation;
2. improve occupational safety and health practices with the goal of zero workplace accidents or fatalities;
3. implement strict policies to protect women workers from sexual harassment and violence in the workplace and to simplify the process to access their legally-protected right to menstrual and maternity leave; and
4. respect workers’ right to unionize and end all union-busting tactics, such as harassment, retaliation and layoffs.

A declaration on mining and the energy transition drafted by Earthworks and signed by 168 organizations and unions states that communities, the environment and workers’ rights must be put first for a truly just and equitable energy transition. The Declaration calls for centering the human rights of Indigenous, frontline communities, and workers and prioritizing solutions that reduce the overall demand for primary metals through strategies such as reuse, reduction, recycling, and design for disassembly. It calls for health and safety protections for workers and communities at all stages of the supply chain.

The environmental and community-level harms occurring at nickel mining sites in Indonesia are intimately tied to the horrible consequences of labor violations and lack of respect for the rights of workers. A just energy transition cannot follow the same extractivist patterns that caused the climate crisis. When companies fall into these old patterns, they cause interrelated harms towards workers, communities and the environment that stand in the way of truly sustainable progress. 

It is imperative that IMIP swiftly heed workers’ demands and reopen negotiations in a fair and transparent way.

The post Nickel Workers Call for Reforms as Deaths and Injuries Add Up appeared first on Earthworks.

Print article Share

The upcoming COP31 climate talks in Antalya, Turkey need to respond to the latest science on global warming, which is “really scary”, says UK climate minister Katie White.

In an interview with Carbon Brief setting out the UK’s priorities for the summit, White also responds to suggestions that the government is walking back its climate policies.

White says the “shocking” impact of extreme heat and wildfires this summer makes it clear that climate change “isn’t something far off; it’s something we’re living through”.

She adds that the UK will be working to “hold up the science”, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that should be the “basis of discussions”.

The COP31 presidency push on electrification is “going to be key”, says White, who points to other priorities for the UK that include tackling methane emissions and reducing deforestation.

White says the recent approval of the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea is “fully in line” with carbon budgets and that the UK continues to support the “transition away from fossil fuels”.

She adds that the Hormuz crisis has helped drive the “biggest uptake…we’ve ever seen” in the UK for solar, electric vehicles and heat pumps.

Finally, White defends the new approach set out in the budget by chancellor John Healey, including a greater focus on affordability, as a “natural evolution” of UK government policy.

Carbon Brief: Katie White, thank you very much for joining Carbon Brief today. Next week we’re going to be heading to COP31 climate talks in Antalya in Turkey. 

We’ve seen this year the UN warning that a temporary overshoot of 1.5C degrees is now inevitable. We’ve had 50,000 excess heat deaths across Europe this summer. We’ve had extreme weather events hitting Nepal, deadly floods there. Heading into the talks, what would you say the UK’s priorities are?

Katie White: Thanks, Simon. Look, just to say, it’s great to be here. I’m a big fan of Carbon Brief and the work you’ve been doing. I think it’s incredibly important that there are people who are focused on the facts and have really excellent commentary. So just to say thank you, and it’s good to be here to discuss with you.

Look, this year has been a very significant year in terms of climate, particularly sat here in the UK. I think we have really felt the impacts of climate change for the first time. For you and me, who’ve been working on this for a long time [and] we talk about it. But even so – I don’t know how you felt – but I was even shocked by the implications of what that was for everyday life, for people actually sleeping at night. You know, in terms of parliament, I had colleagues who had to go pick up their children because their schools weren’t available, and you know, tragedies in terms of older people struggling in the heat.

Not to mention the wildfires that we had across the country. I went to visit one in Romford and I think just standing – literally in the ashes – and seeing people’s homes really close by. My colleague in Stourbridge, obviously, they had burnt-out houses – you know, devastating. And you think about it – and I talked with her about – the actual real-life implications of that. 

