Green News

By Melissa Ostroff, Pennsylvania State Field and Policy Manager, and Anaïs Peterson, Petrochemicals Campaigner at Earthworks

On August 18th, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro announced a new executive order on data centers. This executive order, which the Governor called the strictest data center policy in the country, is a mixed bag that leaves many frontline communities still concerned about what comes next. 

Even though it neglects to include the most important policy tool available, a moratorium, this executive order still represents some wins for communities who have been demanding leadership from a Governor who had initially welcomed data centers with open arms. It addresses one of the largest concerns around transparency in data center development as it prohibits the use of non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, in connection with data center projects. In addition to increasing transparency, the executive order also removes any existing data center projects from permit fast tracking and bars them from eligibility in the future.  And while this announcement falls short in many other ways, it shows the power of community organizing across the state to create pressure and deliver results in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signs an executive order on data centers on August 18, 2026, calling it the strictest policy of its kind in the country. Frontline communities, however, remain concerned about what the order means in practice. Image credit: AP

Through the new order, Governor Shapiro also attempts to protect Pennsylvania ratepayers from the utility price hikes often caused by data centers connecting to the grid through a strategy known as bring your own power (BYOP). While BYOP may reduce the impacts of data centers on utility bills, it can also lead tech companies to build their own gas plants to power these projects. This risk is increased by the weak “clean firm” requirements laid out in this executive order. 

As part of the requirements, developers would have to source a growing percentage of their energy from “clean firm” resources located within Pennsylvania. But “clean firm” energy isn’t as clean as it sounds. In fact, the category includes nuclear power and fossil fuels paired with carbon capture alongside real renewables like solar, geothermal and hydropower. The mandatory schedule starts small, requiring just 10% clean firm energy. It then climbs to 32% by 2035. The problem is that Pennsylvania already gets 34% of its energy from clean firm sources today. With this context this “requirement” actually falls short of where we already stand. 

By labeling fossil fuels as “clean” and setting a target we already passed back in 2025, the Shapiro administration is sending a clear message: pollution is acceptable in Pennsylvania communities. The Shapiro administration cannot trade utility price hikes for environmental pollution and call that a win for Pennsylvania. What Pennsylvanians avoid paying in utility bills they may end up paying in higher health care costs. The fossil fuel infrastructure used to power these projects leads to increased rates of cancer, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and many other deadly and disabling conditions. And pollution has a cost, too – in the form of poor health, rising healthcare bills, and shortened lives. A stronger data center policy would protect Pennsylvanians both from price increases and pollution.

Governor Shapiro has directed Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection to develop new regulations addressing the cumulative environmental impacts of data centers, including emissions from multiple backup generators.

But there is one potential bright spot relative to pollution: Governor Shapiro has directed DEP to develop new regulations around the cumulative environmental impacts of data centers, including the impact of multiple backup generators. We welcome the consideration of cumulative impacts as part of regulations around data centers and other polluting facilities, and look forward to the opportunity for community members and public health experts to speak on this topic.

Governor Shapiro also clarified the role local governments play in data center development, emphasizing that his administration will not consider permits for projects that have not been approved at the local level. We applaud this nod towards community consent, but questions remain about what kind of local opposition will qualify for this protection. People living and working in Pennsylvania know implementation can be complex, and additional clarification is needed to help communities understand how this executive order will impact their own neighborhoods.  

This executive order does not address the existing gaps in ordinances and zoning primarily in Pennsylvania’s at-risk rural communities that would empower them to say no to data centers. Local governments are voting to approve data centers simply to avoid lawsuits even when their constituents are showing up and demanding they vote no. Currently approximately 32% of the commonwealth is unzoned leaving them unprotected if and when big tech comes knocking. However, it is unclear from the remarks made by Governor Shapiro and DEP Secretary Shirley if land use permits also fall under this executive order. If they do, a larger portion of the commonwealth may have some protections. 

While this executive order makes some much needed progress towards protections it leaves the strongest protective measure still on the table: a moratorium. The call from communities across Pennsylvania has been clear. The best way to protect our commonwealth from the impact of data centers, whether it is rate hikes or increased air pollution, remains a moratorium on data center development.

The post Governor Shapiro’s Data Center Executive Order Shows Power of Community Organizing – And the Work Ahead appeared first on Earthworks.

In a bright, spacious factory on the outskirts of Lagos, young engineers in overalls work their way along the production line, carefully inspecting the shimmery blue solar cells that turn sunlight into electricity.

Quality checks completed, the finished solar panels are loaded onto forklifts and taken to a warehouse – ready for delivery to buyers across Nigeria and in neighbouring West African countries. Each panel is labelled “Made in Nigeria”.

But for Emmanuel Agbola, operations manager at Nigerian solar company LPV Technologies, the company’s mission goes beyond quality control and meeting customer orders.

“We are looking at addressing the immediate power needs of Nigeria,” Agbola told Climate Home News in a quiet room away from the steady hum of machinery on the factory floor, where production began last year.

That is no small task. About four out of 10 Nigerians – more than 85 million people – still lack reliable access to grid electricity, according to Nigeria’s Rural Electrification Agency.

An engineer works on a solar module inside LPV factory, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) An engineer works on a solar module inside LPV factory, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

LPV Technologies is among a handful of startups making headway on the nation’s bold ambitions to build a domestic solar panel manufacturing industry, as solar becomes the go-to choice for Nigerian businesses and households fed up with frequent blackouts.

Nigeria’s national grid has collapsed about 22 times during the last two years due to transmission constraints, gas shortages and ageing infrastructure.

That is exactly why local solar panel manufacturing matters, according to Agbola.

“One of our slogans is ‘Make the sun pay for your bills’,” he said.

Solar transforms life for homes and businesses

Nigeria has become one of Africa’s fastest-growing markets for increasingly affordable solar systems, which are providing more reliable and cheaper electricity for homes and workplaces than the fragile power grid.

Solar panels installed across rooftops of shops in Wuse Market, Abuja, July, 2026 (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Solar panels installed across rooftops of shops in Wuse Market, Abuja, July, 2026 (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

Nigeria’s rapid solar adoption is being met mostly by small-scale solar installations which have helped bring the country’s total cumulative solar capacity to about 6 gigawatts (GW), according to a report by research provider BloombergNEF.

But almost every panel installed on homes, factories and public buildings across the country is imported – the vast majority from China – something the government wants to change.

“We are preparing to produce in this country the solar technologies that the entire continent will use,” President Bola Tinubu told a group of Chinese investors in 2024.

“Nigeria is a huge market for solar panels. Africa is a major consumer of solar technologies. I do not see why these panels and batteries cannot be produced here,” he said.

Two years on, that ambition is starting to bear fruit.

Not far from LPV’s factory, in the Agege neighbourhood of Lagos, workers are putting the finishing touches to a new commercial-scale veterinary vaccine cold-storage facility.

Up on the roof, 100 of LPV’s “Made in Nigeria” solar panels have been fixed into position. 

Once operational, the panels and attached battery storage will provide round-the-clock electricity for offices, laboratories and cold-storage rooms at the site, helping to keep millions of vaccine doses safely refrigerated even when the national grid fails.

“This will never go off – all year round,” said the civil engineer overseeing work at the site, pointing to the rooftop installation. “It’s off-grid – 24 hours, seven days; constant electricity to run these two cooling units.”

A worker looks over solar cells at the LPV factory in Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Government bets on local manufacturing

The Nigerian government wants solar power to play a central role in bridging the country’s electricity access gap, but it also wants the equipment that will drive that transition to be produced at home to create new jobs and reduce imports. That aligns with its wider Nigeria First industry policy.

Nigeria’s booming solar market is still overwhelmingly supplied by foreign-made panels. 

Last year, it imported about 2.9 million panels worth more than 400 billion naira ($295 million). More than 70% of them came from China, making Nigeria Africa’s second-largest importer of Chinese panels after South Africa. 

China dominates almost every stage of the global solar manufacturing supply chain and a series of government-led initiatives to kickstart local production have yet to make major headway.

More than a decade ago, the National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure established the country’s first government-backed solar panel factory in Karshi, Abuja. While successive upgrades have increased its production capacity to about 50 MW annually, the facility still supplies only a fraction of Nigeria’s growing demand.

• May 19, 2025 Energy Nigerian president’s solar panels stir debate over renewables for the rich Solar systems are a solution to Nigeria’s frequent power cuts and inadequate grid coverage – but only for those who can afford them Read more
• Apr 1, 2026 News Nigerians bet on solar as global oil shock hits wallets and power supplies Fed up with an increase in outages and surging fuel prices, a growing number of homes and businesses are ditching their backup generators for solar systems Read more
• Jul 8, 2025 Clean Energy Frontier Nigeria’s push to cash in on lithium rush gets off to a rocky start The West African nation wants to supply refined lithium to the EV battery industry to diversify its economy away from oil – but early processing efforts are facing challenges Read more
• Feb 5, 2026 Investigations Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities   Since the multinational sold its assets in Nigeria’s oil hub, data analysis for Climate Home News shows flaring has risen, harming locals and the climate Read more

The government has since announced more ambitious projects, including a Renewable Energy Industrial Park in Nasarawa state, expected to manufacture solar cells, panels and batteries, and a solar module assembly plant under construction by the Energy Commission of Nigeria in Enugu. Neither project has yet begun commercial production.

Last year, the government also proposed restricting solar panel imports to encourage domestic manufacturing, though the idea was swiftly dropped.

Chinese imports dominate solar panel trade

The scale of Nigeria’s challenge is obvious during a visit to Alaba International Market in Lagos, one of Africa’s largest electronics markets and a solar retail hub where thousands of panels change hands every week.

One recent morning in June, cart pushers could be seen weaving their way between crowds of shoppers and traffic jams, their trolleys stacked high with loads of freshly imported solar panels.

Nigeria is Africa’s biggest oil producer and fossil fuel exports have been the cornerstone of the economy for decades. But in the bustling market, solar has become such a good business in recent years that traders call it “the new oil“.

Signs advertising solar energy solutions at Alaba International Market, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) A labourer pushes cart full of imported solar panels across a road in Alaba International Market, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Signs advertising solar energy solutions at Alaba International Market, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) A labourer pushes cart full of imported solar panels across a road in Alaba International Market, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

Even so, few said they had ever seen panels made in Nigeria.

“Every panel we get is imported,” said wholesaler Ndubuisi Nwobodo, adding that it was the first time he had heard of panels being produced domestically.

At one of the market’s largest solar warehouses, manager Chidiebere Ani watched as workers unloaded another container of supplies from China. He said 95% of the warehouse’s stock of panels came from China.

China controls more than 80% of global manufacturing capacity, according to the International Energy Agency, spanning every stage of the supply chain, from polysilicon and wafers to solar cells and finished modules. 

window.addEventListener('message', function (e) { if (!e.data || e.data.type !== 'spoovio:height') return; document.querySelectorAll('iframe.spoovio-embed').forEach(function (f) { if (f.contentWindow === e.source) f.style.height = e.data.height + 'px'; }); });

Meanwhile, production at the LPV factory in Lagos is running at about 180,000 panels per year, Agbola said.

“If we had 10 LPVs, we still won’t be able to meet [Nigeria’s] demand,” Agbola said. 

Even then, Nigerian producers face a tough contest on price. Imported 550-watt panels retail for about 150,000 naira ($110), the same price that LPV Technologies charges wholesalers.

Policy uncertainty seen as hurdle to investment

Nigeria has plentiful affordable labour and – with a population of roughly 240 million – room for market growth as the falling price of panels makes them accessible to more people.

Chinese firms increasingly see opportunities to build manufacturing partnerships with local businesses, said Susan Li, the founder of Chinese solar company Solar Run Energy.

