News Feeds

Governments at the annual oceans summit reaffirmed commitments to protect key marine ecosystems including the high seas and coral reefs, but observers said funding barriers and polluting projects are hampering progress on putting them into practice.

At the Our Ocean Conference in Kenya’s coastal city of Mombasa this week, some 3,000 delegates – including government officials, scientists, business representatives and activists – gathered to discuss ocean protection and push for marine issues to move from the margins to the centre of global climate diplomacy. 

Campaigners said the overall picture was positive. Oceans are gaining more visibility in international climate discussions: from blue carbon ecosystems such as mangroves, to coastal adaptation, marine biodiversity, ocean finance and the High Seas Treaty. 

In this year’s preliminary conference report, the secretariat listed 320 existing ocean commitments worth $6.4 billion, with about $1.1 billion destined to address the climate crisis. Many of these pledges were already announced before the conference.

But as momentum builds ahead of the COP31 climate summit in Türkiye, John Kerry, former US climate envoy and founder of the Our Ocean Conference, warned that the conversations and commitments on ocean protection will mean little if implementation continues to lag behind action. 

• Jun 18, 2026 News West African nations target Eastern Atlantic for early high seas protection At the 11th Our Ocean Conference, African governments launched a bid to have the zone classified as one of the first high-seas protected areas Read more
• Jun 5, 2026 Nature Offshore oil and gas expansion threatens key marine ecosystems, report warns Sea life in countries like Kenya is under threat from planned new oil and gas production, analysis by environmental groups has found Read more
• May 6, 2026 Investigations How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets Shell used its exit from onshore operations in Nigeria to boost its climate credentials, but new reporting shows that the firm continues to trade oil from its former business Read more

“The ocean can no longer be an afterthought in climate policy,” Kerry told delegates at the opening ceremony of the conference. “Now it must become central to our climate solutions.” 

“The challenge before us is not a lack of knowledge. We know exactly what has happened,” he said. “The challenge is whether political will can finally catch up with the science.” 

He added that the meeting taking place on the shores of the Indian Ocean should be remembered as the moment the process moved “from commitments to implementation”. 

The ocean has quietly shielded humanity from the worst impacts of climate change for decades, absorbing around 90% of the excess heat generated by global warming while sustaining the livelihoods of billions of people. 

From pledges to progress

Oceans have been largely absent from international climate negotiations, often treated as a conservation issue rather than a core component of climate action. 

Yet scientists say the ocean absorbs around a quarter of humanity’s annual carbon emissions and plays a critical role in regulating global temperatures.  

Research suggests that ocean-based solutions – from restoring mangroves and seagrass meadows to decarbonising shipping and expanding marine protected areas – could deliver up to 35% of the emissions reductions needed to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius by mid-century. 

That growing recognition has fuelled calls for oceans to play a larger role in climate policy and negotiations. Against that backdrop, the Our Ocean Conference – launched in 2014 to mobilise governments, business, philanthropies and activists – has emerged as a platform for advancing action to keep the planet’s seas healthy. 

According to the conference secretariat, the process has generated more than 2,900 commitments worth nearly $170 billion in the 10 years since its launch. The gathering in Mombasa was the 11th conference and the first to take place in Africa. 

This week, Canada and Jamaica were confirmed as the hosts of the next two Our Ocean conferences in 2027 and 2029. There is none planned for 2028, as the UN Ocean Conference will be co-hosted by South Korea and Chile that year, the secretariat said.  

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

In Mombasa, governments reaffirmed more than 300 commitments linked to the creation of new marine protected areas, reducing marine pollution, and developing sustainable fisheries, among others.

Most of the finance mobilised went to “blue economy” initiatives, including the European Union’s Ocean Eye initiative, which will mobilise €50 million ($57 million) to offset a Trump administration decision to scale back the US Ocean Observatories Initiative and weaken scientific marine data.