Membership

Support award-winning climate journalism Join CB+

Obviously, people think about it, but then the after-effects, and you know the challenges with insurance and the challenge with all these sky boxes, and all of the things that come –  those smaller things, as well as the tragedies around your photos, and all of that being lost.

So I think it’s really opened, sadly, another door for us in terms of the climate-change journey. This isn’t something far off; it’s something we’re living through. I know that’s been the case for many countries for a long time, but it really felt like a shift here in the UK.

You’re right, the science, once again, is really scary. The overshoot report is incredibly concerning. Scientifically, obviously, they look for a longer period. But I think the main message – for me as a politician – is this is really worrying. And every year we have another call to action. How do we translate that call into actual delivery? And that’s the bit we need to make sure of, because you know, I think we have to be listening to the science, and the science is fundamental and key. And we might talk about the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and all the elements of that. But also, for me, how do we translate that?

It’s not, as you all know, it’s not the big global stocktake COP [this year in Antalya]. So it’s not going to be that big event, where we have it every five years. But we still need to be making significant progress. So we really focus a lot on the science, on the “action agenda” and on those political decisions – that “cover decision” that the Australian presidency [of negotiations] has said that they’re going to pursue.

So in terms of the action agenda, which obviously the Turkish [presidency] has led on and [has] been really forthright about leading on this, I think electrification is going to be key. It’s something that shot up the agenda. 

I think most of your audience will know what electrification is, but for anyone outside of the climate bubble [it is] around electrifying our homes, electrifying our transportation. And in the UK, we’ve done a good job of decarbonising our electricity system, but we need to be pulling down on that and increasing demand to make sure that we take full advantage of the clean electricity that we have, which would be good for bills, but also around reducing our emissions as well. So something around electrification, we’re expecting a lot of talk of that. [It is] something the Turks have been talking about a lot.

Methane is another area which we’ve been working on, but I expect there will be some progress in terms of methane. Forests, you’ll know that we’ve pledged an investment to the [Tropical Forest Forever] TFFF, so we will be hoping for some momentum around that forests agenda. 

So, I think, those are some of the really practical areas of action, as well as making sure we’re moving forward, holding up the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change], holding up the science, so we can keep moving forward and making progress on any of those areas within the cover decision that the Australians will obviously steer us through.

CB: Great, thank you. You mentioned electrification. Obviously, that’s a target announced by the Turkish presidency earlier this year. They said they want to see the adoption of a global target for 35% of final energy to come from electricity by 2035. 

At the moment, it’s a voluntary sign-on pledge, but presumably that’s something that could enter into the cover decision, as you mentioned. I guess I’m wondering: is the UK going to sign up to that, if it remains as a voluntary pledge? And would the UK like to see that in the cover decision, brought formally into the [COP31] outcome?

KW: Good questions. Look, so we’ll wait and see how we manage the next couple of weeks in terms of [that]. I think we have definitely, domestically, been looking at electrification and how we take advantage of the clean electricity that we have more effectively. Because of the Middle East crisis, broadly, we’ve seen interest in EVs, in solar panels and heat pumps, just shoot up this year, as people have got increasingly concerned about energy prices. And for those who are in a position, you know, a lot of them have taken advantage.

So we are seeing shifts in the market, and we’re looking at what role we can play to encourage and accelerate that. Whether it’s supporting the rollout of charging points for electric vehicles. You’ll probably know this, Simon, but there are more public charging points in the UK now than petrol pumps, which I think is an incredible fact – and most people don’t know. That’s not including those within driveways, of which nearly 70% of the UK has access to a driveway, so all of those people who might have their own home charging, there is more public.

We are making this infrastructure more easy, more accessible, so that people can make that shift. But we are [already] seeing the shift, you know, we’ve got two million EVs on the road. Super excitingly for the motor geeks, the second-hand [EV] car market is really starting to – excuse the pun – “motor”. Actually, that does mean a big shift in terms of accessibility.

So we’re seeing this happen within the UK. We’ll look at whether that’s a helpful target for us, but in terms of the focus, the ambition on electrification in the UK will remain. And I’m really pleased to see it as part of the negotiations this year or the action agenda.