“We have to grow the industry together,” she said, cautioning that foreign investment in the sector would hinge on stable government policies and a steady exchange rate.

Labourers unload a truck full of imported solar panels at Alaba International Market, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Labourers unload a truck full of imported solar panels at Alaba International Market, Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

Last year’s short-lived proposal to ban panel imports, which was scrapped a month after it was floated, highlighted such investment concerns, said Wangari Muchiri, founder of Kenya-based RE.Think Energy.

“[One minute] solar imports were banned, and then they were not banned,” Muchiri said. 

“If investors come in and there is already a clear path such that everyone knows how tariffs and customs duties are handled, then businesses can plan for those costs,” she explained. “But when policies keep changing, the risk becomes much higher.”

Li said she believed that “as time goes by, [policies] will become more stable”.

Nigeria’s challenges to scale up production

While Nigeria is making its first panels, it does not yet have the industrial capacity to produce vital solar cell components such as polysilicon, wafers and ingots. 

At LPV, Agbola said having to import the components – up to 17 of them – eats into the company’s profit margins.

“When we combine [the cost of importing components] with other fixed-cost elements and we want to do our pricing, it becomes a big challenge for us in the market,” he said. 

Because cells are the main component in a solar panel, LPV’s senior brand and marketing manager Kabir Okehi said it would be “a huge relief” to produce them domestically and avoid the high shipping logistics costs associated with imports. It also takes imported solar cells between six weeks and two months to get to Nigeria.

• May 26, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier After another battery startup bankruptcy, can Europe ever cut reliance on China? Norway’s Morrow Batteries set out to challenge Chinese producers, but a cash crunch forced it to file for bankruptcy in a setback for European ambitions for clean energy sovereignty Read more
• Jul 20, 2026 Justice Flood deaths in West African cities raise fraught issue of slum evictions Deadly floods expose poor urban planning, over-population and spread of informal settlements on disaster-prone land – a problem authorities are struggling to manage Read more
• Jul 22, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Allegations of harm at China-backed transition minerals projects rise The growth in recorded abuses linked to Chinese investments comes as a new mediation mechanism between companies and communities gets underway Read more

Many of the materials used in solar manufacturing – including silica, aluminium and steel – are available in Nigeria, but the country still lacks the technical know-how to turn them into higher-value components, experts say. 

“What is missing in our local production is knowledge transfer,” said Mustapha Abdullahi, director-general of the Energy Commission of Nigeria, a government body responsible for strategic national energy policy planning and coordination.

window.addEventListener('message', function (e) { if (!e.data || e.data.type !== 'spoovio:height') return; document.querySelectorAll('iframe.spoovio-embed').forEach(function (f) { if (f.contentWindow === e.source) f.style.height = e.data.height + 'px'; }); });

He said Nigeria is still learning about the technologies needed to make solar cells domestically, with research institutes experimenting with materials such as graphene and production methods that could eventually support upstream manufacturing.

“We’re still in the pilot stages, doing reverse engineering to see how things are done,” he told Climate Home News.

Companies struggle to access startup capital

Another major challenge for homegrown solar manufacturing is finance, Abdullahi said, adding that several Nigerian companies have expressed interest in manufacturing solar panels, but many struggle to secure the capital needed to establish production lines.

The government has tried to bridge that gap by connecting local companies with international financiers, while offering incentives to prospective investors, he said.

Last year, Nigeria announced a partnership with Chinese solar giant LONGi to establish a 1,000 MW manufacturing facility in the country. The agreement, Abdullahi said, is intended to accelerate technology transfer and help Nigeria expand domestic production far beyond its current assembly capacity of roughly 300 MW of solar panels annually.

That is equivalent to 545,000 panels – of about 550 watts each – per year.

A conveyor belt producing solar cells at the LPV factory in Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Solar cells on a production line at the LPV factory in Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) A conveyor belt producing solar cells at the LPV factory in Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Solar cells on a production line at the LPV factory in Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

Production will need to increase nearly ten-fold, Abdullahi estimated, to meet projected future demand.

As new investments and joint ventures start to yield results, that might be possible, he said.

“Nigeria can even be the solar panel hub globally, not just for Africa, and compete well even with China,” he added.

China as a partner, not a rival

But Nigeria should not be aiming to compete with China, rather learning from it as it seeks to build up its solar industry ecosystem – from assembling imported components to eventually making more of them locally, said Godson Ikiebey, a renewable energy specialist at PwC Nigeria.

China did not become the world’s solar manufacturing giant overnight, Ikiebey said. It developed a long-term industrial strategy, invested heavily in manufacturing capacity and steadily climbed the value chain.

“For now, it’s good to have the ambition, but the ambition does not yet match the action,” Ikiebey added. 

China dominates global solar manufacturing not simply because it produces panels cheaply, RE.Think Energy’s CEO Muchiri said, but because it controls technology, supply chains and economies of scale built over decades.

Rather than trying to recreate that system from scratch, Nigeria should join forces with Chinese companies to accelerate technology transfer while developing its own workforce and manufacturing base, she said.

Building an African solar industry should also extend beyond Nigeria, with different countries potentially specialising in different parts of the value chain, fostering regional trade. “This is going to be a big opportunity to look at a regional expansion rather than just one country,” she added.

Chidiebere Ani, Foresolar manager, shows solar panels in the warehouse near the Alaba International Market in Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Chidiebere Ani, Foresolar manager, shows solar panels in the warehouse near the Alaba International Market in Lagos (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

Bringing such plans to fruition will take time and the goals should be realistic, Chinese investor Li said.

Items such as frames and screws could eventually be produced in Nigeria, but more sophisticated components like solar cells would still need to be imported because their production requires highly automated factories and a stable electricity supply, she said.

“You grow step by step. If you look at the long term, if you grow the seed and water it today, you will get the harvest tomorrow,” Li said.

Clean energy jobs for the future workforce

When President Tinubu described his government’s solar hub plans to Chinese investors, he touted the country’s large, young workforce.

“The labour is cheaper. Our youths are vibrant and skilled. Our people are brilliant and adapt to new technology,” he said.

LPV’s factory in Lagos offers a glimpse of that vision.

Ibeimo Biobele explains the module production process inside the LPV factory floor in Ikotun, Lagos, Nigeria (Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News) Ibeimo Biobele explains the module production process inside the LPV factory floor in Ikotun, Lagos, Nigeria (Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

A graduate in petroleum engineering, Ibeimo Biobele, 28, had no experience in solar manufacturing when she arrived at the factory a year ago as a member of the National Youth Service Corps – Nigeria’s mandatory one-year national service programme.

Like many university-leavers, Biobele faced an uncertain job market.

More than 93% of Nigerians work in the informal economy, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, meaning there are few skilled jobs for graduates like Biobele.

Today, she works on the production line assembling panels and hopes more such jobs will become available for young Nigerians in the years to come.

“If we had more factories like this, more young engineers would have opportunities after school,” she said.

This article was made possible with support from Surge Africa and One World Media.

Main image: A man carries a solar panel on his head while unloading a truck in Lagos, Nigeria (Photo: Mansur Ibrahim/Climate Home News)

The post Made in Nigeria: The race to build an African solar industry from scratch appeared first on Climate Home News.

As the planet heats up, tundras are thawing, wetlands are fermenting, and forests are succumbing to larger and more frequent wildfires. The breakdown of these natural systems is unleashing huge volumes of emissions, further intensifying warming from the burning of fossil fuels. According to new research, such feedback loops could amplify human-driven warming by 20 to 30 percent.

Read more on E360 →

Janet Fleischman is an independent consultant with extensive experience in research, policy advocacy, and narrative storytelling. Jyotsna Uppal is a historian and narrative strategist, who supports individuals and organisations in change processes.

Global climate progress sits at the centre of an acute crisis, as the multilateral order that structured international climate cooperation for three decades frays at the seams.

The Trump administration’s withdrawal from 66 United Nations and international organisations in early 2026, compounded by its exit from the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change itself, has launched a rupture in the governance architecture and the geopolitical consensus that made multilateral climate action conceivable.

Institutions have been stripped of authority, voluntary commitments left contingent on political will.

At this precarious moment, what can and should climate funders be doing?

• Apr 17, 2026 Politics Q&A: Look beyond Trump for the full story on US climate action, says university dean Lawyer Lou Leonard, who leads the climate school at Clark University, says Washington’s attacks haven’t halted climate efforts across American society Read more
• Aug 4, 2026 Comment Is FOMO undermining climate diplomacy? The negotiating community has not become 20 times larger, but the COP has – and the rising number of participants, from politicians to business executives, is getting in the way of the task at hand Read more

We recently examined the state of environmental multilateralism through an extensive literature review and interviews with climate leaders from around the world – policymakers, UN officials, regional actors, philanthropic leaders and advocates.

Their perspectives reinforced a sobering finding: more consequential than any single country’s efforts to undermine the multilateral system is the deeper question of whether that system is still fit for purpose.

Climate philanthropy must do more than fill gaps left by retreating governments; it must ask harder questions about whether gap-filling is the right role at all – and prepare to catalyse the emergence of something new.

Change will not come without pain.

As Sarah Millar, programme director at the Climate Emergency Collaboration Group, an international philanthropic network and strategic regranter, told us: “What we’re trying to do here is fundamentally rewire the global economy… it’s everything everywhere, all at once. And that’s really hard to do.”

Filling the gaps or leading change?

The multilateral climate system, for all its limitations, remains relatively intact. Countries other than the United States continue to submit national climate plans and participate in global negotiations. Yet participation is not the same as effectiveness – many commitments fall short of what’s needed.

Meanwhile, new regional, thematic and plurilateral coalitions are emerging; voluntary groupings of countries, cities, companies, and civil society organisations aligned around specific climate objectives are increasingly filling the action gap.

Santa Marta coalition tested as co-chair Colombia turns back to fossil fuels

Climate philanthropy has often responded to these gaps by substituting for absent public finance. Arunabha Ghosh, the founder and former CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), a climate think-tank based in New Delhi, explained: “Philanthropy is having to fill in the gap of public finance where development assistance is failing.” But this instinct deserves scrutiny.

A more fundamental question is whether gap-filling remains the right approach. Does philanthropy keep a failing system limping along, propping up dysfunction – or does it spur transformation and catalyse what comes next? There is no neutrality here – philanthropy cannot pretend its choices are inconsequential. The question is which position advances the transformation the moment requires.

Compounding these strategic questions is a more immediate threat. As formal multilateralism struggles, the civil society actors who might fill the gap face mounting restrictions – a closing of civic space evident not just in the US but in India, Israel, Russia, Turkey, and elsewhere. In the US, the Trump administration has stepped up attacks on philanthropies, threatening legal investigations and the withdrawal of foundations’ tax-exempt status.

A protester holds a placard describing the election of Donald Trump as a ‘climate disaster’ during a demonstration in London. (Photo: SOPA Images) A protester holds a placard describing the election of Donald Trump as a ‘climate disaster’ during a demonstration in London. (Photo: SOPA Images)

For climate philanthropy specifically, there’s a particular risk: support for climate action is increasingly portrayed in some US conservative circles as anti-American.

Conservative actors who emphasise fossil fuels for manufacturing and energy security often equate backing renewables with pro-China stances, since China is the largest green technology manufacturer. Yet the economic evidence points the other way, with the clean energy transition already underway – and the perils of fossil fuel reliance further underscored by the war in Iran.

Winning back the narrative

Underlying all these gaps is a failure of narrative. The story of climate progress – and there is real progress to tell – is not being written by governments.

As Christiana Figueres, an international leader on climate change and the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, put it this way: “The story of progress is being written by a plethora of other stakeholders – subnationals, finance corporations, NGOs – all of whom are doing their thing together. They’re writing an amazing story, and nobody’s writing it and nobody’s reading it and nobody’s taking note of it.”