“More important than the new pledges is the actual delivery of commitments,” Cynthia Barzuna, who heads the conference secretariat at the World Resources Institute, told Climate Home News. “That is what makes a difference for marine ecosystems and coastal communities.” 

Last year, the secretariat published its first comprehensive assessment of implementation, finding that nearly 80% of commitments made through the conference were either completed or progressing towards completion. 

A side event on the EU’s Ocean Eye initiative at the 11th Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, Kenya. (Photo: Kenya State Department for Blue Economy and Fisheries) Barriers remain

Yet while oceans are climbing the political agenda, significant barriers remain to turning ambition into meaningful action. 

The secretariat’s assessment found that successful projects involved local communities, strengthened local expertise, and secured long-term financing. Many organisations, however, reported difficulties accessing sustained funding, particularly in developing countries. 

African initiatives, for example, tend to rely on short-term project grants, creating what Barzuna described as a “patchwork of impacts on the ground” rather than the systemic change needed to protect marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods. 

Campaigners say a broader challenge lies in ensuring that growing recognition of the ocean’s importance is reflected in wider climate and economic policies. 

While countries have pledged to expand marine protected areas, restore coastal ecosystems and strengthen ocean governance, many continue to pursue activities that place additional pressure on marine environments, including offshore fossil fuel development.

“This year’s Our Ocean Conference comes at a critical moment where the incoming presidencies for COP31 – both Türkiye and Australia – have a strong interest increasing the prominence of the ocean in the COP,” Shamini Selvaratnam, director of International Climate and Clean Energy at the Ocean Conservancy, told Climate Home News. 

“But we cannot talk about ocean health and then continue to explore offshore oil and gas – those two things are incompatible. It’s like asking the dolphin to swim on the land.”  

For supporters of the ocean agenda, the question is no longer whether oceans matter to climate action. The challenge now is ensuring that governments match rising political ambition with funding, implementation and accountability. 

“The ocean has actually been acting as Earth’s life support system – and it has been protecting us,” Kerry told delegates. “The question before us is whether we are willing to protect the ocean in return.” 

The post Mombasa ocean summit drives progress on marine protection, but threats persist appeared first on Climate Home News.

• Time and date: 30 June 2026 from 9.30–17.00 CEST (Rome time)
• Hybrid format: World Food Programme headquarters (Auditorium) in Rome, Italy, and online.

The CFS High-Level Forum on “Harnessing Artificial Intelligence, Digitalization and Data Governance for Food Security and Nutrition” will explore the potential and risks of artificial intelligence and digital technologies in addressing the challenges of food security and nutrition with a focus on promoting inclusive, transparent and accountable data governance in agriculture and food systems.

The discussion will underscore the need for governance on AI and digital technologies to ensure their responsible adoption and the effective use of data in decision-making, to protect and promote people-centred food systems that are based on the right to adequate food.

A summary of the meeting will be presented by the CFS Chairperson at the 54th CFS Plenary Session in October, under Item II on the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World – Strengthening Coordination and Collaborative Actions.

The discussion will also contribute to identifying key messages and policy considerations for future discussions or potential workstreams of the CFS.

Registration

For online participation, please register through this link.

Participants wishing to attend the event in person are kindly requested to register by contacting the CFS Secretariat at cfs@fao.org

Concept Note More information

The post CFS High-Level Forum on Artificial Intelligence, Digitalization and Data Governance appeared first on CSIPM.

Alberta already has the expertise, workforce, and demand to scale building retrofits. What's missing is a consistent, predictable system that makes projects easier to finance and deliver. Utility-led demand-side management (DSM) programs can provide...

In Minneapolis this week, federal prosecutors have announced charges against 15 anti-ICE activists who took part in protests against the Trump administration’s deadly immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities earlier…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

June 15, 2026

Media Contact:

Parson Brown

The Alliance for Appalachia

ParsonBrownPro@gmail.com

540.671.1057

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Community leaders, organizers, and advocates from across Appalachia gathered in Washington June 7–10 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of The Alliance for Appalachia and continue the coalition’s longstanding Week in Washington tradition.