It was interesting to see the Europeans do their own electrification – I don’t know whether they called it a plan or a roadmap, everybody gets caught up on these words – but they also brought forward [an “action plan”]. So obviously, we’re looking at where we can, you know, be a little bit more aligned with them.

CB: You mentioned roadmaps. Now, obviously, last year at the COP, the big debate, slightly outside of the formal negotiations, was around the idea of a roadmap away from fossil fuels and the UK was one of more than 100 countries that were really pushing for that to again be brought into the formal outcome of the summit in Brazil. Is that something that the UK is going to be pushing again this year?

KW: For sure. So look, we very much support the agenda around the transition away from fossil fuels. You know, in terms of, how do we support countries, how do we work together in terms of moving away from that? You’ll know that Rachel Kyte, our special representative, was in Santa Marta in April of this year to talk through [this topic] and we hosted a follow-up event at Wilton Park around the London Climate Action Week. So you know, very keen to support and work that through.

It’s obviously a hard agenda, but it’s something that I think we should have been discussing for a while in terms of the COP processes. So it was great that we managed to do that. I think it was as a result of lots of different people talking about it, different campaigns, different, you know, how do we work together around this, in terms of managing the resources we have most effectively, and transitioning away. [That’s] for climate reasons, for health reasons and, in large part, economic reasons as well.

UK climate minister Katie White during a Zoom interview with Carbon Brief. Credit: Carbon Brief

CB: Great. You mentioned the IPCC timeline. This is obviously something that’s been rolling on for quite a while. There’s been a group of countries making a concerted effort to delay the publication of the next IPCC assessment report, so that it won’t align with the next global stocktake under the Paris Agreement. 

The UK, as far as I understand, is pushing for that timeline to be accelerated, or to at least align with the stocktake. I just want to confirm that that’s the UK’s position and then ask, what is your understanding of the arguments being made for not doing that, for not aligning those timelines?

KW: So look, we obviously would like to have as much of the science ready for the global stocktake. That would be the ideal outcome in terms of what we are looking for, and we have said that we will continue to say that we would also like an outcome. 

So, in a sense, we would like to make sure that we have a decision and we are moving this forward, and we don’t get caught up in having longer negotiations, which stall us making any progress at all.

I wasn’t at the [IPCC] meeting this autumn, but in terms of [what] I understand, [IPCC chair Prof] Jim Skea did a good job of trying to navigate that and making sure that this is inclusive. We want to listen to concerns around inclusivity, but we also want to make progress, because of the reasons that we talked about right up front: there is some really scary science going forward. The IPCC is peer-reviewed, it’s the best in the world, and we want to make sure that that is the basis of discussions.

So the more we can align that together, the better. But we’re also practical. We want to work with everybody. We want to listen to everybody. But we are keen to move that forward and hold up the IPCC in the way it has been. It’s become the most respected, established platform for all that the negotiations are based on. 

CB: Great, thank you. I want to turn to the UK now, if I can. So, under the Paris Agreement, the UK has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 68% below 1990 levels by 2030. In June, the Climate Change Committee, in its assessment, said something like 17% of the cuts required to meet that target just didn’t have plans in place. 

The government’s own carbon budget delivery plan said that current policies were falling short of what would be needed. And then, obviously, since then we’ve had a number of cuts. We’ve had cuts to heat pump subsidies, cuts to hydrogen and carbon-capture and storage. We’re expecting to see further watering down of the zero-emission vehicles mandate for electric vehicles. We just had approval of new drilling at Jackdaw. We may also see Rosebank being approved. 

When you’re at the COP in Antalya, how will you be reassuring UK partners that the UK remains committed to its climate pledge?

KW: So look, it’s absolutely right that you pick out any of the challenges – and say where the challenges are to our evidence. That’s really helpful, as part of our process of doing that. I would also then say, there are a whole bunch of other things – on the side of positives – that are moving forward, some of which we have touched on.