This storytelling also needs to be more integrated: climate can’t remain a siloed concern but must be linked to health, education, gender equity and migration. Philanthropy can help make these linkages legible to policymakers and the public – expanding the coalition of actors who see climate as central to their own agendas.

UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot

Four directions stand out for catalytic philanthropic support in this fragmented landscape:

• Shift who gets supported, and convene diverse actors. New pathways are needed to support local communities, civil society coalitions, and subnational actors implementing national climate plans.
• Support compelling narratives and amplify affected voices. Listening to affected communities is critical to shaping a just transition that gives communities real agency over change.
• Engage the private sector differently. New financing instruments and blended finance opportunities require philanthropy to engage more strategically with private sector and corporate actors – not merely as funders but as partners to design how catalytic capital can flow.
• Take strategic risks. Philanthropy may need to fund approaches to implementation, finance, and technology that governments and financial institutions won’t support.

This is a precarious moment for multilateralism, civil society and the philanthropic organisations that sustain it.

But that complexity may also provide an opportunity. Philanthropy willing to ask harder questions, take greater risks, and invest in the connective tissue between issues may do more than keep a struggling system afloat.

To catalyse multilateral climate action, many philanthropies recognise that this is the time to deepen their reach. In the words of Ailun Yang, with the environment program at Bloomberg Philanthropies: “Our main way to engage in this is by supporting smart people and innovative ideas. Philanthropy doesn’t necessarily do these things ourselves, and that is really where our superpower is.”

This piece is adapted from a project conducted by Janet Fleischman and Jyotsna Uppal, funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s Environment Program; however, all the views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own.

The post With multilateralism in crisis, what’s next for climate philanthropy? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Zack to the future Channel News brendan 11th September 2026 Teaser Media

Uncertainty persists over how COP31 will be managed, after Türkiye’s environment minister told journalists this week his country will have the final say at the UN climate conference despite a deal that gave Australia the role of chairing the negotiations in return for withdrawing its bid for the summit.

At COP30, the two governments resolved a deadlock by agreeing that Türkiye would host this year’s annual talks in the resort city of Antalya with its environment minister Murat Kurum serving as COP31 President, while his Australian counterpart Chris Bowen would act as COP31 President of Negotiations.

Previous COPs have occasionally been hosted by one country and presided over by another. For example, COP23 was held in Germany because of the remoteness and small size of Fiji, and COP25 took place in Spain after social unrest flared in Chile. But COP31 will be the first UN climate summit with the powers of the presidency split between two countries.

• Sep 9, 2026 News As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond A rift over how IPCC messages are produced and turned into policy is creating tensions in the world’s most influential coalition of climate NGOs Read more
• Sep 8, 2026 Carbon markets Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsets Read more

Under the unusual arrangement, Türkiye will lead on the Action Agenda, the non-negotiated part of COP which brings together businesses, citizens and local governments to step up climate action in different areas, from curbing methane emissions and protecting health to adaptation in fragile states.

In Brazil last year, when the deal was announced to end the long-running rivalry for COP31, Australia’s Chris Bowen said his role would give him the powers of the COP presidency to manage the official climate negotiations, prepare draft texts and issue any overarching “cover” decision.

But speaking to international media in the Turkish city of Trabzon on Thursday, comments from Kurum – made in Turkish and translated into English by an official translator – suggest that Türkiye sees itself as having ultimate control over the formal outcome of the talks.

Asked how the “co-presidency” would resolve any differences that emerge during the negotiations, he responded: “Türkiye and Australia are not co-presidents. Türkiye is the President of COP31 and Australia is the President of Negotiations. We are in consultation with Australia but the final decision lies with the presidency of COP31.”

“No issues” so far

An official document setting out the “modalities” of the partnership notes that the COP31 President will assign an Australian representative as the “President of Negotiations” and “Vice President of the COP”, to whom the functions of leading the COP31 negotiations are delegated for the duration of the conference and “who will have exclusive authority in relation to the negotiations”.

“If there is a difference of views between Türkiye and Australia, consultations will take place until the difference is resolved to mutual satisfaction,” the document adds.

Kurum said this week that the two countries are working in “good harmony and in shared perspectives. So far, we’ve had no issues. We don’t believe we will have. I mean if Türkiye and Australia cannot agree on something, it’s not realistic to expect 196 countries [at the COP] to agree on the same thing.”

Australia’s pavilion at COP30 is right next to Turkey’s – an interesting dynamic as the two battled it out to be the host of COP31 next year. (Photo: Megan Rowling) Australia’s pavilion at COP30 is right next to Turkey’s – an interesting dynamic as the two battled it out to be the host of COP31 next year. (Photo: Megan Rowling)

Australia’s COP31 team pointed Climate Home News to a speech given by Bowen at the mid-year Bonn climate talks, in which he said: “Australia and Türkiye are working together seamlessly and with one goal.”

The oceans conference in Trabzon, organised by the COP31 presidency, issued a statement on Thursday saying that under Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency, and “in close cooperation” with Australia as President of Negotiations, “we aim to advance action on ocean and seas towards COP31 in Antalya, including through engagement with the Pacific at the Pre-COP”.

Electrification goal to reduce fossil fuels

On other topics, Kurum told reporters that, while the COP31 Action Agenda does not feature any explicit initiatives on transitioning away from fossil fuels, its flagship goal to promote the electrification of economies – through measures like heat pumps and electric vehicles – would “lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and contribute to the clean transition”.

“What we want is to decrease the emissions, and for that we need to use clean energy, and for that we need to make electrification more widespread. And if you do that, automatically [you will] reduce the use of fossil fuels,” he said on the sidelines of the Trabzon oceans conference. He added that COP31 would “build on” the COP28 agreement to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

COP31 leaders unveil global targets, with spotlight on electrification

Asked by Climate Home News about a request by the government of Nepal for an emergency grant from the UN’s new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage to help recovery from its recent devastating glacial flood, Kurum said he would be “pleased” if the fund supported the South Asian nation.

On August 31, Nepal’s finance and environment ministers asked the fund’s board to take a special decision to disburse post-disaster support for the first time, a call backed by developing-country board members. On September 9, the board’s co-chairs responded in a letter saying they were “engaging with the FRLD board to address your urgent request as rapidly as possible”.

Foreign minister: Nepal needs “meaningful” international support to face climate threats

Asked how he would respond to a UN scientific assessment this month that the world will exceed its goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and must then work to bring it back down, Kurum said he accepted that the data shows that keeping to 1.5C is no longer possible. He added that limiting warming to “around 1.5C” would be a success.

Questioned by media as to how he would guarantee the right to protest at COP31, Kurum said his team will “try to meet” any request they receive from civil society.

With demonstrations temporarily banned, over 200 human rights and environmental activists were arrested before and during the NATO military alliance summit in Türkiye’s capital Ankara in January.

Kurum sought to reassure climate campaigners, however. “Don’t worry, thinking you will not be able to voice your opinions or really share your thoughts,” he said.

The post Türkiye says it has “final decision” at COP31 despite Australia running negotiations appeared first on Climate Home News.

The commodification of conservation Channel Comment brendan 11th September 2026 Teaser Media

States that voted for Trump are leading the country in solar adoption. In recent years, Republican opposition to solar has mounted, with the Trump administration making it more difficult to build solar on federal land and Congress scaling back federal tax credits for the industry. But a new report from the Solar Energy Industries Association has found that states that voted for Donald Trump in the last presidential election counted for eight of the top 10 solar-building states in the country in the first half of the year. 

“At least at the macro level, Republican-led and governed states are not only open to but embracing solar energy as a technology,” said Tim Pawlenty, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association and a former Republican governor of Minnesota. 

Altogether, solar construction in Trump-supporting states has buoyed an ongoing explosion in national solar deployment. The country added more than 11 gigawatts of solar power in the second quarter of 2026, an increase of 45 percent compared to the same period in 2025. States that supported Trump in the last election made up close to three-fourths of that growth.

Texas and Florida, the two largest Trump-supporting states by population, were ranked first and third, respectively. Those Sun Belt states have been consistent leaders in solar construction, as have Indiana, Ohio, and Arizona, which have also remained in the top 10 solar-building states since 2024. Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, and Utah also reached the top 10 in some, but not all, of those years.

Those red states are fostering solar development through their general pro-business attitude and booming electricity-hungry industries, even if they don’t support solar for climate-related reasons. Republican-leaning states tend to have more available land and easier permitting processes for energy projects, Pawlenty said. That attractive business environment has also drawn electricity-consuming industries, like manufacturing and data centers, to red states, producing demand for quickly constructed, cheap energy sources like solar.

“Red states, as a general proposition, have sort of a pro-build mentality. They want to build things,” Pawlenty said.

But the future for solar in red states is more complicated. After Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, energy companies investing in solar projects and homeowners buying solar for their rooftops received tax credits for their investments. But last year, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and brought an early end to the credits. Credits expired for most uninitiated solar farms on July 4, 2026. As a result, solar developers rushed to start construction before the deadline, helping create a bump in solar installations in the second quarter of 2026. The lack of tax credits could make solar growth less certain in the future, especially for rooftop solar projects, which have already begun declining in 2026, the solar industry report notes.

The nature of this uncertainty is not the same for all solar-investing, Trump-voting states. While Texas has remained a titan in solar development, earning the top spot in 2024, 2025, and the first half of 2026, other states are just beginning their solar booms. Michigan, a politically mixed state where a majority of voters chose Trump in 2024, reached the top 10 for the first time this year. The state has climbed steadily from 23rd place in 2024 to fourth in the first half of 2026. 

Whether Michigan, which lacks Texas’ year-round strong sunlight, can maintain that solar energy growth after the end of federal tax credits is another question, said Michael Craig, an associate professor in the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability. Solar farms may remain economically feasible to build without the credits only in areas with the right weather. 

“The economics of solar largely depends on your solar resource,” said Craig. ”The better the resource, I’d say the less important the tax credits are.” 

Without federal tax credits, Michigan’s solar industry will likely fall back on state clean energy goals, which create demand for solar by mandating that utilities build renewable power sources. Though Michigan voted for Trump in 2024, the state has a Democratic governor and Democrat-led state Senate. The state established a law that utilities must generate 50 percent of their power from renewables by 2030. That requirement, in combination with data center electricity demand, is likely a large factor in the state’s rapid solar rise, Craig said. 

Nonetheless, some strategists have argued the solar industry needs tax credits less than it needs an easier federal permitting process and continued power demand to support growth. Even if Congress never reinstates the tax credits, those structural factors could push the industry forward, especially because solar requires relatively little time to build compared to other power sources. Regardless of cost, tax credits, or even geography, that speed still counts for something, said Rachel Skaar, communications director for Solar Energy Industries Association.

“Solar and storage can deploy so much faster than other technologies,” Skaar said. “So when we talk about the need for energy right now, solar and storage can provide it.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline More than 70% of new solar is being built in states that voted for Trump on Sep 10, 2026.

By Roberto Lucchini, Florida International University

Hundreds of first responders have told me they remember exactly how they felt during the World Trade Center attacks, even 25 years on.

They tell me that they remember not being able to think, see or smell anything. They could focus only on digging and pulling debris out of the way. They could not rest because those trapped beneath the rubble could not wait. Death was all around them, and they could only do as much as they could to hold it back.

While what happened on 9/11 was unprecedented, similar tragedies happen quite frequently. As a physician in occupational health who works with 9/11 first responders, I can easily imagine those same thoughts from other firefighters, paramedics and construction workers trying to save lives after the deadly summer 2026 earthquakes in Venezuela, Colombia and Indonesia or the disastrous floods in Nepal.

