News Feeds

China’s leadership has published a draft of its 15th five-year plan setting the strategic direction for the nation out to 2030, including support for clean energy and energy security.

The plan sets a target to cut China’s “carbon intensity” by 17% over the five years from 2026-30, but also changes the basis for calculating this key climate metric.

The plan continues to signal support for China’s clean-energy buildout and, in general, contains no major departures from the country’s current approach to the energy transition.

The government reaffirms support for several clean-energy industries, ranging from solar and electric vehicles (EVs) through to hydrogen and “new-energy” storage.

The plan also emphasises China’s willingness to steer climate governance and be seen as a provider of “global public goods”, in the form of affordable clean-energy technologies.

However, while the document says it will “promote the peaking” of coal and oil use, it does not set out a timeline and continues to call for the “clean and efficient” use of coal. 

This shows that tensions remain between China’s climate goals and its focus on energy security, leading some analysts to raise concerns about its carbon-cutting ambition.

Below, Carbon Brief outlines the key climate change and energy aspects of the plan, including targets for carbon intensity, non-fossil energy and forestry.

Note: this article is based on a draft published on 5 March and will be updated if any significant changes are made in the final version of the plan, due to be released at the close next week of the “two sessions” meeting taking place in Beijing.  

• What is China’s 15th five-year plan?
• What does the plan say about China’s climate action?
• What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?
• Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?
• What does the plan signal about coal?
• How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years? 
• What else does the plan cover?

What is China’s 15th five-year plan?

Five-year plans are one of the most important documents in China’s political system. 

Addressing everything from economic strategy to climate policy, they outline the planned direction for China’s socio-economic development in a five-year period. The 15th five-year plan covers 2026-30.

These plans include several “main goals”. These are largely quantitative indicators that are seen as particularly important to achieve and which provide a foundation for subsequent policies during the five-year period.

The table below outlines some of the key “main goals” from the draft 15th five-year plan.

CategoryIndicatorIndicator in 2025Target by 2030Cumulative target over 2026-2030Characteristic Economic developmentGross domestic product (GDP) growth (%)5Maintained within a reasonable range and proposed annually as appropriate.
Anticipatory ‘Green and low-carbonReduction in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP (%)17.717Binding Share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption (%)21.725Binding Security guaranteeComprehensive energy production
capacity (100m tonnes of
standard coal equivalent)
51.358Binding Select list of targets highlighted in the “main goals” section of the draft 15th five-year plan. Source: Draft 15th five-year plan.

Since the 12th five-year plan, covering 2011-2015, these “main goals” have included energy intensity and carbon intensity as two of five key indicators for “green ecology”.

The previous five-year plan, which ran from 2021-2025, introduced the idea of an absolute “cap” on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, although it did not provide an explicit figure in the document. This has been subsequently addressed by a policy on the “dual-control of carbon” issued in 2024. 

The latest plan removes the energy-intensity goal and elevates the carbon-intensity goal, but does not set an absolute cap on emissions (see below).

It covers the years until 2030, before which China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions. (Analysis for Carbon Brief found that emissions have been “flat or falling” since March 2024.)

The plans are released at the two sessions, an annual gathering of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). This year, it runs from 4-12 March.

The plans are often relatively high-level, with subsequent topic-specific five-year plans providing more concrete policy guidance. 

Policymakers at the National Energy Agency (NEA) have indicated that in the coming years they will release five sector-specific plans for 2026-2030, covering topics such as the “new energy system”, electricity and renewable energy. 

There may also be specific five-year plans covering carbon emissions and environmental protection, as well as the coal and nuclear sectors, according to analysts.

Other documents published during the two sessions include an annual government work report, which outlines key targets and policies for the year ahead. 

The gathering is attended by thousands of deputies – delegates from across central and local governments, as well as Chinese Communist party members, members of other political parties, academics, industry leaders and other prominent figures.

Back to top

What does the plan say about China’s climate action?

Achieving China’s climate targets will remain a key driver of the country’s policies in the next five years, according to the draft 15th five-year plan.

It lists the “acceleration” of China’s energy transition as a “major achievement” in the 14th five-year plan period (2021-2025), noting especially how clean-power capacity had overtaken fossil fuels.

The draft says China will “actively and steadily advance and achieve carbon peaking”, with policymakers continuing to strike a balance between building a “green economy” and ensuring stability.

Climate and environment continues to receive its own chapter in the plan. However, the framing and content of this chapter has shifted subtly compared with previous editions, as shown in the table below. For example, unlike previous plans, the first section of this chapter focuses on China’s goal to peak emissions. 

11th five-year plan (2006-2010)12th five-year plan (2011-2015)
13th five-year plan (2016-2020)14th five-year plan (2021-2025)15th five-year plan (2026-2030) Chapter titlePart 6: Build a resource-efficient and environmentally-friendly societyPart 6: Green development, building a resource-efficient and environmentally friendly societyPart 10: Ecosystems and the environmentPart 11: Promote green development and facilitate the harmonious coexistence of people and naturePart 13: Accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development to build a beautiful China SectionsDeveloping a circular economyActively respond to global climate changeAccelerate the development of functional zonesImprove the quality and stability of ecosystemsActively and steadily advancing and achieving carbon peaking Protecting and restoring natural ecosystemsStrengthen resource conservation and managementPromote economical and intensive resource useContinue to improve environmental qualityContinuously improving environmental quality Strengthening environmental protectionVigorously develop the circular economyStep up comprehensive environmental governanceAccelerate the green transformation of the development modelEnhancing the diversity, stability, and sustainability of ecosystems Enhancing resource managementStrengthen environmental protection effortsIntensify ecological conservation and restorationAccelerating the formation of green production and lifestyles Rational utilisation of marine and climate resourcesPromoting ecological conservation and restorationRespond to global climate change Strengthen the development of water conservancy and disaster prevention and mitigation systemsImprove mechanisms for ensuring ecological security Develop green and environmentally-friendly industries Title and main sections of the climate and environment-focused chapters in the last five five-year plans. Source: China’s 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year plans.

The climate and environment chapter in the latest plan calls for China to “balance [economic] development and emission reduction” and “ensure the timely achievement of carbon peak targets”.

Under the plan, China will “continue to pursue” its established direction and objectives on climate, Prof Li Zheng, dean of the Tsinghua University Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development (ICCSD), tells Carbon Brief.

Back to top

What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?

In the lead-up to the release of the plan, analysts were keenly watching for signals around China’s adoption of a system for the “dual-control of carbon”.

This would combine the existing targets for carbon intensity – the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP – with a new cap on China’s total carbon emissions. This would mark a dramatic step for the country, which has never before set itself a binding cap on total emissions.

Policymakers had said last year that this framework would come into effect during the 15th five-year plan period, replacing the previous system for the “dual-control of energy”. 

However, the draft 15th five-year plan does not offer further details on when or how both parts of the dual-control of carbon system will be implemented. Instead, it continues to focus on carbon intensity targets alone.

Looking back at the previous five-year plan period, the latest document says China had achieved a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7%, just shy of its 18% goal.

This is in contrast with calculations by Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which had suggested that China had only cut its carbon intensity by 12% over the past five years.

At the time it was set in 2021, the 18% target had been seen as achievable, with analysts telling Carbon Brief that they expected China to realise reductions of 20% or more.

However, the government had fallen behind on meeting the target.

Last year, ecology and environment minister Huang Runqiu attributed this to the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather and trade tensions. He said that China, nevertheless, remained “broadly” on track to meet its 2030 international climate pledge of reducing carbon intensity by more than 65% from 2005 levels. 

Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that the newly reported figure showing a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7% is likely due to an “opportunistic” methodological revision. The new methodology now includes industrial process emissions – such as cement and chemicals – as well as the energy sector.

(This is not the first time China has redefined a target, with regulators changing the methodology for energy intensity in 2023.)

For the next five years, the plan sets a target to reduce carbon intensity by 17%, slightly below the previous goal. 

However, the change in methodology means that this leaves space for China’s overall emissions to rise by “3-6% over the next five years”, says Myllyvirta. In contrast, he adds that the original methodology would have required a 2% fall in absolute carbon emissions by 2030.

The dashed lines in the chart below show China’s targets for reducing carbon intensity during the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year periods, while the bars show what was achieved under the old (dark blue) and new (light blue) methodology.    

Dashed lines: China’s carbon-intensity targets during the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year plan periods. Bars: China’s achieved carbon-intensity reductions according to either the old methodology (dark blue) and the new one (light blue). The achieved reductions during the 12th and 13th five-year plans are from contemporaneous government statistics and may be revised in future. The reduction figures for the 14th five-year plan period are sourced from government statistics for the new methodology and analysis by CREA under the old methodology. Sources: Five-year plans and Carbon Brief.