We put forward a carbon budget growth and delivery plan last year that we had to redo, because obviously there had been a legal challenge. We did that. It was a very comprehensive process. You know, a huge amount of work to make sure that we were on track to deliver that. So that is the case. The Climate Change Committee was obviously coming back on what was happening now, and we will report to parliament [in response to the committee] in the normal way. I will leave that report to talk for itself when it comes out to parliament.

We also – the great thing about the Climate Change Act and the carbon budgets is that it does allow flexibility over time. You have that trajectory, you have the volume of emissions over time, but it does allow you to adjust and course correct. There are things, in terms of challenges, that come forward.

So let’s take the Middle East crisis. Obviously, that’s been a big disruption to our energy and climate system. Arguably, one of the biggest disruptions we’ve ever had. Now, that has led to a few things happening. 

One is to say that electrification – you know, people are moving towards the biggest uptake in solar, heat pumps and EVs that we’ve ever seen. So we’re seeing that trajectory go up. That’s great, and that is on the positive side. At the same time, it has meant geopolitically, people are looking at their energy security and where you do have access to fossil fuels, people are considering those options.

We made the Jackdaw decision fully in line [with our carbon budgets]. We looked at the emissions – and emissions would actually be a tiny bit lower because of transportation from Norway. So it is absolutely within those boundaries. 

But of course, I’m constantly keeping an eye on how that budget is moving. In the same way that over the road [in Whitehall] at HMT [the Treasury], they’re keeping an eye on their financial budget, as they should do, I will keep an eye on the carbon budget, as will the secretary of state [Miatta Fahnbulleh]. So we will be keeping a look.

But I think let’s also be clear that the UK has got a good story to tell. I of course want it to be better, and that’s part of my job, to make sure that we have the next chapter evolving and we can keep telling our story. 

UK climate minister Katie White during a Zoom interview with Carbon Brief. Credit: Carbon Brief

But right now, we have a pretty good story to tell. You know, we’ve got over [a] 50% reduction in emissions, whilst having 80% [economic] growth since 1990. So we have got a good story to tell. We are making those transitions and we will continue to say that. But also, we’ll continue to listen and learn because nobody has got the perfect plan for this. No one country has got all the answers or the solutions. 

So I think, being clear where we’ve had success, being honest where it’s not worked, and having a bit of humility to learn from others along the way, is how we’re going to approach the COP.

CB: Great, thank you. I want to ask about climate finance. The UK is one of the only major donors to have made a new climate-finance pledge, offering £6bn, I believe, over three years. However, that is, relative to the last financial year, roughly halving; it was about £4bn in 2025-26 and it’s [now] £6bn over three years, so roughly £2bn a year. 

Again, I’m just curious how you’re going to be talking about that with the UK’s international partners, the developing countries that will be looking to the UK for that kind of support.

KW: In terms of the £6bn, so look, let’s also be clear. So you’re absolutely right that we – the [previously pledged] £11.6bn was over a five-year period. The £6bn is over a three-year period, and we’re also talking about an additional £6bn in terms of other sources that we’re looking at. So it is still a sizeable amount of money and investment. 

Of course, it’s not enough in terms of what the need is, and as the need increases over time, we need to be exploring other options, which is why I’m very excited about the TFFF, because it starts a new way of mobilising finance, which might unlock a whole other range of capital, which is urgently needed.

So, look, we have the £11.6bn [and] we delivered absolutely every bit of it. So I think we’re seen as someone who is a credible donor, who delivers what they say we’re going to do. We’ve also laid out a plan. We’ve been working across government with my colleagues at the Foreign Office and with Defra [Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] in terms of how we’re going to do that. Which, again, was something that developing countries were really keen [on], that we laid out that plan beforehand, so that there is some element of expectation, and it’s not, you know, done at the last minute, and they can plan ahead at the same time.