These first responders may also need to recover human remains from the rubble. Surrounding these moments of intimate grief are dust, toxic fumes and cries for help. And this trauma takes a toll.

The destruction of the World Trade Center was unprecedented, but such disasters are not uncommon throughout the world. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Whether it’s industrial or nuclear disasters, extreme weather, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, war or terrorist attacks, first responders and affected communities can experience significant physical and mental health effects both during rescue and recovery operations and for years afterward. All are vulnerable to mental and physical harm no matter how well trained they may be.

Research from my team suggests that among these risks is post-traumatic stress disorder that may cause their brain to age faster.

PTSD Among First Responders

Post-traumatic stress disorder, also known as PTSD, is a complex mental health condition that can develop after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event. Psychological trauma refers to the lasting emotional effects of direct or indirect exposure to life-threatening circumstances or violence.

PTSD may involve intrusive memories, avoidance, heightened alertness, sleep problems and changes in mood and thinking. Anxiety and depression commonly occur alongside PTSD.

Around 23% of World Trade Center responders have been diagnosed with PTSD. In comparison, around 6% of the U.S. general population are estimated to have had PTSD over their lifetime.

When I talk to 9/11 first responders, they describe their PTSD and cognitive difficulties as interconnected problems that continue to affect their lives today. Those traumatic memories remain vivid, and some first responders continue to experience anxiety, depression, intrusive thoughts, sleep problems and difficulty controlling their emotions.

Trauma Speeds Brain Aging

As they age, many 9/11 first responders have also noticed their memory, concentration and mental sharpness get worse. They increasingly fear losing their independence. Rather than occurring as separate conditions, physical illness, cognitive changes and emotional distress often reinforce one another.

In another study, researchers from my team monitored the cognitive function of more than 5,000 World Trade Center first responders without dementia between 2014 and 2022. Over approximately five years, 228 developed dementia before age 65. First responders with the most severe exposure to potentially neurotoxic dust and debris at ground zero had a substantially higher incidence of dementia than those with minimal exposure or who consistently used personal protective equipment such as respirators. This link remained after controlling for demographic, lifestyle, medical and genetic factors.

Before I began studying the health effects of 9/11, I was examining workers exposed to neurotoxic metals and industrial pollution in northern Italy. Knowing the harmful toxins in World Trade Center dust, I began to wonder whether 9/11 responders might face similar long-term risks to their brains. That concern grew when brain scans of both groups showed a similar increase in deposits of a protein linked to Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline called beta-amyloid.

Research from my team also found that the brains of 9/11 male responders with PTSD had MRI results consistent with older-appearing brains than those without PTSD.

In that 2025 study, we measured the brain structures using MRI scans and an AI model to estimate each participant’s brain age. The AI model had been trained to predict a person’s chronological age from the overall structure of their brain, based on data from more than 11,500 MRI brain scans from healthy people ages 5 to 95. We used the difference between a person’s predicted brain age and their actual age as a measure of accelerated brain aging.

We also saw that first responders with PTSD had brains that appeared about three years older than their chronological age. In contrast, the estimated brain age of responders without PTSD approximately matched their actual chronological age. Each additional month a first responder spent working at ground zero was associated with roughly four to five additional months of apparent brain aging, suggesting that how long they were exposed to the disaster played a key role in this aging process.

Caring for First Responders

The experiences of first responders show that the effects of 9/11 are an ongoing health issue. These health consequences evolve as people age, and they still require coordinated mental, cognitive, physical and social support decades later.

Every 9/11 anniversary brings back vivid memories of the tragedy, along with the same restlessness, frustration and pain of being there. Yet many on the front lines have told me that they feel pride and a sense of belonging with the knowledge that they helped people in desperate need. Their service remains an enduring example of human solidarity in a moment of crisis.

Honoring that legacy also means protecting those who come to our rescue during the emergency. I believe that, as a society, Americans have a responsibility to safeguard, protect and care for their health throughout their entire lives. They were there for America in one of its darkest moments; Americans must be there for them in the years to come.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Previously in The Revelator:

Dr. Green: A Wildlife Researcher Asks About Trauma and Grief

The post Toxic Dust and PTSD May Be Accelerating Brain Aging Among 9/11 First Responders appeared first on The Revelator.

Stretching from West Africa to the Gulf of Mexico, a massive bloom of sargassum seaweed is swamping beaches and killing coastal wildlife. But scientists have discovered the floating algae also shelters a vast array of ocean creatures, and some are now calling for its protection. 

Read more on E360 →

Diesel prices hit an all-time high on Friday. Then another, and another. 

According to AAA, the average price of diesel as of September 10 stands at a staggering $5.98 — about $2.31 more than in late February, when the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran. The jump has been even higher in some states, such as California, where a gallon of diesel currently costs $7.91. 

Most Americans don’t buy diesel fuel, but they pay for it. It powers the trucks and ships that move everything from milk to lumber, and the costs are embedded in the prices people see at stores. The last time consumers saw diesel prices climb to such heights was in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and they hit $5.82 per gallon. 

This year, the Iran war has largely closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which 10 percent of seaborne diesel once traveled. This has sent prices soaring, and consumers are increasingly feeling the impact. 

“Early on, much of the cost increase gets absorbed along the supply chain through existing freight contracts and retailer margins,” David Ortega, a professor of food economics and policy at Michigan State University, told the Associated Press. “But as contracts reprice and fuel surcharges take hold, more of that cost makes its way to the grocery store.” 

All told, the rising price of diesel has cost U.S. consumers an additional $46 billion, or about $350 per household, according to a Brown University tracker. That’s slightly less than the impact of rising gasoline prices — at $55 billion — but the 61 percent jump in diesel prices has outpaced the 41 percent increase in gas. 

“Diesel right now is caught up in more of a geopolitical turmoil than gasoline,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, an app that lets consumers track fuel prices. In addition to the Iran war, Ukraine’s increasingly successful attacks on Russian oil refineries have also applied upward pressure. 

“Russia is no longer supplying the global market,” said De Haan, and U.S. refineries are already at full capacity, giving them little ability to pick up the slack. Domestic inventories are at their lowest level since 1982, according ​to data from the Energy Information Administration.

“We’re entering a key period for diesel consumption with the lowest inventories on record for early September,” David Russell told Reuters. He’s the global head of market strategy at the brokerage service TradeStation. “Farmers and truckers typically use more diesel in the ​autumn, which raises the stakes for the current crisis and increases the risk of sharper price increases.” 

Winter is likely to bring more problems. Because heating oil is also essentially diesel, the millions of U.S. households that still rely on it can expect unprecedented bills. This comes as President Donald J. Trump’s administration has threatened to eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps households afford their fuel bills. 

“If you’re in the Northeast, then this is much more burdensome than anywhere else in the country,” Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, told Axios. “Families are getting hit by both gasoline and heating oil.” 

These surging costs are hitting consumers just before the midterm elections, when the economy is at the front of voters’ minds. Normally, fuel prices are a somewhat downstream factor in the voting calculus, but Kevin Book, head of research at energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, told Axios that this year could be different. “In cold weather states — particularly those that rely on fuels other than natural gas,” he said. “It could be a very big deal.”

Even if the wars in Iran and Ukraine were to end tomorrow, it would take weeks or months for fuel prices to come down and diesel supply to recover. 

“After both of those are solved, then once the flow normalizes, that will start to help global inventories recover,” said De Haan. “Only after inventories have recovered do diesel prices really see a full decline.”

This post has been updated to reflect the current price of diesel fuel as of September 10.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What the record-high cost of diesel means for you on Sep 10, 2026.

'Store food for climate shocks' Channel News brendan 10th September 2026 Teaser Media

The far-right AfD was the undoubted winner of the closely watched state election in Germany’s Saxony-Anhalt on 6 September. Still, the party fell short of an outright majority, in part thanks to a surprisingly strong performance by the Greens. The question now is, can the AfD form a government at all, and if not, what coalition of rivals could possibly agree to govern in its place?

On 6 September, voters cast their ballots in the Saxony-Anhalt widely watched and publicised state election. More than anything, the results have led to a climate of uncertainty and shown a desire for fundamental change. The outcome amounts to a political earthquake whose shockwaves extend far beyond the state’s borders.

43.8 per cent of voters opted for the “confirmed far-right”  Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany, AfD) state branch (+23 percentage points). The ruling conservative party (CDU/Christian-Democratic Union) was punished; with 17.2 per cent, its share more than halved (-19.9). The liberal party (FDP/Free Democratic Party), which had previously been part of the coalition government, was ousted from the state parliament in Saxony-Anhalt, whilst the social democrats (SPD/Social Democratic Party), also part of the coalition, made a slight gain but remained at a low level (9.3/+0.9).

On the other hand, the Greens made a surprisingly significant gain, achieving their best result to date with 8.9 per cent (+3.0). They were the strongest force in terms of second votes in the Halle III constituency (33.7 per cent; lowest second-vote result: Eisleben constituency, 3.8 per cent). The Left lost ground again (8.6/-2.4), but managed to win three constituency seats outright (Halle II, III; Magdeburg II). The newly formed BSW (Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht/Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht; a party positioned towards the left economically and towards the right culturally) cleared the 5 per cent threshold.

The election results and accompanying opinion polls reveal a highly politicised, deeply divided state. Voter turnout soared to a record high of 77.8 per cent (+17.5), continuing the trend of rising participation. The previously ruling coalition of the CDU, the SPD, and the FDP has been voted out of office. In the new parliament, forming a government will prove exceedingly difficult, and the BSW is expected to play a key role in any possible coalition.

Chart: Heinrich Böll Foundation. Source: State Returning Officer of Saxony-Anhalt

The new normal?

Although just over 1.7 million people were eligible to vote in Saxony-Anhalt, the vote was closely monitored in and outside Germany. The reasons for this extraordinary attention are clear: polls indicated that the AfD would become by far the strongest force, as had already been the case in the 2024 Thuringia state election and in the 2024 local elections in Saxony-Anhalt. What was new, however, were the poll figures for the AfD and, consequently, the question of whether the AfD’s state branch – classified as “undoubtedly far-right” – would provide the Minister-President with an absolute parliamentary majority.

This possibility of a government with a far-right character, unprecedented in Germany since 1945, led to an intense media, political and societal debate about the potential consequences for democracy in the country. As a result, the election was subject to unusually extensive scrutiny. At the same time, however, the consequences of the election were discussed in an unusually broad and multifaceted manner, which at least gave voters the opportunity to reflect on the significance and consequences of their voting decisions far more deeply than usual.

However, for two reasons it would be unrealistic to view the state election as essentially an exceptional case. On the one hand, whilst the scale of targeted disinformation, fake news, and defamation – extending even to the acceptance of politically motivated threats and acts of violence from the far right – has indeed risen once again, it is no longer an exceptional case: whether through hybrid attacks and campaigns from abroad (particularly from Russia) or targeted delegitimisation from within (by AfD politicians and right-wing influencers), the aim was to influence the elections directly and to gradually undermine democracy as a whole. The authoritarian playbook for delegitimising democracy has now found its way into the German federal system.

On the other hand, from a sociological perspective, there is much to suggest that the election result, whilst differing in scale, follows the same underlying pattern as a broader societal trend. The AfD has long been a nationwide phenomenon; it is merely the structural conditions and social stabilisers that differ. This explains the variations between the federal states, particularly in times of global uncertainty (e.g. party loyalty, economic structures, collective bargaining coverage, etc.).

Social divisions

The state election in Saxony-Anhalt took place against a backdrop of general pessimism. Whilst this is not unusual in itself, this election year is also characterised by widespread dissatisfaction with the state government and persistent, deep-seated dissatisfaction with the federal government, which goes beyond the negative assessment of the “traffic light” coalition.