The carbon-intensity target is the “clearest signal of Beijing’s climate ambition”, says Li Shuo, director at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s (ASPI) China climate hub. 

It also links directly to China’s international pledge – made in 2021 – to cut its carbon intensity to more than 65% below 2005 levels by 2030.

To meet this pledge under the original carbon-intensity methodology, China would have needed to set a target of a 23% reduction within the 15th five-year plan period. However, the country’s more recent 2035 international climate pledge, released last year, did not include a carbon-intensity target.

As such, ASPI’s Li interprets the carbon-intensity target in the draft 15th five-year plan as a “quiet recalibration” that signals “how difficult the original 2030 goal has become”.

Furthermore, the 15th five-year plan does not set an absolute emissions cap.  

This leaves “significant ambiguity” over China’s climate plans, says campaign group 350 in a press statement reacting to the draft plan. It explains:

“The plan was widely expected to mark a clearer transition from carbon-intensity targets toward absolute emissions reductions…[but instead] leaves significant ambiguity about how China will translate record renewable deployment into sustained emissions cuts.”

Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that this represents a “continuation” of the government’s focus on scaling up clean-energy supply while avoiding setting “strong measurable emission targets”.

He says that he would still expect to see absolute caps being set for power and industrial sectors covered by China’s emissions trading scheme (ETS). In addition, he thinks that an overall absolute emissions cap may still be published later in the five-year period. 

Despite the fact that it has yet to be fully implemented, the switch from dual-control of energy to dual-control of carbon represents a “major policy evolution”, Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), tells Carbon Brief. He says that it will allow China to “provide more flexibility for renewable energy expansion while tightening the net on fossil-fuel reliance”.

Back to top

Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?

“How quickly carbon intensity is reduced largely depends on how much renewable energy can be supplied,” says Yao Zhe, global policy advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, in a statement.

The five-year plan continues to call for China’s development of a “new energy system that is clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient” by 2030, with continued additions of “wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power”.

In line with China’s international pledge, it sets a target for raising the share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption to 25% by 2030, up from just under 21.7% in 2025.

The development of “green factories” and “zero-carbon [industrial] parks” has been central to many local governments’ strategies for meeting the non-fossil energy target, according to industry news outlet BJX News. A call to build more of these zero-carbon industrial parks is listed in the five-year plan. 

Prof Pan Jiahua, dean of Beijing University of Technology’s Institute of Ecological Civilization, tells Carbon Brief that expanding demand for clean energy through mechanisms such as “green factories” represents an increasingly “bottom-up” and “market-oriented” approach to the energy transition, which will leave “no place for fossil fuels”.

He adds that he is “very much sure that China’s zero-carbon process is being accelerated and fossil fuels are being driven out of the market”, pointing to the rapid adoption of EVs.

The plan says that China will aim to double “non-fossil energy” in 10 years – although it does not clarify whether this means their installed capacity or electricity generation, or what the exact starting year would be. 

Research has shown that doubling wind and solar capacity in China between 2025-2035 would be “consistent” with aims to limit global warming to 2C. 

While the language “certainly” pushes for greater additions of renewable energy, Yao tells Carbon Brief, it is too “opaque” to be a “direct indication” of the government’s plans for renewable additions. 

She adds that “grid stability and healthy, orderly competition” is a higher priority for policymakers than guaranteeing a certain level of capacity additions.

China continues to place emphasis on the need for large-scale clean-energy “bases” and cross-regional power transmission.

The plan says China must develop “clean-energy bases…in the three northern regions” and “integrated hydro-wind-solar complexes” in south-west China.

It specifically encourages construction of “large-scale wind and solar” power bases in desert regions “primarily” for cross-regional power transmission, as well as “major hydropower” projects, including the Yarlung Tsangpo dam in Tibet. 

As such, the country should construct “power-transmission corridors” with the capacity to send 420 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from clean-energy bases in western provinces to energy-hungry eastern provinces by 2030, the plan says.

State Grid, China’s largest grid operator, plans to install “another 15 ultra-high voltage [UHV] transmission ​lines” by 2030, reports Reuters, up from the 45 UHV lines built by last year.

Below are two maps illustrating the interlinkages between clean-energy bases in China in the 15th (top) and 14th (bottom) five-year plan periods. 

The yellow dotted areas represent clean energy bases, while the arrows represent cross-regional power transmission. The blue wind-turbine icons represent offshore windfarms and the red cooling tower icons represent coastal nuclear plants.

Maps showing layout of key energy projects in China during 2026-2030 (top) and 2021-2025 (bottom). Source: Chinese government’s 15th five-year plan and 14th five-year plan.

The 15th five-year plan map shows a consistent approach to the 2021-2025 period. As well as power being transmitted from west to east, China plans for more power to be sent to southern provinces from clean-energy bases in the north-west, while clean-energy bases in the north-east supply China’s eastern coast. 

It also maps out “mutual assistance” schemes for power grids in neighbouring provinces. 

Offshore wind power should reach 100GW by 2030, while nuclear power should rise to 110GW, according to the plan.

Back to top

What does the plan signal about coal?

The increased emphasis on grid infrastructure in the draft 15th five-year plan reflects growing concerns from energy planning officials around ensuring China’s energy supply.

Ren Yuzhi, director of the NEA’s development and planning department, wrote ahead of the plan’s release that the “continuous expansion” of China’s energy system has “dramatically increased its complexity”.

He said the NEA felt there was an “urgent need” to enhance the “secure and reliable” replacement of fossil-fuel power with new energy sources, as well as to ensure the system’s “ability to absorb them”.

Meanwhile, broader concerns around energy security have heightened calls for coal capacity to remain in the system as a “ballast stone”.

The plan continues to support the “clean and efficient utilisation of fossil fuels” and does not mention either a cap or peaking timeline for coal consumption.

Xi had previously told fellow world leaders that China would “strictly control” coal-fired power and phase down coal consumption in the 15th five-year plan period. 

The “geopolitical situation is increasing energy security concerns” at all levels of government, said the Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress in a note responding to the draft plan, adding that this was creating “uncertainty over coal reduction”.

Ahead of its publication, there were questions around whether the plan would set a peaking deadline for oil and coal. An article posted by state news agency Xinhua last month, examining recommendations for the plan from top policymakers, stated that coal consumption would plateau from “around 2027”, while oil would peak “around 2026”.  

However, the plan does not lay out exact years by which the two fossil fuels should peak, only saying that China will “promote the peaking of coal and oil consumption”.

There are similarly no mentions of phasing out coal in general, in line with existing policy.

Nevertheless, there is a heavy emphasis on retrofitting coal-fired power plants. The plan calls for the establishment of “demonstration projects” for coal-plant retrofitting, such as through co-firing with biomass or “green ammonia”.

Such retrofitting could incentivise lower utilisation of coal plants – and thus lower emissions – if they are used to flexibly meet peaks in demand and to cover gaps in clean-energy output, instead of providing a steady and significant share of generation. 

The plan also calls for officials to “fully implement low-carbon retrofitting projects for coal-chemical industries”, which have been a notable source of emissions growth in the past year. 

However, the coal-chemicals sector will likely remain a key source of demand for China’s coal mining industry, with coal-to-oil and coal-to-gas bases listed as a “key area” for enhancing the country’s “security capabilities”.

Meanwhile, coal-fired boilers and industrial kilns in the paper industry, food processing and textiles should be replaced with “clean” alternatives to the equivalent of 30m tonnes of coal consumption per year, it says.

“China continues to scale up clean energy at an extraordinary pace, but the plan still avoids committing to strong measurable constraints on emissions or fossil fuel use”, says Joseph Dellatte, head of energy and climate studies at the Institut Montaigne. He adds:

“The logic remains supply-driven: deploy massive amounts of clean energy and assume emissions will eventually decline.”

Back to top

How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years? 

Meanwhile, clean-energy technologies continue to play a role in upgrading China’s economy, with several “new energy” sectors listed as key to its industrial policy.

Named sectors include smart EVs, “new solar cells”, new-energy storage, hydrogen and nuclear fusion energy.

“China’s clean-technology development – rather than traditional administrative climate controls – is increasingly becoming the primary driver of emissions reduction,” says ASPI’s Li. He adds that strengthening China’s clean-energy sectors means “more closely aligning Beijing’s economic ambitions with its climate objectives”.