We are, you know, the biggest donors of the Green Climate Fund as well, and we’ve looked at how we protect the climate element of our resources within the ODA [overseas development aid] cuts, which have been a cut to our international development aid, I can’t say anything different to that. So we have looked at how we protect [climate] within it.  [In fact, the UK is now the fourth-largest contributor to the Green Climate Fund, following a government decision earlier this year to only honour half of its most recent pledge.]

So, look, of course, I will be talking about what we have done and what we continue to do, and how we’ve listened to countries and laid that [plan] out, so there is some element that they can help plan ahead. But also, looking at what those alternative sources, for instance, around the structuring of the TFFF, to make sure we’re looking at other options, because we do need to meet the need. The need is growing, and the finance pot needs to do the same.

CB: Thank you. One final question, if I may. Last week we obviously had the first budget from the new chancellor, John Healey. There’s been a lot of conversation and media coverage since that budget about what he described as a new path for energy policy in the UK. There’s been quite a lot of media coverage – and perhaps briefing from government insiders and so on – suggesting that this is a real shift in the government’s approach. Effectively, giving up on – or putting slightly to the side – the clean power 2030 target. 

Again, you’re going to be going into the COP next week. People, I’m sure, will have been reading the papers. I wonder how you will explain to them what’s going on?

KW: So, look, the first thing I’d say is it was great to hear the chancellor say on the floor of the house [of parliament] about net-zero, his commitment to net-zero by 2050 and our steadfast approach to delivering that. I think it’s really helpful. You know, the chancellor’s voice counts for a lot. We’ve heard the prime minister say it twice. He’s written articles on it as well, so it’s great to see that commitment from the top. There has been a lot of politicisation around net-zero, so I think the direction of travel is absolutely clear.

[The] secretary of state has said that her number one aim is around affordability. We know that we are in a cost of living crisis. At the same time, the Climate Change Committee has said the best thing we could do [to lower emissions] is bring down electricity prices, and so I think there is a really great alignment between those three things [cost, climate and security].

The clean-power mission has been incredibly effective in terms of getting a lot of clean power built. We now need to make sure we’re utilising that clean power across the board, and we need to, and we want to do it in the most cost-effective way possible.

As you can probably hear from my accent, I’m from Yorkshire. We’re a little bit tight [careful with money] and I want to make sure that we are using that energy most effectively. And the system at the moment is not set up to do that. There are some pretty ineffective elements of it, that we want to make sure that we’re using far more effectively. 

So I think that is the shift we’re looking at. We’re now in the next chapter of, how do we make sure that energy – and specifically electricity – is as affordable as possible for consumers, for our constituents up and down the country, but also for small businesses. And how do we make sure that demand, that use of the grid, is [met by] connecting some of these great [clean-energy projects]. 

You know, the last government did build some of these offshore wind turbines. They just didn’t connect them all, so we need to make sure that we’ve got all of these things connected, and then we’re utilising it really effectively, and we’re supporting consumers and businesses to draw down on that.

So I think it’s a really exciting opportunity for us. But I think it’s just a natural evolution of the next step, to make sure that the UK citizens are getting the best value from the infrastructure that we already have.

CB: Brilliant, very, very quickly, before you have to go, the UK is going to be leading the umbrella group of countries at the COP. So coming back to the COP, I’m just curious how the UK is going to deal with being in that spotlight [and] make use of that position?

KW: Look, we are sending a great team of ministers to the COP. Obviously, the secretary of state, it’s going to be her first time leading the delegation, but our ex-secretary of state [Ed Miliband] is there in his new role. He’s going as the foreign secretary and the prime minister [Andy Burnham] is going, and I will also be there as well. So I think we are turning up, making sure that Britain is fully part of the conversation.

We do that in lots of different ways, whether it’s part of the umbrella group or whether it’s on our own or whether it’s part of – I co-chair the Forest and Climate Leaders Partnership. We’re always looking at ways where the UK can show up and try to make a positive difference.