A large majority of citizens in Saxony-Anhalt are concerned about the state of affairs in Germany (here and below: Infratest dimap: Saxony-Anhalt ahead of the 2026 election), both regarding the future of democracy and economic development. Concerns are widespread across the population and in all political circles, yet the differences in the details highlight the division within the state. Pronounced fears of inflation and social decline are a defining feature (feeling overwhelmed by price rises: 70 per cent; standard of living under threat: 58 per cent). These concerns are, in part, entirely justified: Saxony-Anhalt has many structurally weak rural areas struggling with an ageing population, and the “Chemical Triangle” in the south of the state is also in the throes of a deep crisis, whilst other plans for new industrial settlements, such as that involving Intel, have failed.

Combined with lower net worth and a lower uptake of transition support schemes, many employees therefore fear that their own jobs – and thus their livelihoods – are at risk, whilst a large share of (future) pensioners are critical of the federal government’s reforms. The survey data clearly show that this fear of loss – partly real, partly perceived – has been exploited politically, particularly by the Right. AfD supporters, in particular, fear they will no longer be able to pay their bills (89 per cent; overall: 70 per cent) or maintain their standard of living (80 per cent; overall: 58 per cent). Supporters of the Left share these fears roughly in line with the overall average, whereas supporters of the CDU, the SPD, and the Greens do so to a far lesser extent. This shows that the divide is clearly discernible along the lines of economic fears.

Furthermore, whilst concern for democracy and the rule of law is shared across all social groups and political currents, there are significant differences in the interpretation of exactly what the threats consist of: Only AfD supporters are more likely than average to see the country’s way of life as under threat or to complain about there being too many foreigners in the country. In addition, only a majority of AfD supporters do not see Russia as a threat. In other words, the perception of these issues among AfD supporters differs fundamentally from that of other parties’ supporters (BSW, FDP: not shown). Thus, whilst the vast majority of people in the country are concerned, their reasons vary greatly and clearly follow party lines (often pitting the AfD against the CDU, the SPD, and the Greens), suggesting that right-wing narratives and interpretative frameworks exert a strong persuasive influence in receptive circles.

This is also confirmed by the splitting analysis of the Infratest dimap post-election survey: neither did AfD first-vote voters cast their second votes for other parties to any significant extent, nor did the AfD list receive a significant number of additional votes from first-vote voters of other parties. The AfD’s voter base is therefore, on the one hand, clearly cohesive, but on the other hand, as the results show, broadly anchored in society: in Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD is the dominant force in almost all regions, social milieus and demographic groups. It won 38 out of 41 constituencies outright; only in three urban constituencies was the Left able to secure a direct mandate. In only one constituency is the AfD not the strongest force in terms of second votes, achieving less than 20 per cent, whereas the Greens became the strongest force by second votes in that constituency (Halle III).

With the exception of civil servants and older voters, the AfD was consistently the strongest force and recorded double-digit gains, particularly among young men and voters with a lower level of formal education (except among civil servants; data here and below: Infratest dimap: Election Analysis). The party has gained across the political spectrum, but most significantly from the CDU, the group of minor parties, and above all, through the mobilisation of former non-voters.

Voting motives continue to be characterised by protest voting (in particular as a protest against the federal government), but to a far greater extent than before also by conviction in the party, its ability to address issues and its policy platform, as well as, to a significant degree, in its lead candidate Ulrich Siegmund: according to their own statements, four in ten AfD voters chose the party because of him. AfD voters were almost unanimously in favour of a state government led by their party and its lead candidate.

Map: Heinrich Böll Foundation. Source: State Returning Officer of Saxony-Anhalt. Map data: © GeoBasis-DE / LVermGeo ST dl-de/by-2-0

Dizzying coalition arithmetic

The widely differing perceptions of the situation and the clear divide between the electorate ultimately also shape perceptions of the government’s work at the federal level and, above all, at the state level. Whilst the majority of supporters of the CDU, the SPD, and even the Greens were generally satisfied with their state government, supporters of The Left, and above all the AfD, express clear dissatisfaction. The extent to which these camps have solidified is also demonstrated by the massive shift in the attribution of competence and in preferences for the Minister-President: supporters of the AfD favour “their” party on these points and reject all others across the board, and vice versa.

This clear polarisation of the two blocs against one another is by no means new and is the reason why cooperation between the AfD and the CDU would most likely be to the detriment of the latter: the election in Saxony-Anhalt clearly shows how deeply the AfD has penetrated among the middle class with a charismatic lead candidate and a positive, mood-driven campaign in times of uncertainty. Whilst the AfD has recently focused primarily on mobilising its core electorate in the west, its support in the east – particularly in this election – has already broadened considerably, meaning it has become socially normalised.

Looking ahead to the formation of the next government, this means that the difficulties in securing a majority are not merely a matter of party tactics, but are clearly rooted in policy issues and voter preferences. Everything points to an extremely difficult process of forming a government. If one assumes the model of a majority government (rather than a minority government with shifting majorities), no simple solution is in sight. With 39 seats each for the AfD on the one hand, and the CDU, the SPD, the Greens, and the Left Party on the other, there is a deadlock; 42 votes are required for an absolute majority.

The AfD reversed course immediately after the election, saying it no longer regards an absolute majority of its own as a prerequisite to governing, and that, for the time being, it only sees the need for a reliable majority. This could be achieved through a coalition or at least a firm cooperation agreement with the BSW. A CDU-led coalition against the AfD, on the other hand, would require the involvement of all the other parties in the state parliament – namely the Left , the Greens, the SPD, the CDU, and the BSW – a highly unlikely scenario. Consequently, the idea of a cross-party Minister-President, which the BSW has once again brought into the discussion, takes on a certain relevance: assuming this person were acceptable to the entire democratic spectrum, the BSW could thus play a decisive role in the election of a democratically supported Minister-President.

That said, by being prepared to abstain in the third round of voting, the BSW also has the opportunity, for the first time, to help a Minister-President from a confirmed far-right party into office. This would not be without further complications: the five abstentions would help the AfD but would not break the deadlock. To do so, at least one further vote, one more abstention, or an absence from the vote by one of the other parliamentary groups would be required.

It is now up to the BSW to decide which side to support, but a minority government cannot be entirely ruled out. Saxony-Anhalt, in particular, is one of the few federal states with long-standing experience of this form of government, which is atypical in Germany (except for the “Magdeburg Model”, an SPD minority government from 1994 to 2002). Saxony-Anhalt is characterised not only by high volatility and low party loyalty, but also by a willingness to embrace new coalition models (the “Kenya Coalition” comprising the CDU, the SPD, and the Greens, or the “Germany Coalition” comprising the CDU, the SPD and the FDP).

Chart: Heinrich Böll Foundation Source: State Returning Officer of Saxony-Anhalt

What will the Greens do now?

There was a lot at stake for the Greens in this election, as they had recently been struggling, particularly in the eastern German federal states. In Thuringia and Brandenburg, the Greens lost their parliamentary status in 2024, and this election risked repeating that. However, the outcome – surprising to some extent – turned out differently: the Greens have achieved their best-ever result in a state election in Saxony-Anhalt. The structural patterns in electoral sociology are unremarkable, and the motives for voting also match expectations: for three-quarters of their voters, the decisive reason for voting for the Greens was policy-based considerations, coupled with a unanimous rejection of an AfD government and a clear preference for a CDU-led state government.

And yet something is different. The election result is largely attributable to the debates and initiatives promoting tactical voting: the aim was to prevent the AfD from securing an absolute majority – and thus taking power – by ensuring that the Greens and the SPD retained their seats in the state parliament. Whilst the former objective was achieved, the question of who will form the government remains unanswered.

Although up until July the polls gave little indication that the Greens would return to the state parliament, they managed to capitalise on the window of opportunity presented by this election. They benefited not only from CDU swing voters, but also from the mobilisation of former non-voters. This election campaign was underpinned by disciplined communication and unusually strong support from the entire party – from the party leadership and prominent figures, as well as from many members – but also from figures such as former Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck and Baden-Württemberg’s Minister-President Cem Özdemir.

After the Saxony-Anhalt elections, Özdemir summed up the central responsibility of the Greens – and indeed of all parties – as follows: “What is required is honest and unsparing self-criticism from all democratic parties, leading to a dramatic change in the way we all conduct politics, both in form and substance. Less squabbling, fewer promises, more honest listening, and shared outcomes. Saying what is possible and saying what is not.”

This article was first published in German by the Heinrich Böll Stiftung. The English version is taken from the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Brussels.

In the wake of the recent flash flood that swept down from the Himalayas, Nepal is seeking immediate aid from a UN fund for climate loss and damage to help vulnerable families displaced by the disaster and rebuild destroyed schools and hospitals, the country’s foreign minister told Climate Home News.

“This is exactly the kind of climate-driven catastrophe the Fund was created to address,” Shisir Khanal said in an interview. He added that “stronger global solidarity and meaningful international support” are needed for countries like Nepal, which are facing increasingly severe climate-related disasters.

The floods were caused by a glacier collapsing and triggering a landslide that forced a torrent of water and debris to rush down the Bhote Koshi River valley, causing catastrophic impacts downstream. More than 1,300 people died and over 5,300 are still missing in the area.

Loss and damage fund urged to hold crisis meeting on Nepal

Khanal described the disaster as a “Himalayan tsunami”, telling Climate Home News that early assessments suggest the roads, bridges, hydropower stations, highways and settlements it wiped out could require billions of dollars to rebuild. Reconstruction estimates by the government range between $2.5 billion and $5 billion.

The minister of foreign affairs said Nepal would not be asking the UN’s new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) “to write a single check for this total amount”, explaining that the government is finalising a post-disaster assessment “to guide our broader international donor appeals”.

Nepal disaster seen as test case for fledgling fund

In reality, if Nepal does receive rapid support from the FRLD, it is likely to be a fraction of the total bill because the fund has a cap of $20 million per project and has little more than $350 million available to hand out in its initial phase.

So far its board has not approved any projects as it is still working out how to allocate its scarce resources, nor does it have a process in place to respond to sudden climate disasters such as glacial lake outburst floods or powerful storms.

On August 31, Nepal’s government sent a direct appeal for emergency grant funding to the FRLD, emphasising that “a prompt response would… demonstrate that the fund can translate international solidarity into timely support for vulnerable countries and communities when it is most urgently needed”.

A couple of days later, eight developing-country board members – later joined by those from small island states – signed a letter, seen by Climate Home News, asking the fund’s board to hold an extraordinary meeting to respond to Nepal’s request.

The FRLD said in a statement that the devastating impacts on the ground “underscore both the urgency and scale of need and reaffirm the fundamental purpose for which the FRLD was established”.

It added that it is “committed to approaching Nepal’s request with the urgency, compassion, and careful consideration that these difficult circumstances require, while respecting the Fund’s governing instrument and established decision-making processes”. As of Wednesday, Climate Home News understands that discussions were still ongoing.

Designing infrastructure for extreme shocks

Khanal pointed to “the unprecedented scale” of the huge flood which occurred within a matter of minutes and swept away river gauges meant to provide early warning in Rasuwa and Nuwakot, near the border with Tibet.

“You cannot easily ‘plan’ against a mountain collapsing,” he said. But the lesson, he added in written responses in English, is that “our historical baseline for infrastructure engineering is no longer sufficient”.

Building resilient infrastructure means that “hydropower projects, roads and early warning systems must be designed for extreme, unpredictable climate shocks”, he said. Another key element will be plans to better understand and protect ecosystems, he added.

• Sep 9, 2026 News As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond A rift over how IPCC messages are produced and turned into policy is creating tensions in the world’s most influential coalition of climate NGOs Read more
• Sep 7, 2026 News At regional summit, Pacific islands ask for COP31 support for clean energy and finance Pacific nations want the annual climate conference to deliver funding for renewables and ocean protection, as the UN warns of devastating sea level rise Read more

The minister noted that Nepal, India and China share a common, interconnected Himalayan ecosystem and all three countries are affected by the impacts of climate change in the Himalayan mountain chain.