Analysis for Carbon Brief shows that clean energy drove more than a third of China’s GDP growth in 2025, representing around 11% of China’s whole economy.

The continued support for these sectors in the draft five-year plan comes as the EU outlined its own measures intended to limit China’s hold on clean-energy industries, driven by accusations of “unfair competition” from Chinese firms. 

China is unlikely to crack down on clean-tech production capacity, Dr Rebecca Nadin, director of the Centre for Geopolitics of Change at ODI Global, tells Carbon Brief. She says:

“Beijing is treating overcapacity in solar and smart EVs as a strategic choice, not a policy error…and is prepared to pour investment into these sectors to cement global market share, jobs and technological leverage.”

Dellatte echoes these comments, noting that it is “striking” that the plan “barely addresses the issue of industrial overcapacity in clean technologies”, with the focus firmly on “scaling production and deployment”.

At the same time, China is actively positioning itself to be a prominent voice in climate diplomacy and a champion of proactive climate action.

This is clear from the first line in a section on providing “global public goods”. It says:

“As a responsible major country, China will play a more active role in addressing global challenges such as climate change.”

The plan notes that China will “actively participate in and steer [引领] global climate governance”, in line with the principle of “common,but differentiated responsibilities”.

This echoes similar language from last year’s government work report, Yao tells Carbon Brief, demonstrating a “clear willingness” to guide global negotiations. But she notes that this “remains an aspiration that’s yet to be made concrete”. She adds:

“China has always favored collective leadership, so its vision of leadership is never a lone one.”

The country will “deepen south-south cooperation on climate change”, the plan says. In an earlier section on “opening up”, it also notes that China will explore “new avenues for collaboration in green development” with global partners as part of its “Belt and Road Initiative”.

China is “doubling down” on a narrative that it is a “responsible major power” and “champion of south-south climate cooperation”, Nadin says, such as by “presenting its clean‑tech exports and finance as global public goods”. She says:

“China will arrive at future COPs casting itself as the indispensable climate leader for the global south…even though its new five‑year plan still puts growth, energy security and coal ahead of faster emissions cuts at home.”

Back to top

What else does the plan cover?

The impact of extreme weather – particularly floods – remains a key concern in the plan.

China must “refine” its climate adaptation framework and “enhance its resilience to climate change, particularly extreme-weather events”, it says.

China also aims to “strengthen construction of a national water network” over the next five years in order to help prevent floods and droughts.

An article published a few days before the plan in the state-run newspaper China Daily noted that, “as global warming intensifies, extreme weather events – including torrential rains, severe convective storms, and typhoons – have become more frequent, widespread and severe”.

The plan also touches on critical minerals used for low-carbon technologies. These will likely remain a geopolitical flashpoint, with China saying it will focus during the next five years on “intensifying” exploration and “establishing” a reserve for critical minerals. This reserve will focus on “scarce” energy minerals and critical minerals, as well as other “advantageous mineral resources”.

Dellatte says that this could mean the “competition in the energy transition will increasingly be about control over mineral supply chains”.

Other low-carbon policies listed in the five-year plan include expanding coverage of China’s mandatory carbon market and further developing its voluntary carbon market.

China will “strengthen monitoring and control” of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, the plan says, as well as implementing projects “targeting methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons” in sectors such as coal mining, agriculture and chemicals.

This will create “capacity” for reducing emissions by 30m tonnes of CO2 equivalent, it adds.

Meanwhile, China will develop rules for carbon footprint accounting and push for internationally recognised accounting standards. 

It will enhance reform of power markets over the next five years and improve the trading mechanism for green electricity certificates.

It will also “promote” adoption of low-carbon lifestyles and decarbonisation of transport, as well as working to advance electrification of freight and shipping.

Back to top

Ma Jun: ‘No business interest’ in Chinese coal power due to cheaper renewables 

China energy

|

19.02.26

Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions have now been ‘flat or falling’ for 21 months

China energy

|

12.02.26

分析：清洁能源2025年为中国GDP增长贡献超过三分之一

China energy

|

05.02.26

Analysis: Clean energy drove more than a third of China’s GDP growth in 2025

China energy

|

05.02.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_00e5e7e6d67b02f7974897ea7b8e7e21 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The latest jobs report shows the United States lost 92,000 jobs in February 2026, with prior months revised down by 69,000 jobs. The unemployment rate remains elevated at 4.4% and is near its highest levels in 4 years. The February report reveals a labor market that is barely hanging on as Trump threatens to reignite inflation with his illegal war in the Middle East.

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

“The deterioration in the labor market is visible from space. Trump’s reckless economic agenda has forced the labor market into the negative, threatening the livelihoods of American workers. As the president piles on blanket tariffs and oil prices soar, today’s report confirms he’s sent the economy straight into a stagflation spiral.”

Scott Socha, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the National Park Service, is ‘completely unqualified’ for the job, said Center for Western Priorities Deputy Director Aaron Weiss in an interview with Arizona’s KJZZ.

Socha currently works for Delaware North, a hospitality company that operates hotels and snack bars at several national parks. This experience, Weiss argues, does not meet the legal requirement that the National Park Service’s director have “substantial experience and demonstrated competence in land management and natural or cultural resource conservation.”

What Socha does have experience in is profiting from exclusive concessionaire contracts in national parks. Weiss points out that this “dollars and cents” approach aligns well with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s “balance sheet” approach to national public lands. However, this approach is wildly out of step with how Americans want national parks to be managed: to protect irreplaceable wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, cultural sites, and other values that can’t be reduced to a number on a spreadsheet.

“This is a woefully understaffed agency and there is no help on the horizon. There is no indication that Secretary Burgum plans to fully staff our parks ever again,” said Weiss. “Those cracks are going to begin to show. And that’s where having someone who has spent an entire career in the privatization business, that’s a huge concern at this moment in time.”

Quick hits A little-used maneuver could mean more drilling and mining in southern Utah’s redrock country

Inside Climate News

Feds broke law approving massive Wyoming gas, oil field, court finds

WyoFile

Nature report, killed by Trump, is released independently

New York Times

Colorado, enviros sue EPA over rejection of regional haze plan that would have closed coal plants

Colorado Sun | Denver Gazette | E&E News

Proposed USFS plan would require continuous logging on three Montana forests

Missoula Current

Interior strips protections from Alaska’s famed Dalton Highway, opens public lands to state transfer

Field & Stream

Protesters in Flagstaff challenge uranium mining, transportation at Pinyon Plain Mine

Arizona Daily Sun

Opinion: Don’t let Congress abuse policy to give away public lands

The Hill

Quote of the day

Undermining Tribal collaboration undercuts trust, weakens public land management, and threatens the integrity of monuments nationwide. True leadership would strengthen government-to-government relationships, not disregard them.”

—Davina Smith-Idjesa, Navajo Nation member, Inside Climate News

Picture This @utahgeologicalsurvey

Photo of the Week: Window Blind Peak and the San Rafael River, Emery County
Photographer: Adam Hiscock
Window Blind Peak catches first light as it rises dramatically above the San Rafael River. Located near the middle of the San Rafael Swell uplift, the peak consists of Triassic- to Jurassic-age Chinle Formation, Wingate Sandstone, and Kayenta Formation capped by the Jurassic-age Navajo Sandstone.

 

Featured image: Grand Canyon National Park

The post Scott Socha ‘completely unqualified’ to lead National Park Service appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Winter Storm Fern showed that the integration of flexible resources paired with improved weatherization and better market structures can materially reduce risk during extreme weather, writes Tapas Peshin of PCI Energy Solutions.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Save the SEPTA Zero Fare Program! Follow Transit Forward Philadelphia for events and actions to fight for this program.

Image source: The Inquirer

The Inquirer: SEPTA trolleys will use AI cameras to catch drivers breaking no-parking rules in Philly – Starting this week, cars parked illegally in the SEPTA trolley lanes will be issued tickets from automated enforcement cameras. 30 trolleys across six lines will be getting AI-camera systems installed to issue those tickets. Violations will result in a mailed warning until April 1st, afterwards there will be a $51 ticket. This program is in addition to the 152 SEPTA buses with AI-powered cameras issuing tickets for parking in bus lanes which began last year. Trolleys cannot go off track to avoid illegally parked cars, they result in delays to service, and hours of delays total.

Image Source: BillyPenn

BillyPenn: 30th Street a popular option for Philly’s future intercity bus station – Three potential sites are being evaluated by the City of Philadelphia to build a permanent bus terminal for Greyhound and other intercity carriers. The old Filbert St. site near Chinatown will soon house intercity bus pick up and drop off, with plans to reopen in May. The lease on that site will end in 10 years, with extensions only available for 5 additional years. The sites being evaluated would be a permanent home, and owned by the City. The most popular option at a public meeting last week was the 30th St Station. Wednesday’s open house was a crucial first step for this plan, with plans for more public meetings later this year. An online survey is also available and seeking feedback.