Representatives from the Alliance’s 24 member organizations participated in more than 20 meetings, including meetings with congressional staff of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senators, federal agencies and national advocacy partners to discuss issues affecting Appalachian communities.

As Trump’s executive orders and Congress’s push for permitting reform threaten to limit public input on projects in our communities, participating in our democracy has never been more important. The people most affected deserve a voice in the decisions that shape their future.

Throughout the week, delegates met with officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional committees to discuss environmental justice and the impacts of fossil fuel extraction across our region. Meeting topics included abandoned mine lands, flooding, legacy pollution, the dire need for drinking water infrastructure in southern West Virginia, economic transition, energy development and impacts of data center development and related infrastructure across Appalachia.

On June 9, Alliance members joined the Sierra Club’s Move Your Ash: Rally Against Rolling Back Coal Ash Regulations outside EPA headquarters.

“We call for transparency, accountability, and protections that put people’s health first,” said Scott Shoupe of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth during the rally.

Participants also discussed environmental justice priorities, including opposition to a proposed federal prison on a former mountaintop removal site and support for reintroducing the Environmental Justice for All Act.

Founded in 2006, The Alliance for Appalachia is a regional coalition of 24 organizations working across Appalachia from Pennsylvania to Alabama. The annual Week in Washington brings Appalachian residents directly into conversations with federal policymakers on issues affecting their communities.

For more information, visit www.TheAllianceForAppalachia.org

After two weeks of climate negotiations riven by arguments over finance and science, the UN climate chief expressed disappointment and denounced governments for “cherry-picking” commitments they have already made and waiting for others to move first.

In their final hours on Thursday evening, the talks tried – and failed – to reach a deal that would have balanced developing countries’ demands for reassurance on finance to help them adapt to climate impacts with richer nations’ desire to move forward with work on speeding up emissions reductions in line with science.  

Simon Stiell, the head of the UN climate body, released a statement as the Bonn talks wound up, saying that “in some negotiating rooms, we’ve heard a familiar tendency towards you-first-ism – groups refusing to deliver commitments or allow the process to move forward unless others go first”.  

“This is a recipe for gridlock when we need all negotiating tracks to be moving in the fast lane,” he added.

Gridlock is where the talks ended, with countries unable to agree conclusions on at least three major areas of climate action, including adaptation and mitigation, invoking “Rule 16”. That means they will be taken up again at COP31 in Türkiye in November.

Bonn Bulletin: Finance row threatens to scupper work on adaptation goal

On the emissions reduction (mitigation) work programme, pushback – primarily from fossil-fuel producing nations – has prevented any meaningful progress since its creation at COP27, as countries have been unable to come up with a united vision for its scope and purpose.

Despite many countries expressing disappointment at the end of Bonn, China argued that some common ground had been found that could serve as positive elements to build on at COP31, including that “no one is against mitigation implementation and ambition”.

Adaptation “salt in our wounds”

Small island states and developing nations spoke bitterly of the lack of progress on the global goal on adaptation, which had been expected to launch technical work on putting into practice indicators agreed at COP30 in Brazil, and said it had destroyed trust between countries. 

Negotiations on the goal ended in deadlock after developed countries, including European governments refused to include a target to triple adaptation finance by 2035 that was agreed at COP30 in Brazil, insisting the text should focus on technical work to measure progress on making people more resilient to climate pressures. This was a red line for many vulnerable countries, especially the African group.

“Developed countries are hiding behind procedural arguments by claiming adaptation finance belongs in some other room, on some other day,” said Mohamed Adow, director of Kenya-based think-tank Power Shift Africa. “But climate disasters don’t wait for the right agenda item. Africa is burning and flooding now.”