“Therefore, our call is for the three countries to work together to strengthen preparedness, resilience and regional cooperation,” he said.

New research from consultancy Systemiq, released on Wednesday, finds that Himalayan glaciers are losing mass 65% faster than a decade ago, and that only around 20 of the Himalaya’s estimated 40,000 glaciers are currently monitored. India alone has 56 glacial lakes rated very high risk, it warns.

The Rasuwagadhi flood destroyed a friendship bridge, a road, a hydropower substation, and swept away vehicles in Rasuwa, Nepal in July 2025. (Photo: Ambir Tolang/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect) The Rasuwagadhi flood destroyed a friendship bridge, a road, a hydropower substation, and swept away vehicles in Rasuwa, Nepal in July 2025. (Photo: Ambir Tolang/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect) Early cross-border efforts on information-sharing

Since the same region of Nepal was hit by smaller-scale but still highly destructive flooding in 2024 and 2025, China and Nepal have stepped up efforts to cooperate in tackling glacier-related risks in the region.

In August 2025, Climate Home News reported that authorities in both countries had agreed to share cross-border information about the risks of glacial lake outburst floods across the Tibetan region, in a first step that could be expanded to the national level in an effort to reduce deaths and damage. 

This May, a delegation from China’s Ministry of Water Resources and the Water Resources Department of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region held talks with Nepalese officials in charge of water and disaster management about establishing a joint disaster information mechanism.

Then in August, a team from the Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment under the Chinese Academy of Sciences also visited Nepal for scientific research and exchange, sharing China’s experience in monitoring glacial lakes.

Nepal and China agree to cooperate on glacial lake flooding, as warming hikes threat

However, experts told Climate Home News that progress on putting in place concrete measures has been slow. Narendra Khanal, a professor in the department of geography at Tribhuvan University, blamed that partly on Nepal’s traditional administrative system and bureaucratic delays.

“We have to share information with them, and they have to share information with us,” he said. “In my understanding, the Chinese side is also facing difficulties in making this cooperation work.”

Mohan Bahadur Chand, a Himalayan glaciologist and assistant professor at Kathmandu University, said China has the technology and human resources to provide significant information to its neighbour downstream.

But, to make that work, “we have to build trust between the two countries”, which is currently lacking but could be developed, he said. “As scientists, we are already working with them personally. If we create a trusted environment, cooperation should not be difficult.”

Nepal lacks monitoring and warning technology

Experts said Nepal – one of the world’s least-developed countries – does not have the technology or resources to install the sophisticated monitoring and warning systems needed to protect its population from growing threats linked to accelerating glacier melt in the Himalayas.

A senior meteorologist at the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, who did not want to be named, told Climate Home News that the government had not invested enough in rainfall and weather monitoring stations, especially above 3,500 metres, and therefore lacks reliable data about what is happening at high altitudes.

“The stations we have are operated by different organisations, but many of them are not functioning properly,” the official added.

Comment: The loss and damage fund needs far more finance to deliver climate justice

This year, the UN’s Green Climate Fund released initial funding for a $50-million project to address the risks from four glacial lakes in other parts of Nepal, but has come under criticism for taking seven years to approve the proposal. The fund said this was due to efforts needed to strengthen and consult on the project, as well as administrative, institutional and COVID-related delays.

Foreign minister Khanal said Nepal was calling on the international community for support to tackle global warming impacts into the future.

“This disaster should not be viewed simply as a one-time event requiring one-time assistance,” he emphasised. “We need to recognise the longer-term consequences of rising temperatures and climate change, particularly for vulnerable communities and developing countries.”

The post Foreign minister: Nepal needs “meaningful” international support to face climate threats appeared first on Climate Home News.

Amy Youngman is a legal and policy specialist at the campaigning group Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA).

The chair’s August Aid to Negotiations is being sold as a pragmatic way to rescue the global plastics treaty. However, the text is starting to resemble the architecture of a Paris Agreement-style framework: a patchwork of vague commitments, nationally determined action and reporting, with the hardest substantive decisions left to a future that, my experience following these negotiations tells me, would never arrive.

In March 2022, governments adopted UNEA Resolution 5/14 by consensus, launching negotiations for a legally binding international instrument to end plastic pollution. I joined the global plastics treaty process in Paris in 2023, where hopes of drafting a treaty capable of confronting one of the defining environmental and human health threats of our time were first derailed by procedural warfare.

• Aug 12, 2026 News “We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs During troubled talks, fossil fuel-producing nations have pushed for a global pact to tackle only plastic waste rather than reducing the size of the problem Read more
• Aug 21, 2025 Comment Why we couldn’t agree on a plastics treaty in Geneva – and what might happen next Switzerland’s lead negotiator at INC-5.2 reflects on why the talks didn’t succeed – and the options now for getting an effective agreement Read more

Five months later, in Nairobi, I watched the chair close a meeting while delegates still negotiated -allegedly to catch a flight. In 2024 and 2025, in Ottawa, Busan and Geneva, the same small group of blocking states grew bolder, cloaking opposition in language about defending the vulnerable while subsidising a system that fuels the pollution crisis. Offended by ambition, ashamed of nothing.

A year after the last formal attempt to negotiate a treaty, we are tasked with protecting a fragile process. And despite long-standing support, including legal, policy and technical expertise from my own Environmental Investigation Agency, the chair has excluded observers from the rooms where the treaty’s fate is being decided.

In that orchestrated quiet, the loudest proposal emerged: the suggestion that the instrument be a “framework convention.” The new Aid, intended to shape the late-September Heads of Delegation meeting, never uses the word “framework”. It does not need to. It strips back substantive obligations and presupposes future action.

A framework is no match for this crisis

Framework conventions outline broad principles and leave each country to develop its own plan, often delaying tough decisions to future negotiations that may never happen. This tactic is a political shell game: persuading states that want action now to give up meaningful, binding measures to reach agreement.

The Chair’s Aid arrives at a framework by subtraction rather than by proposal, which makes it harder to name and potentially easier to accept. Using the Aid, effectively the rejected text from Geneva, as a basis for the next informal meeting in Bangkok will be sold as a way to preserve a distressed UN system and reach consensus in a fractured geopolitical environment.

This is diplomacy drowning in wishful thinking that the countries fighting binding rules today will approve tougher ones tomorrow. Four years of negotiations and decades of climate diplomacy taught us that this is not a bridge to ambition – this is how ambition dies.

Modou Fall, 45, head of Senegal Propre (“Clean Senegal”) Association is covered with plastic cups and bags to raise awareness of the damage on the environment caused by waste as he cleans a beach during World Cleanup Day in Dakar, Senegal September 15, 2018. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra Modou Fall, 45, head of Senegal Propre (“Clean Senegal”) Association is covered with plastic cups and bags to raise awareness of the damage on the environment caused by waste as he cleans a beach during World Cleanup Day in Dakar, Senegal September 15, 2018. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Production is driven by global oil, gas and chemical markets, while products and waste travel across borders. No singular government can regulate its way out of a problem created and amplified by a globalised system.

Countries have tried, and production kept rising. Now there is plastic everywhere we look, and the cost falls hardest on the people least responsible.

That failure is why there was consensus to negotiate a treaty, because this crisis requires global action. The purpose was never to list national efforts and call that progress but to create common global rules to address pollution.

The most politically sensitive issues cannot simply be postponed. How much plastic is produced, which toxic chemicals are allowed in it, which throwaway products are banned, and how future decisions are made are precisely the issues that require global answers. An instrument that refuses to negotiate them will be easier to adopt but useless on arrival.

Learn from climate governance

Supporters of a framework approach may point to the ozone treaty as proof that it can work. But the Vienna Convention succeeded for one reason: governments quickly adopted binding upstream controls on ozone-depleting substances.

Climate offers the opposite warning: a framework followed by contested, delayed and insufficient measures, while emissions keep rising.

The new chair not only deleted a direct reference to “production and consumption” and bracketed similar preambular language copied from the original mandate. The article on reporting borrows language from the Paris Agreement. Another summer of record heat, fires and floods offers a glimpse of how well that model is working.

Nothing suggests that the states blocking binding rules today will suddenly accept them tomorrow, and the exponential rise in unchecked plastic production will not pause while governments wait for courage. Blockage is not being resolved, but just pushed forward.

A framework would lock in the wrong response: unlimited upstream growth with waste management attempting to handle it downstream. No waste system can keep pace with a material engineered for endless growth. 

Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot

After four years of INC negotiations, governments know this. States must reject the false choice that the only path to agreement is an instrument too weak to solve the problem it was created to address. Compromise is part of diplomacy. Surrender is not.

And if the UN keeps pushing that choice, the countries prepared to act must be willing to pursue alternative pathways. Groups of willing governments have built effective agreements before, and existing environmental regimes can deliver new rules without inventing a new empty instrument. 

This process was never meant to find a lowest common denominator. It was to create the rules necessary to change our direction. Bangkok in September will be where the second iteration of this text is shaped. If ambitious countries do not push back, the argument about a framework convention will already be lost by default.

Negotiations cannot end with governments accepting the crisis rather than solving it. The science is clear and the damage is accelerating. The world does not need another promise to act later. It needs the treaty governments promised to deliver in 2022. 

The post The world doesn’t need a Paris Agreement for plastics appeared first on Climate Home News.

To many visitors a mangrove forest appears as a stretch of trees standing between land and sea. But if you walk through the same forest with a local fisher returning with the tide, a honey collector searching for wild hives, or a boatman who has spent a lifetime navigating its creeks, another landscape comes into view. What seems to be a single landscape is understood as many. Diverse names distinguish places where fish breed, honey is gathered, storm surges lose their force, or tides behave differently.

Across the eastern and western seaboards in India, coastal communities have developed distinct names for tidal forests that reflect ecological function as much as geography. In Bengal, Sundarban evokes a forest historically associated with the sundari tree and its life-sustaining tidal ecology. Along the Godavari–Krishna delta, the Telugu expression mada vanalu refers to brackish tidal forests that nurture fisheries and soften the impact of cyclones. Tamil and Malayali people use terms built around kandal to distinguish salt-tolerant coastal habitats, while related expressions across the Konkan and Gujarat coast identify creek-edge forests, honey-collecting areas, and other ecosystems.

These names are far more than local expressions. They reflect generations of close observation about how the forest functions and how people have learned to live with it.

Much of this vocabulary is quietly disappearing. In administration, education, and even conservation practice, diverse coastal landscapes are increasingly gathered under a single term, mangroves. The forest remains, but the distinctions that once helped people recognize its ecological diversity begin to fade.

Conservation has become notably good at measuring environmental change. Forest cover, species recovery, and habitat loss are monitored with increasing precision. Still, an irony remains. Even as technologies sharpen the view of nature, the ecological languages through which Indigenous peoples have long interpreted these ecosystems and processes are becoming less visible.

Before ecosystems disappear, the ability to read them often begins to erode.

Conservation routinely monitors species richness and habitat extent but rarely asks whether the vocabulary needed to recognize those habitats is itself surviving. That is conservation’s overlooked blind spot. Protecting biodiversity is not only about safeguarding species and habitats; it also requires sustaining the languages that enable people to understand the many distinctions within an ecosystem in the first place. Conservation cannot fully succeed while the ecological languages that make landscapes intelligible continue to disappear.

When Conservation Loses Resolution

Ecologists classify habitats by their vegetation, hydrology, and species, while people who have lived in these landscapes for generations have long relied on another system of classification — language. Their vocabularies did not evolve to describe nature in the abstract. They emerged from everyday interactions. In tidal forests people learn to distinguish places shaped by tides, soils, fisheries, storms, and seasons, allow them to understand differences that matter.