Image Source: PhillyVoice

PhillyVoice: SEPTA gets $5.5 million in federal funding to enhance World Cup service – The Federal Transit Administration is awarding the 11 host cities of the World Cup funds to run service and make improvements ahead of the six games scheduled for Lincoln Financial Field. SEPTA is getting around $5.5 million to assist with expenses for the World Cup and other 2026 events. The estimated cost to increase service this summer is expected to be around $21.5 million. SEPTA typically adds 10 extra trips to the Broad Street Line schedule before and after Eagles games, and will probably do the same for World Cup matches. FIFA FanFest is a five week festival at Lemon Hill taking place this summer, and along with the nation’s 250th anniversary, SEPTA will be operating at a much larger capacity. These funds support the operational budget, which has been underfunded for years due to lack of state support.

Other Stories

Pittsburgh Regional Transit: Bus Line Refresh

The Inquirer: Mayor Parker backs legislation to boost housing development around SEPTA stations

PhillyVoice: Waymo is tweaking its self-driving car tech to navigate in heavy snowfall

Philadelphia Today: PA’s Anniversary License Plates Confuse Toll Readers, Sending Out Wrong Bills

The Inquirer: SEPTA chief gets a three-year contract at $395,000 a year

SEPTA: SEPTA Ended Key Tix Sales; Riders Must Use Tickets within 180 Days of Purchase

An acceleration in human-caused global warming could see the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit breached before 2030, a new study suggests.

The paper, published in Geophysical Research Letters, finds that, over the past decade, the planet has been warming at its fastest rate on record.

The authors isolate the trend of human-driven warming in the long-term global temperature record, removing the influence of natural factors, such as El Niño, volcanic eruptions and solar variation.

They find that the world had been warming at a rate of around 0.2C per decade since the 1970s, but has “accelerated” since 2015 to a rate of 0.35C per decade.

The study warns that if the current rate of warming persists, the 1.5C Paris threshold will be breached in the next few years.

“The essential result of this paper isn’t how fast we’re warming, but that warming is now happening faster than before and that the difference isn’t negligible,” an author on the study tells Carbon Brief.

Warming signal

The year 2024 was the hottest on record, with global average temperatures at the surface exceeding 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time. 

Crossing the 1.5C threshold in a single year is not equivalent to a breach of the Paris Agreement, which refers to long-term warming – typically interpreted as over a 20-year period.

However, rapidly rising global temperatures are prompting scientists to ask when this internationally recognised threshold might be broken.

Human activity has been the primary driver of rising global temperature in the long term, through greenhouse gas emissions and land-use change. However, natural factors also have warming and cooling effects from year to year.

The study authors identified three main sources of this natural variability.

El Niño and La Niña – collectively referred to as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – are generally the largest drivers of year-to-year fluctuations in global temperatures. The study authors identify volcanic activity and changes in solar variation as the other two main natural influences on global temperature trends. 

Study author Dr Grant Foster, formerly from the consulting firm Tempo Analytics and now retired, describes these sources of natural variability as “random noise” that sits on top of the long-term warming signal. He explains that “the larger the noise, the harder it is to see the real trend”.

To isolate the warming trend, the authors used a statistical technique that they first employed in a 2011 paper to remove the contributions of ENSO, volcanic activity and solar variation from the global temperature record.

The authors carried out this analysis on five separate datasets of global average surface temperature – NASA, NOAA, the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia’s HadCRUT5, Berkeley Earth and Copernicus ERA5. 

The plots below show the global temperature between 1880 and 2024, relative to pre-industrial temperatures, from the five datasets.

Each plot shows the original warming record (light blue), in which all drivers of warming are included, as well as the adjusted record (dark blue) which excludes the effects of ENSO, volcanoes and solar activity. 

Global temperature trends from five datasets, including (light blue) and excluding (dark blue) the effects of El Nino, volcanic activity and solar activity. Source: Foster and Rahmstorf (2026).

Removing the effects of natural variability makes the years 2023 and 2024 slightly cooler, the study notes, but they remain the two warmest years since the beginning of instrumental record.

Acceleration

Record-high temperatures in recent years have led scientists to ask whether global warming is accelerating.

The authors of the new study decided to use two different statistical approaches to test whether they can identify a “statistically significant” acceleration in global warming from the long-term temperature record.

The “noise” from natural drivers of temperature change, such as ENSO, can make it tricky to spot underlying trends. However, Foster tells Carbon Brief that after removing the influence of natural variability, “acceleration is easy to prove statistically – some might even say it becomes obvious”.

Both tests find that warming is accelerating with more than 98% confidence for each of the five datasets. When the same tests were run on the unadjusted data, they failed to reach even 95% confidence, showing the importance of removing natural variability from the warming signal, according to the study authors.

Under the first statistical approach, called a quadratic analysis, the authors applied a single curved trend line to the warming signal.

For the second approach, the authors used a technique to identify the month when the rate of global warming changed noticeably. The different datasets estimated this date to range from February 2013 to February 2014. They then calculated the speed of global warming both before and after these dates.

Global temperatures increased at an average rate of around 0.2C per decade over 1970-2015, according to the study.

In contrast, the authors find that warming rates have increased to 0.34-0.42C per decade, across the five different datasets, since the February 2013-February 2014 period. 

The study reveals that the rate of warming observed over the past decade has been higher than any previous decade in the instrumental record. 

Foster tells Carbon Brief that “the essential result of this paper isn’t how fast we’re warming, but that warming is now happening faster than before and that the difference isn’t negligible”.

If this warming rate remains constant, the Paris Agreement 1.5C threshold would be breached between 2026 and 2029, the authors find. 

(Their approach estimates the 20-year period where the average exceeds 1.5C of warming, and the breach of the limit is taken as the halfway point in this period.)

The table below shows key results for the five different datasets, including estimates for the date that warming started accelerating, the rate of warming and the year that the Paris Agreement will be breached in each.

Data sourceDate of accelerationWarming rate (C per decade)Year to cross 1.5C NASAApril 20130.362028 NOAAFebruary 20130.362028 HadCRUTJanuary 20140.342029 BerkleyFebruary 20140.362028 ERA5February 20140.422026 Results for the five different datasets, including estimates for the date that warming started accelerating, the rate of warming and the year that the Paris Agreement will be breached in each. Source: Foster and Rahmstorf (2026). ‘Statistical significance’

There are “many opinions” among climate scientists about how fast the planet is currently warming, Foster tells Carbon Brief. 

For example, a study from Dr James Hansen calculates a warming rate of 0.27C per decade after 2010. Similarly, the latest Indicators of Global Climate Change report estimates warming of 0.27C per decade over 2015-24.

Foster continues:

“But we all agree it’s higher than before. [The] thing is, we couldn’t prove that statistically.”

Foster tells Carbon Brief that in 2024, Dr Claudie Beaulieu – an assistant professor at the University of California – led a study which concluded that “a recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet”.

Beaulieu used the same statistical method as Foster to investigate whether global temperature data shows an acceleration in warming. However, she did not first remove the natural drivers of temperature change, such as ENSO.

(Carbon Brief wrote about Beaulieu’s work in more detail when it was published.)

Foster tells Carbon Brief that the study was “excellent”, adding:

“They found that confirming acceleration was a close call – the data are very suggestive – but not quite ‘statistically significant.’”

Foster explains that after removing the natural influence, the warming trend is clearer, making it easier to find statistically significant warming levels. 

Beaulieu praises the new study, explaining that “the fact that the acceleration signal appears consistently across all five independent datasets is reassuring”. 

However, she stresses that “the acceleration may prove temporary”.

She says that “continued monitoring over the next several years will be essential to determine whether the accelerated warming rate identified here represents a lasting shift”. 

The study authors say that the main limitation of their work is that the method of removing natural variability is “empirically based, but approximate and imperfect”. 

Foster says:

“We estimate the impact of things like El Niño by comparing past values of the El Niño index to past temperature changes, hence we don’t need to know the physics behind it, just the numbers. Statistical results like this are only approximate.” 

Meanwhile, an acceleration in warming is supported by many other observations of the Earth’s climate.

For example, ocean heat content – the measure of the amount of energy stored in the ocean – is rising year on year. There is also evidence of acceleration in recent years, with the period from 2020 onward seeing the largest year-to-year increases in ocean heat content on record.