Delegates from the G-77/China group of developing countries hold last-minute consultations on text at the Bonn climate talks in Germany, June 18, 2026. (Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth) Delegates from the G-77/China group of developing countries hold last-minute consultations on text at the Bonn climate talks in Germany, June 18, 2026. (Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth)

In the final session at Bonn, Fiji’s delegate described the need to adapt to evolving climate risk as a “daily burden”, which he said is a question of water and food security and, in some cases, forcing people to face relocation on the Pacific islands.

“Some of us will now travel more than 30 hours home to report that one of the most fundamental issues we sought progress on here for vulnerable countries has stalled at a time when we need guidance and outcomes the most. In light of overshoot [of 1.5C of warming] and attacks on the science, this is simply further salt in our wounds,” he told the closing plenary as the clock ticked towards midnight local time.

On Wednesday, a coalition of European and climate-vulnerable developing countries accused fossil fuel interests and the “usual suspects” of mounting ”coordinated attacks” on science, as arguments erupted over the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C warming limit and its overshoot and when the next UN climate science reports should be published.

German Environment Minister Carsten Schneider said “an informed, fact-based public debate on the consequences of climate change is vital”.

“This makes attacks on the scientific foundations of climate science – such as those that occurred in Bonn this time – all the more serious. It is encouraging to see a large number of countries from both the Global South and the Global North clearly standing together against this,” he added in a statement on the talks.

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

Stiell urged the Turkish and Australian COP31 co-presidencies to get ministers working “as soon as possible” on the “thorniest issues” in the UN climate process so that negotiations can move into the “fast lane”. The presidencies are under pressure to appoint pairs of ministers to resolve these issues earlier than usual, so that they are well-briefed and know their counterparts ahead of COP31.

Electrification bright spot

Alden Meyer, senior associate for climate diplomacy and geopolitics with E3G, lamented the “limited progress in most of the negotiating rooms” over the past fortnight. “As people across the world suffer the twin crises of mounting climate impacts as well as the sharply higher energy and food prices resulting from the war in the… Gulf, there was no sense of urgency at the Bonn climate talks.” 

He and others observers did, however, welcome a new goal on electrification proposed by COP31 host Turkiye outside of the formal talks under the Global Climate Action Agenda, which also brings in the private sector and cities. 

The electrification target would strive to ramp up the share of final energy consumption provided by electricity to 35% by 2035 from about 20% today by accelerating the switch to technologies such as heat pumps, electric vehicles (EVs) and electric cookers.

COP31 leaders unveil global targets, with spotlight on electrification

Nonetheless, some analysts said such goals lack significance without a global plan to transition away from fossil fuels. Brazil is now working on one, with inputs from countries and civil society, but it is unclear how this will be incorporated into the UN climate process, if at all.

Jasper Inventor, deputy programme director at Greenpeace International, said the stalled talks around climate finance for developing countries and a repeated deadlock on mitigation “took some of the shine off the emergence of a coalition of countries supporting a transition away from fossil fuels at a time where the climate and energy crisis is set to be supercharged” by an emerging El Niño pattern.

Bonn paves way for new just transition mechanism

One key topic that advanced more calmly at the Bonn talks and even achieved some promising consensus was just transition – how to achieve a green economic and social shift that is fair from the global to the local level. Countries approved the terms of reference under which the just transition work programme (JTWP), which began in 2023, will be reviewed. 

And following up on a COP30 decision to develop a mechanism to guide and enable support for just transition initiatives, which was hailed by civil society as a big win, countries in Bonn provided a first set of options on its structure and other elements of how it will operate, with a view to it being launched at COP31.

Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation

Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition at Climate Action Network International, noted that “it will require a bit of work between now and COP31 to have an agreement” on what is being billed as the “Belém-to-Antalya Mechanism”. Informal discussions could take place, for example, during Regional Climate Week in Baku in October, or at the invitation of the COP31 presidency in Australia, she added.

“The next three months will determine whether governments build a mechanism that supports workers, communities and countries through the transition, or settle for another space for dialogue,” she said.

The post Bonn climate talks end in “gridlock” on adaptation and emissions-cutting appeared first on Climate Home News.