The problem arises when these locally evolved classifications are absorbed into broader, standardized terminology. A common vocabulary undoubtedly makes administration, education, and scientific communication easier. Yet it also carries an unintended consequence: Ecosystems begin to appear simpler than they really are.

India’s mangrove coast illustrates this shift.

These are not simply regional names but ecolexicons that condense generations of environmental observation into everyday language.

As this mosaic of ecological vocabularies gives way to the single label mangroves, something more than linguistic diversity is lost. It’s like reducing the resolution of a satellite image: The coastline remains visible, but its finer ecological distinctions begin to disappear.

This process may be understood as linguistic flattening — not merely a dilution of linguistic richness and a loss of words, but also the gradual loss of ecological resolution. Long before a language falls silent, it can lose the nuances that once helped people read landscapes.

Language as Conservation Infrastructure

Linguistic flattening also weakens the systems that have long governed how people interact with ecosystems.

Language is often treated as a medium of communication, yet in many Indigenous societies it functions as something more fundamental. It carries practical rules, ethical obligations, and ecological boundaries that are learned not from policy manuals but through everyday speech, stories, and customary practice. In this sense, language is part of conservation infrastructure.

The Māori understanding of harakeke (New Zealand flax) offers a striking example. The central shoot, or rito, represents the child, while the surrounding leaves symbolize parents and grandparents. This is more than a metaphor. The vocabulary itself shapes harvesting practices: Inner shoots are never cut, because removing them threatens the life of the plant. Only the outer leaves are taken, allowing regeneration to continue. Even the flowering stalks (kōrari) are managed with care so that nectar remains available for native birds, supporting pollination and the wider ecosystem.

This appears to be a biocultural expression but in practice is a sophisticated system for managing relationships between people and nature. The language does not simply describe ecological relationships; it instructs people how to behave within them.

Similar patterns are found across Indigenous societies, where names, stories, and customary expressions regulate seasonal harvesting, identify sensitive habitats, and define responsibilities towards land and water.

Conservation recognizes the value of Indigenous knowledge, yet it often overlooks the languages through which that knowledge is organized, remembered, and transmitted. Protecting place-based knowledge while allowing the languages that sustain it to disappear is rather like preserving a library after removing its catalogue. The books may still exist, but their meaning becomes increasingly difficult to recover.

Vanishing Languages, Vanishing Environmental Archives

Modern conservation depends heavily on data. Satellite imagery tracks forest loss, climate models project future change, and ecological surveys measure species abundance with precision. Yet most of these records span only a few decades. They rarely capture and interpret the much longer histories through which communities have understood environmental changes.

That longer record often survives in language. Across Indigenous societies, names for plants, animals, winds, tides, and seasons are not arbitrary labels but accumulated observations refined over generations. They preserve knowledge of when rivers shift their course, when particular fish arrive, how flowering responds to rainfall, which plants indicate groundwater, or where storms repeatedly reshape the coast. Much of this information was never written down because it did not need to be. It remained alive in speech, memory, and everyday practice.

When a language slips away, the environmental archive becomes fragmented, and we lose part of nature’s archive. Individual observations may still be recorded by researchers, but the wider system that connected them — linking species, habitats, seasons, and human experience — is gradually lost.

Conservation then faces an unusual paradox. We invest heavily in collecting new ecological data while allowing centuries of carefully accumulated environmental knowledge to disappear unnoticed.

Seen in this light, language loss is not simply a cultural concern. It also represents the quiet erosion of one of conservation’s oldest and least recognized ways of understanding nature. Protecting biodiversity therefore also means sustaining the living archives that have preserved ecological memory across generations.

Conservation Literacy Beyond Species Lists

Conservation governance has made important progress globally in recognizing Indigenous peoples as partners in biodiversity protection. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for respecting and applying traditional knowledge in biodiversity governance, while IPBES has repeatedly shown that indigenous and local knowledge strengthens conservation outcomes. Likewise, UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022–2032) emphasizes that these languages sustain knowledge systems shaped through long relationships with place.

Yet an important gap remains. Conservation frameworks celebrate traditional knowledge but rarely ask how that knowledge survives across generations. Knowledge does not exist independently of the language through which it is observed, evolved, organized, and passed from one generation to the next. A conservation strategy that values Indigenous knowledge while overlooking Indigenous languages risks protecting the product while allowing the process that continually renews it to fade.

This calls for a broader understanding of conservation literacy. Alongside species inventories, habitat maps, and ecological monitoring, conservation should also recognize the value of ecolexicons, the place-based vocabularies that enable Indigenous communities to distinguish habitats, seasonal change, and ecological processes.

Supporting community-led language documentation, multilingual ecological education, and regional diversity of Indigenous vocabularies are therefore not simply a cultural exercise. It strengthens the knowledge infrastructure of future generations to interpret and care for the landscapes they inherit.

Reading Nature Before It Falls Silent

Biodiversity conservation has long measured success in hectares restored, species recovered, and habitat protected. These remain essential benchmarks. Yet this understanding argues that another measure deserves attention: whether the languages that enable communities to understand, interpret and care for those landscapes are also surviving.

A forest is more than the trees it contains. It is also the vocabulary through which generations have learned to read its tides, seasons, species, and silences.

The next frontier in conservation is not simply protecting more land but protecting the many ways in which people understand that land. Every ecological language that survives preserves a way of noticing what others might overlook while their disappearance reduces the world’s ability to see nature in all its complexity.

Conservation cannot claim to protect the living world if it allows the languages that have long interpreted that world to disappear unheard.

Long before a forest falls silent, its words often do.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

The Extinction of Languages Is an Environmental Issue

The post Conservation’s Blind Spot: Why Language Matters for Biodiversity appeared first on The Revelator.

By several measures, Chinese industry is becoming less dependent on fossil fuels, according to a new analysis.

Read more on E360 →

With June’s UN climate talks inching towards gridlock, a group of diplomats calling themselves “Friends of Science” issued a stark warning: climate science was under attack in Bonn.

The coalition, spanning the world’s richest to its most vulnerable nations, pointed the finger primarily at those who think “science threatens their economic prospects” – a thinly-veiled reference to fossil fuel-dependent states accused of casting doubt on long-held scientific tenets in the UN climate process.

Fiji’s lead negotiator, Sivendra Michael, went still further. He denounced what he called “a very polluted narrative” taking hold outside the negotiating rooms and singled out ECO, a daily newsletter on the talks produced by Climate Action Network (CAN) International, for overlooking the issue. 

“They are representing developing countries, but they are not representing us,” Michael said. His words hinted at how a rift between governments over the science of global warming has created tensions inside the climate movement.

Watchers of the UN climate talks have told Climate Home News there is growing unease over where the world’s most influential coalition of climate NGOs stands in an increasingly heated debate about how scientific messages produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are crafted and turned into global climate policy. 

UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot

CAN’s international leadership has publicly backed a line of argument, championed by some big emerging economies including India, that questions how fair and equitable the models underpinning the work of the IPCC – the UN’s climate science body – are because they are dominated by research from the Global North. 

But some climate activists, including from nations on the frontline of the climate crisis in the Pacific, are increasingly disappointed by CAN’s silence in a connected row over whether the IPCC’s forthcoming assessment report should be finished in time to inform the next UN scorecard of global climate action.  

Over the last two years, India, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Kenya have pushed back against attempts by a large coalition of nations to align the IPCC’s AR7 report timeline with the second stocktake of national climate plans under the UN climate process. They claim this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and restrict their ability to provide scientific input into the process.

India flags bias in IPCC assumptions

CAN International Executive Director Tasneem Essop spoke at an online event last month in which panelists challenged the “Friends of Science” campaign launched at the Bonn talks. 

During the webinar, an Indian scientist and government negotiator set out her view that the IPCC’s way of working and scientific assumptions perpetuate inequity between developed and developing countries – and yet its reports have come to be treated as “scripture” that cannot be questioned. 

In her intervention, Essop did not comment directly on the Bonn science campaign nor on the IPCC timeline issue. But the participation of CAN’s leadership in an event where such criticism of the IPCC was aired has sparked concern in some parts of the NGO community.

“The way in which CAN International is playing into what could be the destruction of the IPCC inputs into the climate process is very concerning,” said Bill Hare, who was involved in CAN’s establishment nearly four decades ago and now runs think-tank Climate Analytics. 

Science ‘under attack’ from fossil fuel interests at UN climate talks

He added that it was a mistake for CAN International to align itself with arguments made by India and Saudi Arabia, when those countries are blocking the conclusion of the IPCC’s next key report on cutting emissions in time for it to feed into the next global stocktake, which is due to conclude in 2028.

Like other insiders Climate Home News spoke to, the veteran Australian climate scientist fears these tensions could hamper CAN’s widely recognised power to influence the talks.

“The CAN International voice has been very, very important in the process. That voice doesn’t need to be diluted at this moment in history – that would be a really bad move,” Hare said.

Dialogue to reconcile differing views

Over the last decade, CAN has been working to transform itself into an organisation that is more representative of, and responsive to, voices and needs in the Global South. In 2019, it appointed Essop – a South African expert on climate, energy, poverty and social justice – as executive director, shifting further away from its European and North American roots.

CAN International, which functions as the broader network’s secretariat, says it is discussing how to reconcile varying views on the IPCC and the science and equity question among its hundreds of member groups spread across 130 countries.

“We acknowledge that there are different perspectives within a global network of over 2,000 members on these issues,” CAN International’s Essop said in response to questions from Climate Home News. “Given this diversity, we have democratic processes to build internal agreements.” 

“Science and equity are both fundamental principles for effective climate action and are firmly embedded in CAN’s work,” she added in a written statement. “Putting these principles into practice in a painfully unjust world is not always straightforward, which is why we need continued dialogue across the network.”

Calls for “fair share” approach

The webinar in late August – which aimed to untangle what organisers described as “a growing narrative” that “treats science and equity as opposing priorities” – opened with a presentation by Tejal Kanitkar, a prominent Indian climate scientist who also serves on her government’s delegations at the IPCC and UN climate talks. 

Outlining the findings of a paper she co-authored, Kanitkar argued that the IPCC had used scenarios for future emission reduction trajectories based primarily on assumptions put forward by Global North researchers that are skewed against the world’s poorest nations. These, she noted, were then incorporated into the first UN review of global climate action in 2023 and turned into widely cited emissions-cutting targets for limiting warming to 1.5C – a goal the UN has now conceded will be breached, at least temporarily.

Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh

Kanitkar said the “Friends of Science” group included “some of the people who have over-consumed the carbon budget and now use science as a slogan”. When Climate Home News raised the participation of diplomats from vulnerable countries, she said they should be asked why they “accept outcomes that burden the poorest the most”.

Commenting on Kanitkar’s presentation, CAN’s Essop said everyone knows that “imbalances of power dictate who sits at the table, who designs the models and who determines the assumptions underlying them”.

Her wider intervention focused more generally on the need to ensure that emissions-reduction pathways follow an equitable approach and account for the “fair share” of action countries need to take based on their historical responsibilities for climate change. 

IPCC working to update models

Hare later acknowledged that most of the IPCC models used for 1.5C scenarios fail to account for the higher cost of capital and transition financing faced by developing countries. But as this is a “well-known” limitation, the IPCC gives a nuanced reading of the scenarios, and the next generation of models it uses is expected to include more consideration of equity, he added.

Echoing this, a climate scientist from a developing country currently involved in the IPCC process, who did not want to be identified, told Climate Home News that economic models inevitably contain biases and IPCC authors are already working to identify and correct them. 