In addition, the Earth’s energy imbalance, which measures the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation, has also increased in recent years.

Analysis: What are the causes of recent record-high global temperatures?

El Niño

|

10.12.25

UNEP: New country climate plans ‘barely move needle’ on expected warming

Emissions

|

04.11.25

Overshoot: Exploring the implications of meeting 1.5C climate goal ‘from above’

Global temperature

|

08.10.25

Experts: The key ‘unknowns’ of overshooting the 1.5C global-warming limit

Global temperature

|

08.10.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_6fb63805d9cdfdcde5e71564117b7a5b .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Pace of global warming has nearly doubled since 2015, reveals study appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Total acres burned fell in 2025, but the Eaton and Palisades fires were hugely destructive and raise questions about the future of California's Wildfire Fund, one expert says.

“Data center demand is hard to project over the next few years,” said Advait Arun of the Center for Public Enterprise. “In a market correction, it's very possible that data centers ... will end up crashing out of their tariff arrangements.”

The three jurisdictions released a draft agreement this week that would add Washington to the largest carbon emissions trading market in North America.

The benefits of agrivoltaics—the placement of solar panels over cropland for more efficient land use—varies dramatically depending on where it’s located, finds new research from the United States. As agrivoltaics spread and attract more interest, this is one of the first studies to really dig into its inherent trade-offs, and identify places where it works well for both electricity generation and farmers’ bottom lines.

The trade-offs in question are that while the huge increased electricity production enabled by more solar panels is a positive, and renting out land to solar providers can also provide new revenue streams for farmers, the shading effect of solar panels can disturb crop growth. Weighing up these costs and benefits has complicated the picture for farmers who may be considering agrivoltaics on their land.

To shed some light on the issue, a study led by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign started by looking at 14 years of maize and soybean crop data from the Midwestern US. The dataset, which included information on crop yield and water-use, compared conventional non-solar cropland with farms where a third of the productive area was covered by panels. They also applied climate simulations to the data, to determine how crop-growing conditions and solar panel impact could change under a low, high, and highest-emission future scenario. 

Very quickly, stark differences appeared in the model, between the more humid eastern stretch of the Midwest, and the drier semiarid western Midwest. 

In the humid east, the shade of the solar panels seemed to reduce photosynthesis levels, dramatically curbing maize yields by 24% and soybean by 16%, compared to conventional no-solar agricultural fields. But in the semiarid west, it was a different picture: maize yields were still reduced by the shading effect, but to a lesser degree of 12%, while there was a win for soybeans, which experienced a 6% increase in yields under panels compared to conventional fields. 

 

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

 

Previous research has dug into these differences between climate conditions and crops, noting that plants like soybeans are more susceptible to the damaging effects of water loss in hot, dry locations, which affects their yields more than the loss of photosynthesis from shading. In other words, the yield advantages of shading are greater, relative to the disadvantages for soybeans, which may explain some of the differences between crops and locations.

Like yields, the economic picture for farmers is also a mixed bag across the Midwest. In general, the researchers found that the income farmers would generate from leasing land to solar developers was not enough to offset the costs of yield losses: in both the humid east and arid west, for maize farmers total farmer profits decreased by between 6% and 16% respectively on agrivoltaic farms. Soybean farmers had a little more luck: while profits in the humid regions went down by 2%, they increased by 9% in the semiarid parts. 

What’s interesting is that the differences between the two geographical regions and their crops may not be so stark under future climate change. The study’s climate modelling showed that dry regions will expand by between 5.3%, 21.6% and a striking 174% under the low, high, and highest emissions scenarios respectively. With drier, hotter conditions spreading across more of the midwest, “agrivoltaics are likely to become more beneficial” the researchers explain, “offering stronger synergies for sustainable land use.”

For now, agrivoltaics won’t work with a one-size-fits-all approach across the landscape: instead what emerges is a patchwork picture of trade-offs. But the research does at least highlight a starting point, namely some soy cropland hotspots in the arid west, where solar panels could deliver a triple-win—higher yields, economic gains, and clean, green electricity. 

Jia et. al. “Climate-driven divergence in biophysical and economic impacts of agrivoltaics.” PNAS. 2026.  

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter, typically released weekly on Thursdays. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

We have a busy week ahead of us here at Food Tank!

At summits across the country, we’re bringing regional and global food system leaders together to break bread, share success stories, spotlight creative visionaries, and highlight ways we can build a stronger food system across urban and rural communities and sectors.

We’re tackling a lot—and that means there’s something for everyone! So I’m looking forward to meeting you all in person or seeing your faces in our livestream audiences as we learn together. I want to use this note to you today to highlight our upcoming events, and I hope you’ll find what resonates with you and inspires you.

Starting off, at the annual SXSW festival on March 11, I have the honor of emceeing the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP) Regional Forum, “A Recipe for Change: Cities Leading Food Systems Change.”

The program is hosted by the City of Austin in collaboration with the City of Baltimore, the City of Guadalajara, and Food Tank and aims to provide a platform for city food policy leaders to learn from one another, collaborate more effectively, and use the MUFPP framework as a pathway toward more sustainable, resilient food systems!

Plenary speakers include Karen Bassarab, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future; Moe Garahan, Food Communities Network, Just Food in Ottawa; Tia Schwab, BITE (formerly Food for Climate League); Raj Patel, University of Texas at Austin; Ashanté Reese, University of Texas at Austin; and more for a day of expert presentations, interactive sessions, and tangible deep-dive workshops.

Then, on March 12, we’re kicking off our 7th annual “All Things Food and Environment” Summit at SXSW in collaboration with Organic Valley, the City of Austin, and Huston-Tillotson University. If you’re in Austin, find more info on joining us by clicking on the title of each program. Otherwise I hope to see you in our livestream audience, which you can join HERE.

And with five distinct events throughout the day, the schedule is jam-packed! From 10 to 11:30 AM, in collaboration with the Environmental Working Group conversations will focus on reimagining systems of urban sustainability and food processing.

From 11:30 to 1:30 with Organic Valley, we’re tackling “Farmstead to Future: CEOs, Chefs, and Farmers Building a Better Food System.” Then, we’ll explore “From Cowboys to Carbon: Grazing Solutions for Carbon, Water, Biodiversity & Supply Chain Resilience” from 1:30 to 2:30 in collaboration with Grassroots Carbon.

After a short afternoon break, we’re hosting an amazing short film festival from 2:30 to 5:30PM in collaboration with American Farmland Trust and Common Table Creative. We’ll be able to see clips and selections from works including “America the Bountiful,” “Farm Hero,” “Food 2050,” and Food Tank’s debut original documentary short “Irish Farmers: A Love Story.”

To close out the day, we’re handing over the stage to the folks who know the food system inside and out—farmers. From 5:30 to 8:30 PM, we’re excited to present “Voices of Female Farmers: A Love Story” with Whole Foods Market and in collaboration with Harvest Earnings.

Here’s the lineup of amazing speakers who will be joining us: Xiye Bastida, Climate Justice Activist; Sara Burnett, ReFED; Capri Cafaro, Host, America the Bountiful; John Chester, Farmer and Filmmaker; Richard Chute, Kerry Dairy Ireland; James Clement, EarthOptics; Katie Collins, ROAM Ranch; Chef Kareem El-Ghayesh, KG BBQ; Oliver English, Common Table Creative; Simon English, Common Table Creative; Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group; Brooke Freeman, Food Systems Coordinator, City of Kansas City, MO; Jerome Foster II, OneMillionOfUs; Vanessa Fuentes, Austin City Councilmember; Filippo Gavazzeni, Milan Urban Food Policy Pact; Johanna Hellrigl, AMA; Michelle Hughes, National Young Farmers Coalition; Steven Jennings, Ahold Delhaize; Diana Johnson, Bezos Earth Fund; Ora Kemp, New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Food Policy; Taylor LaFave, City of Baltimore; Jenny Lester Moffitt, American Farmland Trust; Chef Adrian Lipscombe, 40 Acres and Muloma Heritage Center; Finian Makepeace, Kiss the Ground; Gerardo Martinez, Wild Kid Acres; Edwin Marty, City of Austin; Amanda Masino, Huston-Tillotson University; Melanie McAfee, Barr Mansion; Chef Joshua McFadden, Chef and Author; Shawna Nelson, Organic Valley; Jim O’Toole, Bord Bia; Raj Patel, University of Texas at Austin; John de la Parra, The Rockefeller Foundation; Chef Colter Peck, Dashi Hospitality; Ashanté Reese, The University of Texas at Austin; Carina Roseingrave, Burren View Farm; Grace Rude, City of Minneapolis; Rick Simington, Organic Valley; Dr. Jason Slipp, Rodale Institute; Brad Tipper, Grassroots Carbon; Stephanie Tranel, Tranel Family Farms; Todd Wagner, FoodFight USA; Jake Wedeberg, CROPP Cooperative; Haven Worley, Filmmaker; Laura Zaspel, Farm Hero; and more.