So again, I think we’ll be doing that, but working closely with our umbrella colleagues. We’ve been in the group, so it’s a natural step for us to step up and do that. But I think operating in different areas of the ecosystem helps us to make sure we can bring forward a really comprehensive, thoughtful approach to the negotiations.

CB: Brilliant! Thanks very much, Katie, and great to have you.

article information

This interview was conducted by Dr Simon Evans via Zoom on 2 November 2026. Video editing by Joe Goodman.

Related UK budget 2026: Key climate and energy announcements 28.10.2026 UK policy Analysis: How the UK spent more than £11.6bn on climate aid since 2021 28.10.2026 UK policy Revealed: UK relied on £2bn of ‘questionable accounting’ to hit its climate-aid goal 28.10.2026 UK policy Q&A: Why are UK energy bills so high – and how could they be lowered? 27.10.2026 Oil and gas

The post UK climate minister Katie White: COP31 must respond to ‘really scary’ science appeared first on Carbon Brief.

It’s Election Day, and public lands have played a major role in candidates’ campaigns over the last several months.

Last year’s failed attempt by Utah Senator Mike Lee to sell off as many as 3.2 million acres of public land has shaped the platforms of candidates in both parties. In Colorado, U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper’s first broadcast ad says he helped defeat the sell-off attempt. In Wyoming, gubernatorial nominee Eric Barlow has promised to “safeguard our public lands.”

In Montana’s First Congressional District, ads for both candidates have focused on protecting public lands. Republican Aaron Flint has pledged to “keep public lands in public hands,” and Democrat Sam Forstag, a former U.S. Forest Service smokejumper, has said Montanans should be able to hunt, hike, and fish on public lands “without worrying that they’re going to be sold out from underneath us.”

This year, the Bureau of Land Management approved the first data center on federal public land—an 88.5-acre project in Nevada that has become a dominant issue in the governor’s race. Both candidates say data centers must follow state rules, including covering their own energy costs and protecting water supplies.

In Arizona, the federal government cut the state’s Colorado River supply by 27 percent. Water then became voters’ top concern for the first time in the Center for the Future of Arizona survey’s five-year history. Governor Katie Hobbs’s ads declare “Arizona’s water is for Arizonans,” and challenger Andy Biggs has said the state must fight for every drop it’s entitled to.

Eighty-five percent of Mountain West voters say issues involving public lands, water, and wildlife are important in deciding whether to support a candidate, according to Colorado College’s 2026 Conservation in the West poll.

Quick hits Trump’s arch faces new legal challenge from Virginia and D.C.

New York Times | Associated Press

‘We will be digging’: Lawmakers firm up plans to investigate Interior under Burgum

Politico Pro

Judge complicates construction timeline on Trump’s memorial arch project with multiple deadlines

Associated Press

Native American remains unearthed during Trump’s border wall construction

ProPublica

Arizona public land use in jeopardy, groups say. Here’s why

Arizona Republic

Trump administration is buoying nearly half of all U.S. coal plants

Washington Sun

What it takes to unfence the West

High Country News

Ryan GosWING wins BLM’s Bat Beauty Contest for the 4th time

The Oregonian

Quote of the day

With overwhelming support, Americans across the country have spent decades protecting our country’s most iconic landscapes like the Arctic, the Boundary Waters and Bears Ears National Monument. This bill puts those places—and millions of acres of other public lands—on a one-way path to industrial development, from oil and gas to data centers.”

—Tracy Stone-Manning, president of The Wilderness Society

Picture This @usinterior

Sand dunes and fall foliage? Name a better duo.

Golden aspens and towering sand dunes come together at @greatsanddunesnps in Colorado, to create one of the most spectacular autumn landscapes.

Home to the tallest sand dunes in North America, this incredible park is a one of a kind.

Photos by NPS

 

(Featured image: The Colorado River at Horseshoe Bend, Arizona. Photo by Charles Wang, Wikipedia)

The post Candidates across party lines are running on protecting public lands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The heavy machinery and power equipment maker saw its order backlog reach $78 billion during the third quarter, almost double what it was a year ago.