• Sep 2, 2026 Science UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot Leading scientists say warming must peak at 1.8C to be able to reverse course this century, but current government climate policies are way off track Read more
• Sep 2, 2026 Comment Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot We need a strategy for navigating the huge risks to ecosystems and societies Read more

Despite criticisms of how IPCC scientific reports have been produced, all governments must sign off on every line of a key “summary for policy-makers” at a dedicated meeting. In 2023, the approved summary included the emissions reduction figures in question that informed the UN’s first global stocktake. 

Irrespective of this wider debate, Hare said the “Friends of Science” campaign, which he supports, is focused on the timing of the IPCC’s next assessment cycle rather than the equity of its models.

Unresolved row over IPCC report timeline

A political battle over that time-frame has dragged on for more than two years at successive meetings of the science panel, with governments repeatedly failing to find a solution. 

A large majority of nations have been pushing for a timeline that would ensure the next round of AR7 reports can feed into the UN’s global stocktake. But a group of countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, China, Russia and Kenya, have said at previous IPCC meetings that this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and have lobbied for a longer process.

Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

In Bonn this summer, the coalition that wants to align AR7 with the 2028 stocktake – which includes diplomats from Fiji, Nepal, the European Union, Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Panama – vowed to ensure that decision-making in the UN climate process remains based on the “best available science”, including the IPCC assessment reports. 

They pointed the finger at “the usual suspects” but stopped short of singling out any countries at the public press conference. Discussions in the previous week had seen Saudi Arabia and India play down the centrality of IPCC reports in the UN stocktake and oppose calls in draft texts to encourage scientific work on scenarios to limit an overshoot of the 1.5C warming goal.

Bonn upset fuels further tension

A campaigner with knowledge of internal discussions told Climate Home News that many civil society groups from some of the world’s most vulnerable nations, including the Pacific islands, had expected CAN International to back calls in Bonn defending the centrality of the IPCC in UN climate policy-making. 

Despite this, a day before the “Friends of Science” press conference, CAN published an ECO newsletter that did not mention the issue. Instead, it voiced surprise over the claims of an attack on science happening in the negotiations and accused some of the IPCC’s loudest-defending governments of hypocrisy for continuing to expand fossil fuels and not delivering “fair shares” of emissions cuts and finance to the developing world.

“We were really shocked we could not find a common position and then this jarring narrative was being pushed,” the campaigner added. 

After divisions hardened in Bonn, Hare said his organisation was approached by “very upset” CAN members from various regions about the stance taken by the network’s international leadership on the issue.

Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push

While Climate Home News understands that internal discussions have continued during the summer, including at a CAN leadership meeting in Nairobi in recent days, the campaigner said that CAN International’s endorsement of the recent webinar that directly challenged the “Friends of Science” coalition did not send a reassuring signal. 

Some observers said they feared it would inflame tensions over how climate science is defined and utilised for policy purposes, with consequences reaching well beyond Bonn.

In a statement to Climate Home News, Essop said that “at a time when communities are experiencing the most horrific impacts of climate chaos, our collective energy must turn to solutions such as filling the Loss and Damage Fund, the phasing out of fossil fuels led by the Global North, and justice for people who are least responsible for this climate emergency”. 

The post As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond appeared first on Climate Home News.

For years, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has been working to make the state a welcoming home for clean energy manufacturing — EVs, solar panels, batteries for storage. The state went all out with tax breaks and a worker training program to attract EV and battery makers — and for a while it was working. 

Georgia-based bus manufacturer Blue Bird started selling electric buses commercially in 2018 and built an expanded factory for electric buses in 2023. In 2022, Hyundai built a plant near Savannah that it said would be dedicated to making EVs. In 2024, Kia started making EVs at its West Point plant. And in 2025, Rivian broke ground on its manufacturing plant near Atlanta. The Hyundai and Rivian operations are two of the biggest economic development projects in Georgia history. The state has also worked to attract other parts of the EV and clean energy manufacturing sector, including battery makers and recyclers and solar panel companies.

Under the second Trump administration, the economic outlook for these companies has been destabilized. In addition to ending federal EV tax credits, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on battery packs, charger hardware, and other components; loosened rules around emissions from gas-powered cars; and ended the Biden administration’s push to make government vehicle fleets electric. And a year ago, federal immigration agents raided an electric vehicle battery plant and arrested more than 400 people, most of them South Korean workers there to help get the new factory off the ground.

The past year and a half has been a grim moment for what was a booming industry in Georgia. But the EV makers are still forging ahead, even if that means making some adjustments.

At Kia’s plant in West Point, a long and constantly varied line of vehicles moves steadily forward on the assembly line, step by step gaining all the trimmings that turn metal shells into driveable cars. But this plant functions more like a short-order cook than a traditional assembly line. Instead of producing big, uniform batches, Kia has designed the plant to manufacture cars according to unique specifications — each one a different model, color, trim, or even drive train — that is, gas-powered, hybrid, or electric. Kia says it has done this to make more of the cars people most want to buy at any given moment. Right now, that means hybrids.

“What we’ve seen is a transition back away from maybe full EV vehicle building to this kind of a middle-of-the-road opportunity,” said factory CEO Stuart Countess.

Electric cars are still the future, he said. But for several reasons, including price and charging access, consumers just aren’t there yet. Changes to federal policy are a major factor, too.

“We had a tax incentive credit that did go away,” Countess said. “Sales were really moving in the right direction, but once it went away, it became a much different environment.”

Just as Kia has ramped up hybrid production, its sister company Hyundai has added hybrid production to the lineup produced at its massive plant near Savannah, which was originally built to make EVs. 

“It’s kind of a messy period we’re in right now,” said Stephanie Valdez-Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive. “But I think the manufacturers are adjusting.”

Read Next Next stop for California’s high-speed rail: Finding private investors Benton Graham

At the same time, battery makers throughout the state have started shifting to producing storage batteries for electricity in addition to ones made to power vehicles.

“The state continues to have a lot riding on the success of both the electric vehicle but also the battery market,” said Stan Cross of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, or SACE. 

Georgia leads the region in EV and battery manufacturing, but the growth has stumbled, with layoffs at SK Battery earlier this year. More than $4 billion in investment has been canceled or scaled back in the last year across the Southeast, according to SACE. 

That’s dwarfed, though, by the nearly $74 billion in manufacturing investment that’s moving ahead. Still, one open question, Cross said, is whether Georgians will buy the hybrids and EVs being made in the state.

Despite actively pursuing EV manufacturing, Georgia doesn’t have incentives to encourage EV adoption like some other states. In fact, there’s an extra registration fee designed to make up for lost gas taxes. And the thorny politics may extend beyond state policy and the now-ended federal incentives. “When it comes to electric vehicles, Georgia politics remains utterly confused,” Cross said.

Private investment continues, though. Kia and Hyundai are part of a charging consortium called IONNA that has installed several charging stations around the state, including one at the Kia factory site in West Point. Electric utilities are investing more in vehicle charging too. Across the region, EV-related investment by utilities increased by 14 percent this year, according to SACE.

“Though we’re not seeing a lot of activity on the legislative side, we do see potential on the regulatory side and really are encouraging Georgia Power to step up and help kind of fill the void that policymakers in the state are creating,” Cross said.

Valdez-Streaty believes that, over time, making EVs in Georgia will likely lead to more people in Georgia buying them.

“It’s like that familiarity, right?” she said. “People have jobs at those companies and familiarity with those products.”

Though shaky for the last 18 months or so, she said the EV market is starting to stabilize — and the auto industry is still going electric, it’s just taking a little longer.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Georgia bet big on EV manufacturing. Trump pulled the plug. on Sep 9, 2026.

Wendell Berry made his choices and stuck to them. He did not have a computer or a smartphone. He wrote more than 50 books of poetry, fiction, and essays, mostly with a pencil and paper, from his farmhouse in Henry County, Kentucky. By the time of his passing last week, the 92-year-old had lived many lives — as a farmer, teacher, philosopher, environmental activist — and inspired several generations of writers, farmers, and advocates in turn. From these varying perspectives, Berry grappled with humanity and the natural world. 

His answer to the fundamental question of how to live right was to start small — to revere the Earth’s endless beauty, and to work a little, each day, to reverse the harm we’ve caused. 

“There is no public crisis that is not also private,” Berry wrote in his essay “Think Little.” Written in 1972 as the environmental movement emerged, the piece marked a conflict of Berry’s: Despite strong environmental convictions, he sometimes despaired of the movement’s focus on bending the ear of politicians, without individuals healing the rupture between modern life and the land. “The changes that are required are fundamental changes in the way we are living,” Berry wrote. 

He extolled this approach in one of his most well-known poems, “Manifesto: Mad Farmer Liberation Front”: “Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias. / Say that your main crop is the forest / that you did not plant.”

The language of activism was often at odds with Berry’s worldview. It seemed to warn of a coming apocalypse, but to Berry, the world had no end and no beginning. To move in nature’s time meant to think in cycles of death and rebirth, not a straight line leading toward destruction or salvation. 

That didn’t stop Berry from engaging with activism even when it frustrated him, said Jeffrey Bilbro, an English professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, who’s written several books on Berry. 

Berry was arrested in 1979 for protesting a nuclear plant in Indiana. In 2011, he was arrested again during a sit-in inside Kentucky state government offices while protesting mountaintop removal coal mining. He remained active in the fight against coal throughout the 2010s, helping to block the gates to a coal-fired power plant in Washington, D.C., and pulling his papers from the University of Kentucky after the school accepted a $7 million donation from Alliance Coal.

After Berry wrote his essay in Harper’s Magazine, “Why I am not Going to Buy a Computer” in 1987, some called him a Luddite. As a Grist article in 2014 pointed out, he was, in perhaps the truest sense, taking after that early 19th century movement, when textile workers at the advent of industrialization destroyed machinery to protect the dignity of their work. Berry refused, as much as he could, to let technology alienate him from his work. For this, he was sometimes criticized or called a curmudgeon.

Read Next The summer we love is slipping away Grist staff

His views didn’t fit neatly into modern politics. He believed that marriage and family strengthened community ties, but didn’t believe the government had authority to legislate such things. The law of nature, he said in one essay, was universal kinship and kindness, and Biblical stories and Psalms supported that. Berry was religious, but didn’t always like church, calling himself, according to Bilbro, a “bad weather church-goer” because he preferred to spend nice Sunday mornings walking in the woods. He hated dualisms — between humanity and the natural world, between body and soul, between person who believes x and person who believes y. This lent him broad appeal across the political and class spectrum, especially to those who felt that capitalism and industry had moved humanity away from a more honest way of life, whether through agriculture or other means.

“For an uncompromising person or a person of convictions, I think he recognized the need in a fallen world,” Bilbro said. “Our hands are all dirty, and we’re making these compromises, and it’s better to be honest about the necessity to do so and try to do what we can to live right, even if we can’t attain the purity that we might wish.”

The environmental crisis, according to Berry, takes hold in our lives and evinces itself as a sort of social decay. But living isn’t an unforgivable sin in itself, if we can only leave things better than we found them, knowing that the strip-mined mountaintop where we plant spruce, aspen, and wildflowers might not become a lush forest again until long after we’re gone.

In the poem, “A Discipline,” Berry imagines apocalypse: “it approaches / on every side, there is no other place / to turn.” 

And yet, the poem continues, nothing ever really goes away: “It is the time’s discipline to think / of the death of all living, and yet live.”

Only the hard work of tending the land and learning its rhythms again can heal it, he believed. In coming into relationship with the smallest handful of earth, you can understand what it means to fight for change almost too enormous to fathom. To Berry, by tending a sprouted seedling in the ground, you can recognize you are it, and it is you.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Wendell Berry’s life on Earth on Sep 9, 2026.