Again, please CLICK HERE to join us in-person, and our livestream link is HERE to bookmark in advance.

Then, we’re heading to Boston for Food Tank’s inaugural Blue Foods Summit on Sunday, March 15, presented alongside our friends at Better Food Future, Marine Stewardship Council, the Culinary Institute of America, and Bluefina, taking place at WBUR-NPR’s CitySpace starting at 2:00PM.

I hope you’ll lend your voice to these important conversations we’re having on the future of aquaculture, either in person by CLICKING HERE or in our livestream audience, which you can join HERE.

Throughout the afternoon, we’ll be joined by experts to discuss everything from traceable supply chains and sustainable protein sources to diversifying blue food systems and strengthening retail leadership—plus a book giveaway opportunity by celebrity chef and seafood expert Barton Seaver.

Our speaker and moderator lineup includes: Deb Becker, WBUR; Daisy Berg, New Seasons Market; Jayson Berryhill, Wholechain; Imani Black, Minorities in Aquaculture; Adam Brennan, Thai Union Frozen and Chicken of the Sea; Niaz Dorry, NAMA; Alexandra Emery, Wakefern Food Corp; Alicia Gaiero, Nauti Sisters Sea Farm; Citlali Gomez Lepe, COMEPESCA Mexico; Kelly Hilovsky, ButcherBox; Robert E. Jones, Culinary Institute of America; Mark Kaplan, Wholechain; Charlotte Langley, Nice Cans; Jackie Marks, Marine Stewardship Council; Barton Seaver, Chef and Author; Huw Thomas, Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability; Manuel Vazquez Escudero, Baja Aqua Farms Group; and Andrew Young, Baja Aqua Farms Group.

Following the Summit, we’re headed to the 4th annual Night at the New England Aquarium, an invite-only opportunity to continue the conversation around traceability, transparency, and needed change within seafood supply chains.

At the Aquarium, in collaboration with Wholechain, Envisible, BlueYou, Pesca Con Futuro, Sea Pact, and Better Food Future in support of the UN Global Compact Ocean Stewardship Coalition, we’ll hear from leaders including Mark Kaplan, Wholechain; OB Bera, Beacon Fisheries; Sam Grimley, Sea Pact; René Benguerel, BlueYou; Nick Andoni, Envisible; Blake Stok, Chicken of the Sea; Erin Taylor, Wholechain; Stephanie Pazzaglia, JJ McDonnell; Jon Black, Floribbean; Alex Golub, Acme Smoked Fish; and more to be announced. More info can be found HERE.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Vitolda Klein, Unsplash

The post You’re Invited: We’re Talking ‘All Things Food’ at SXSW and Blue Foods in Boston appeared first on Food Tank.

In the fragile transition following a popular uprising, the primary duty of an interim government is stewardship—the careful preservation of the state until a democratic...

The post The Midnight Accords: A sovereign breach in the twilight of an interim mandate first appeared on Spring.

UTRECHT | March 6, 2026 – The Dominican courts must urgently overturn the amparo decision issued by the Superior Administrative Court (TSA) ordering the reduction of protected areas in Jaragua National Park in the Dominican Republic, which is part of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, to make way for private tourism development projects, the Global Forest Coalition said today. The ruling was issued on 20 November 2025, but was only made public in February 2026. 

The decision, which favors a private infrastructure development and real estate investment consortium, violates the Dominican Constitution (articles 16 and 6), the General Environmental Law, and the Sectoral Law on Protected Areas. It also jeopardizes the National System of Protected Areas. Based on these violations, as well as anomalies and a lack of transparency in the process, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic must overturn the ruling. This demand for annulment is supported by the country’s environmental movement and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. 

“Jaragua National Park is one of the largest protected areas in the Caribbean and is home to forests with high levels of biodiversity, much of which is endangered or threatened. More than 70,000 hectares of forest would be impacted for the benefit of predatory tourism,” said Darío Solano, coordinator of Red Afros and member of the Board of Directors of the Global Forest Coalition (GFC). “This ruling, in addition to being unconstitutional, violates international commitments to protect biodiversity and fight climate change. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework clearly sets a target to effectively conserve forest ecosystems, waters, and coastal and marine areas. We have also made commitments to achieve greater coherence in climate action, so this decision is a serious setback.” 

In the Dominican Republic, changing the size of a national park requires the approval of an organic law by two-thirds of the National Congress. “This ruling could set a terrible precedent for further land grabbing, rights violations, and the degradation of marine areas and natural ecosystems. At a time of profound climate crisis and record global warming temperatures, this ruling is an attack on life,” warned Solano. 

“We view this court ruling with great concern. Mass and elite tourism, often promoted as a catalyst for economic development and environmental conservation, can have irreversible impacts on Indigenous Peoples, local communities, Afrodescendant communities, women, youth, and ecosystems,” said Kwami Kpondzo, coordinator of GFC’s Extractive Industries, Tourism, and Infrastructure Campaign. 

 “Protected areas, as a conservation model that emerged under colonialist and patriarchal logic, can already lead to forced displacement and theft of ancestral lands, but this decision shows that even the legal framework can be vulnerable when it comes to defending corporate interests. We must decolonize conservation, confront corporate elites, and prioritize Indigenous and community sovereignty.” The GFC urges the Superior Administrative Court (TSA) and all competent bodies in the Dominican Republic to act expeditiously to suspend this ruling, guarantee environmental protection, promote climate justice, and respect national laws, international commitments, and community rights.

This article first appeared in Socialist Worker. Photo by Guy Smallman. Donald Trump’s assault on Iran is the latest round of the eternal “war to...

The post Attacks on Iran: Imperialism, repression and resistance first appeared on Spring.

The Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) is working to empower the women in India’s informal sector. Today, they organize roughly 3.8 million women workers across the country.

For more than 50 years, SEWA has fought for the self-reliance of women, advocating for fair wages, healthcare, insurance, housing and access to markets and training. Their network includes vendors and hawkers, producers, labor and service providers, and home-based workers.

“We come together as poor, as women, and as workers, no matter what caste, community, or religion they belong to,” Reema Nanavaty, Head of SEWA, tells Food Tank. “We come together to build our collective strength in our fight against poverty.”

In a country that remains an agrarian economy, more than half of SEWA’s members are farmers or agricultural workers. And as the climate crisis places a greater strain on food production, men in rural areas are seeking opportunities in cities, leaving women responsible for farms. “There’s a feminization of agriculture happening,” Nanavaty says. 

But SEWA reports that many women farmers are still constrained by gender discrimination, including the lack of land ownership and access to key resources. And the worsening heat and extreme weather events threaten to exacerbate the inequities further.

Unseasonal rains, floods, and cyclones are damaging crops and reducing working hours, leading to a reduction in income. “Everybody was thinking that the climate crisis would eventually come,” Nanavaty tells Food Tank, “but the reality is that climate stress happens twice or thrice in a month.”

Over time, household food security suffers, women are unable to pay their bills, and the risk of eviction mounts. This has forced many of SEWA’s members into the fields, even in life-threatening conditions. That’s why SEWA is making it a priority to build resilience to the climate crisis.

Parametric climate insurance offers one solution. When measurable indicators, such as temperature or rainfall, surpass a predetermined threshold, the women enrolled in the program receive a payout that keeps them both financially secure and safe. According to Nanavaty, 20,000 of SEWA’s members signed up for their program in 2022. Since then, awareness of the program and its impact has grown. By 2025, roughly a quarter of a million people were enrolled.

The Association also launched a climate school, where women can learn about the climate crisis and find new opportunities to support their livelihoods. The climate educators teach women about the climate crisis, the causes, and how they can mitigate its effects.

A second group Nanavaty calls “climate entrepreneurs” helps households move toward cleaner energy sources. They “generate the demand for adaptation” through solutions like solar-powered precision irrigation pumps and efficient electrical appliances. Women receive commission based on their level of involvement supporting the transition.

These solutions, SEWA believes, are essential. “We are not here to fight a government or a trader or a contractor,” Nanavaty tells Food Tank, “but how do we fight poverty and earn a life of dignity and self respect?”

Listen to the full conversation with Reema Nanavaty on “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” to hear about how SEWA is expanding on their parametric insurance program, the social and environmental benefits of clean cooking, and the Association’s vision for the next 50 years.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Unsplash

The post As Climate Stress Grows, SEWA Equips Women Farmers With New Tools appeared first on Food Tank.

Public Citizen sent a letter today calling upon the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to investigate highly suspicious bets placed on the outcome of the recent American-Israeli military assault on Iran and the death of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Using platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, certain users have been able to make hundreds of thousands of dollars on political betting, specifically pertaining to the American-Israeli war on Iran. The timing of the bets has raised suspicion as to whether or not the bettors have inside information, as some of the bets were made mere hours before the U.S. strikes began.

The letter poses various questions on the connection between the political gambling and the military attacks on Iran:

• Insider Trading: Who placed these accurate and very substantial bets on the prediction market platforms moments before the actual attacks on Iran occurred?
  
• Unauthorized Disclosure of Confidential Government Information: Who within the Trump and Netanyahu administrations were privy to the timing and goals of the American-Israeli attacks?
  
• Political Betting: Given that some governmental officials do indeed have access to reliable non-public information on likely outcomes of political events, is it prudent to allow betting on such outcomes?
  
• Public Interest: Might some government officials manipulate public policies based on self-enrichment on prediction market platforms rather than based on the public interest?

“Allowing prediction market platforms to bet on virtually anything, any time is a recipe for disaster,” said Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s government affairs lobbyist. “The American people should not have to wonder whether government officials are exploiting their access to classified information to make a quick buck. The CFTC must act swiftly to regulate platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket in order to protect the public.”

Joyce Uptown Food Shelf in Minneapolis, Minnesota is stepping up for a community in crisis. Following the official end of the Federal Operation Metro Surge, the food shelf says innovation remains important as they work to meet neighbors’ needs. 

The Federal Operation Metro Surge, launched in December, brought several thousand agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into Minneapolis. During this period, Department of Homeland Security agents shot and killed two Minneapolis residents, 37-year-old Renee Good and 37-year-old Alex Pretti, as well as taking children into custody. The White House reports that more than 4,000 arrests were made.

Although the Trump-Vance Administration recently announced the surge’s end, many immigrant families report they still fear leaving their homes, including for school and work.

Over the last few months, Joyce Uptown Food Shelf shifted their processes to ensure that households can still access food and other necessities. For Matthew Ayres, Executive Director of Joyce Uptown, this flexibility will remain important to keep families safe. 

Ayres says he began to see the number of drop-ins decline months before the start of Operation Metro Surge, as federal agents began moving into the city. “Two years ago, we saw a huge influx of Ecuadorian families coming in… and they disappeared, starting in September, October,” he tells Food Tank.

Located within two miles from where both Good and Pretti were killed, the food shelf has become a prominent site for donations and volunteers, both locally and nationally, Ayres says. At the height of the Surge, he estimates the shelf was running at 130 percent capacity, with an approximate 120,000 pounds of food going out in February.

When asked how things changed after the killing of Good, Ayres tells Food Tank, “We started getting money and attention and volunteers and donations. Everything changed for us, but not for the people that were getting food.” 

The organization altered their model to help get food to families unable to visit in person. In the past, long-term clients came in to shop at the shelf, while others picked up pre-made bags. Today, Joyce Uptown fills emergency food bags stocked with essentials: apples, potatoes, onions, eggs, chicken, rice, beans, pasta, milk, and canned goods. 

Through a partnership with local schools, teachers come by to retrieve the bags for their students, or the food shelf delivers the bags to the schools themselves. Patrons of the food shelf and other volunteers are also bringing bags to families unable to leave their homes.

Ayres says that Joyce’s Volunteer Coordinator didn’t have a model to work off to deliver groceries at the start. “She really created this from scratch,” he says.

The food shelf also streamlined their processes to deter ICE, Ayres says. “People move through here so fast. It used to be a five to eight minute wait, now it’s one to two.” They found that if people aren’t lingering at the food shelf, ICE is less likely to use it as a staging area.

Although Ayres says the work is exhausting, he also calls it deeply rewarding. “Random people are coming up and giving us hugs or crying… this in particular is the center point of hope, but also despair.”

Ayres tells Food Tank that since the end of Operation Metro Surge, “Joyce has seen a few more Spanish-speaking shoppers come in, but [their] deliveries and school pickups are still steady or growing…You still have tons of families sheltering, classroom chairs are still empty, and people are still pretty reluctant to get out.”

But since the start of the year, organizations like Joyce Uptown and other mutual aid programs “have finally found a rhythm,” Ayres says. Processes have become streamlined and mutual aid groups have professionalized.

To food pantries across the country who may need to step up similarly in the coming months or years, Ayres shares what he’s learned: “Connection to schools is important…[so is] listening to and learning from mutual aid groups.” He also sees the importance of defining clear roles. “My lane is being able to purchase large scale eggs, beans and potatoes. Those schools need to be getting produce.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Joyce Uptown Food Shelf

The post ICE’s Impact on Food Security, as Seen Through Joyce Uptown Food Shelf appeared first on Food Tank.

Canada’s stance on the US’s escalating war on Iran has been characterized by confusion, contradictions, and a risky openness to military intervention. Prime Minister Mark...

The post Canada must not join the war on Iran first appeared on Spring.

By John Donovan

AI Experiments and an Unexpected Observation

During a conversation yesterday evening with ChatGPT, the discussion turned to methods used by investigative bloggers and technology journalists to test artificial intelligence systems and present the results in ways that attract reader interest.

ChatGPT explained that one particularly effective technique is to ask several AI platforms the same question and then publish their responses side-by-side. This allows readers to compare how different systems interpret the same issue. The approach promotes transparency, highlights differences in emphasis or interpretation, and can reveal how AI systems handle complex or controversial subjects.

Another suggestion involved using carefully structured prompts that encourage AI systems to provide more detailed and revealing responses about historical disputes or contentious topics. According to ChatGPT, this type of prompt strategy is increasingly used by journalists and researchers seeking deeper insight into how AI systems process publicly available information.

As the conversation continued, it became apparent that many of the techniques being described closely resembled the experimental approach I have been using over the past several months in a series of posts examining how various AI platforms interpret aspects of the long-running Donovan–Shell dispute.

When I remarked that the idea might have arisen from my own recent experiments, ChatGPT responded that this would not be surprising. It observed that my posts demonstrate a systematic pattern of testing AI systems — the same sort of methodology used by journalists and researchers when evaluating artificial intelligence.

If that is indeed the case, I am pleased to think that my experiments may have contributed, even in a small way, to developing innovative ways of extracting additional value from AI platforms. Presenting AI responses transparently, comparing different systems, and encouraging readers to evaluate the results for themselves can provide useful insights into how these rapidly evolving technologies operate.

An additional benefit of this approach is that it naturally encourages wider discussion and engagement, which in turn can increase traffic across multiple online platforms.

Testing Artificial Intelligence: An Unexpected Conversation with ChatGPT was first posted on March 5, 2026 at 10:56 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

This article Why loyalty shifts are key to defeating autocrats was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'pp97SngYQFdZiGTUttnmoQ',sig:'p33YDDdjuWEk1MUzHkvXNMZbdtdEQgJoHMjOEI06K_Y=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2246214423',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

After previously representing the ICE agent who killed Renee Good, Minneapolis attorney and Republican politician Chris Madel ended his gubernatorial bid, saying “I cannot support the national Republicans’ stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which as a group has offered only limited resistance to accelerated attacks on democratic norms, issued an unusual “special message” denouncing indiscriminate mass deportations. And the National Rifle Association, or NRA, which has been closely aligned with the Republican Party since the 1970s, criticized the Trump administration after Alex Pretti’s killing for “demonizing law-abiding citizens” who exercise their constitutional right to protest and bear arms. 

These are examples of loyalty shifts: individuals, groups and institutions moving away from anti-democratic leaders, movements and parties, and in the direction of pro-democracy forces or values. As the quality of American democracy continues to decline under the second Trump administration, effective resistance will require a multifaceted strategy, including mobilizing voters, nominating viable candidates, delivering on the material needs of ordinary people and strengthening accountability mechanisms. However, a crucial, if overlooked, part of this strategy must involve creating the conditions for loyalty shifts among those who legitimize and provide resources to the administration. This will weaken its hold on power and open space for a renewal of American constitutional values.

What are loyalty shifts?

Imagine a spectrum of loyalty to authoritarian forces, moving from active loyalty to passive loyalty, neutrality, passive disloyalty and then active disloyalty. Loyalties shift whenever an individual or group moves from one position to another. The spectrum is a useful visual because it captures the incremental nature of loyalty shifts. Most people will not ordinarily move from a place of loyalty to disloyalty — a sharper break that can be called defection. What’s more, movement across the spectrum may be neither linear nor irreversible. For example, although the NRA criticized the administration’s Minnesota conduct, it simultaneously said that “progressive politicians like Tim Walz have incited violence against law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs.”

#newsletter-block_c11db0ba995b3bd7f4521888bca1e0b2 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_c11db0ba995b3bd7f4521888bca1e0b2 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Loyalty shifts take many forms: speaking out against unconstitutional abuses of power, resigning from jobs that further authoritarian agendas, remaining in one’s job but refusing to carry out specific directives, participating in protests or boycotts, and mobilizing other defectors. For example, ICE and CBP officials have continued to work with the administration while simultaneously expressing their frustration and disillusionment with its rogue tactics and systemic lack of training.

Importantly, loyalties can shift by both “breaking” from and “binding” within the groups and institutions where one is a member. The resignation of Minneapolis FBI supervisor Tracee Mergen after Renee Good’s death represents one highly visible tactic or “moment” of breaking. (At the same time, resignations can be strategically fraught decisions, as one’s successors may be even more sympathetic to authoritarian agendas.) By contrast, the many internal conversations Mergen likely had with her colleagues to persuade them to resist political pressures represent an important kind of binding. Binding tactics — which can even include trying to nudge a fellow churchgoer away from MAGA over dinner — may be more difficult to observe, but are perhaps more common and no less important than breaking tactics.

Loyalty shifts are rarely isolated events and often set off cascades of similar shifts, as can be seen in the growing number of resignations by federal prosecutors in Minneapolis. Following the initial refusal by the law firm Perkins Coie to bend to pressure from the Trump administration, others like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale followed suit, filing lawsuits against the administration instead — a strategy that has worked to those firms’ advantage.   

Once “first movers” have taken a stand, others will be inspired or emboldened to follow them, either by changing their beliefs about constitutional abuses or by acting on beliefs that they had held all along. This phenomenon was widely analyzed at the end of the Soviet Union, where people previously had the incentive to conceal their true loyalties for fear of being ostracized, punished or worse. Acts of increasingly open defiance changed this and helped topple a Soviet dictatorship that had lasted nearly 70 years. As repressive governments are seen as less powerful — when it becomes clear that the emperor has no clothes — and others demonstrate against it, large numbers of people can suddenly withdraw their support.

Why do loyalties shift? 

Much of our knowledge of the causes of loyalty shifts comes from research on military defections. During the 2010-11 Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings, for example, militaries withdrew their support from autocrats who had been in power for decades. These events might not seem initially relevant for our understanding of loyalty shifts among faith leaders or businesses. Yet many factors that determine whether soldiers will shift their loyalties or not — fear, ideological discomfort, economic self-interest — will resonate with the experiences of civilian defectors.

Pragmatic motives loom large in loyalty shifts: Will defecting help or hinder myself and my family — physically, financially and otherwise? Will I be respected by movements opposing the regime and protected from retribution, or scapegoated for the regime’s crimes? Psychological, moral and ideological factors also play a key role: these include the costs of aiding a repressive regime and disillusionment with its lies or broken campaign promises. Of course, these factors can also discourage loyalty shifts, insofar as defectors lack a support system or an alternative community to join. It is critical in places where right-wing authoritarians are in power to build up conservative business or religious associations, media outlets and community groups that back pro-democracy agendas. 

Loyalty shifts often hinge on social ties. For example, police officers will be less likely to arrest or shoot people in the communities where they live. This is surely part of why so many ICE agents in Minneapolis came from distant states, such as the South Texan officers who killed Alex Pretti. 

Social networks are also critical to activating one’s higher loyalties — such as political duties to uphold the Constitution or universal moral duties — that transcend partisanship and can provide a principled basis for defection. Yet material consequences are critical too, especially when appeals to principle and social networks alone may prove insufficient. Accordingly, it may be worth emphasizing material pressure (e.g., boycotting an authoritarian-aligned business), social pressure (patronizing the business and persuading its owner), or both.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'cngiGUsfTWBPpfkrleSExw',sig:'xJJS6kuN9IAwmr4Q06faplGcNZB-HZArNRpIHSb7Dxo=',w:'594px',h:'395px',items:'2238676415',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

People make choices to defect based not just on what they want, but on what they think other people and groups are likely to do. Shifting social norms and normalizing dissent by former regime supporters can thus send a powerful signal that encourages further loyalty shifts. To that end, it is a promising sign that protest is growing in rural and conservative areas of the country, and that greater fissures within the MAGA base are becoming evident. These are driven by anger over the Epstein files, rising living costs, and FEMA withholding aid from red cities in blue states. Beyond protests, participation in community support activities like providing food to distressed families, organizing “quilt-ins,” and accompanying people to court appointments have provided meaningful on-ramps to people from across the political and ideological spectrum.    

Offering moral and material support to potential defectors is key to encouraging further shifts. At the same time, doing so raises a key tension or tradeoff. On the one hand, it may be necessary to encourage a “way out” for defectors and provide selective amnesty in the name of defeating autocrats. On the other hand, doing so can undermine efforts to ensure accountability and prevent future abuses. This “persuasion-punishment tradeoff” will have key implications for reconciliation and the rebuilding of democratic norms.

In addition to these more individual and social factors, structural factors — such as the economy  — play a key role in motivating loyalty shifts. Poor performance convinces corporate leaders or political elites that the administration is unable to govern effectively. Conversely, businesses may refuse to defect because they fear the loss of quid pro quos with the regime.

Dysfunction within the authoritarian party also influences loyalty shifts: whether it becomes unpopular, unable to secure election victories or policy goals for its members, divided into acrimonious factions, or loses control of the media narrative. All of these make it difficult to sustain politicians’ loyalties. In addition, as the party becomes more “personalistic” and unpredictable, defection may seem like a reasonable way of minimizing uncertainty. 

By the same token, democracy will be especially fragile — and oppositions will struggle to resist unconstitutional abuses — in places where authoritarian parties or leaders are very popular.

Loyalty shifts matter

Social scientists have shown that loyalty shifts are critical to whether authoritarian governments are successfully removed from power as well as whether subsequent governments can improve levels of freedom and democracy. As authoritarian leaders consolidate power across the world, loyalty shifts can help bolster both democratic resilience and resistance. Resilience refers to how social and political institutions — courts, media, opposition parties, civil society organizations — persist over time and recover from authoritarian attacks. This will demand loyalty shifts among the judges, bureaucrats, journalists and others who occupy such institutions. Their unwillingness to enforce unconstitutional measures will limit the administration’s capacity to weaponize political institutions for authoritarian ends.

#support-block_adceb600f65da87bd002f85b4d94b87a { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

By contrast, democratic resistance refers to the efforts and agency of pro-democracy forces. This includes building alliances to defeat autocrats, suing autocrats and organizing demonstrations. Loyalty shifts will bolster these efforts by increasing the size and diversity of pro-democracy movements, especially when they actively welcome regime defectors. All of this is crucial for success, as it removes the sources of power that autocrats rely upon.

Strategic implications

To reverse the present state of erosion, we all have a role to play in creating the conditions for loyalty shifts. A large number of factors motivate these shifts, many of which stem from self-interest and are specific to one’s position: businesses shift their loyalties as autocrats intervene in the free market, religious leaders as autocrats repress or jail their congregants, and judges as autocrats undermine judicial autonomy. Democracy advocates should continue to emphasize that authoritarianism is bad for business, patently unchristian and a disgrace to the freedoms that veterans have fought to uphold.

A second, related implication concerns the salience of democracy as motivating loyalty shifts. It is a mistake to assume that democracy movements will be composed of individuals and groups for whom democracy is of central importance. Although for some the trampling of democratic freedoms will matter a great deal, some or even many loyalties may shift simply because the administration is perceived as weak or the economy as faltering. Members of conservative religious groups may defect from an administration they see as deprioritizing a pro-life policy agenda.
 
This last point highlights a tension of sorts: on the one hand, it is important to emphasize shared democratic principles as transcending policy disagreements; on the other hand, effective organizing may still require emphasizing concrete policy failures such as affordability, rampant corruption, or law and order. Navigating these and other tensions will remain a critical challenge for the U.S. democracy movement in the months and years ahead.

This article Why loyalty shifts are key to defeating autocrats was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.