Soy madre y miembro de la comunidad latina que lucha con PPT por un sistema de transporte que realmente sirva a todos. ¿Te unirás a mí haciéndote miembro que paga cuotas?

Me llamo Evelyn Ulysse Alcántara. Uso el transporte público a diario para ir al trabajo, al médico,  actividades de ocio,  reuniones, llevar a mi hijo al colegio— para todo. 

Soy latina y mi inglés no es perfecto, así que cuando me mudé a Pittsburgh me costó usar el transporte público porque había muy poca información disponible en español. Por eso me ofrecí de voluntaria para ayudar como embajadora en los Recorridos de tránsito de PPT. Fue muy frustrante y aislante  intentar aprender a usar el sistema de transporte público por mi cuenta. Sabía que si podía hacer algo para apoyar el aprendizaje de mi comunidad, ¡tenía que hacerlo!   

Ser miembro de PPT no solo ha mejorado mis propias necesidades de transporte. Me abrió la puerta para ayudarme a marcar la diferencia.

Cuando hubo recortes en el transporte público en Beechview, hubo ocasiones en que el autobús o el Tren no venían—y no sabía la razón, porque los cambios sólo se comunicaban en inglés. Pero hoy, si vas a Steel Plaza o Wood Street Station, ¡escucharás anuncios en español! Y hay instrucciones paso a paso en español en la web de PRT. Esto se debe a que PPT y Casa San José se unieron para dar voz a mi comunidad, para que PRT pudiera entender el verdadero impacto que esto estaba teniendo en nosotros.

Este es el verdadero poder de PPT: realmente escuchan a la gente.

Cuando descubrí que PPT, me pedían testimonios sobre el papel que tiene el transporte público en la vida de las personas, para mostrar lo importante que sería un programa de media tarifa. Sabía que tenía que dar mi testimonio, porque necesitábamos actuar para mejorar el acceso. En aquel entonces solo era una idea y un proyecto, pero hoy es una realidad que lleva el servicio de transporte a la gente.

Me encanta el PPT porque sé de primera mano lo que podemos lograr juntos.  

Solo en 2026:

• Llevamos a 120 miembros a Harrisburg para arrojar luz sobre la brecha presupuestaria de 80 millones de dólares y enfatizar la importancia de los servicios para tránsito y viajes compartidos para nuestros representantes.  
• Compartimos habilidades y construimos poder con 170 personas de todo el país, compartimos habilidades y construyeron poder en nuestro Entrenamiento de Primavera 2026. 
• Formamos a 13 becarios de organización comunitaria en toda la colina del barrio de PGH, y las regiones de Lancaster y Lehigh Valley en Pensilvania. 

Por eso quería preguntar: ¿apoyarán el trabajo urgente de PPT haciéndote miembro que paga cuotas hoy?

Puedes apuntarte por solo 2,75 $, ¡el precio actual del billete de autobús del PRT! Ese dinero va directamente a la defensa de un presupuesto de transporte que mueve a TODOS los habitantes de Pensilvania. Todo el mundo merece acceso al transporte público.

¿Nos ayudarás a hacer realidad ese sueño?

The post Transporte Público para la Gente: Únete a la campaña de Socios 2026 appeared first on Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

Since the first rumors about a massive land purchase to build a new community in Solano started, Greenbelt Alliance has joined forces with the Solano Together coalition to understand and confront this sprawl development and invest in existing Solano cities.

Now, Silicon Valley Tech billionaires continue to push for a proposal to develop over 15,000 acres of natural and agricultural land. To avoid a vote of the people, California Forever’s current plan is to impose this development by annexing the land into Suisun City, even though the project starts over seven miles from the existing city limits. Here is more about the Suisun Expansion Plan. 

And while the billionaire land owners make lots of claims about a future “promise” for jobs and housing production, their only publicly available plan shows that virtually EVERY area of the plan allows data centers with NO community input.

California Forever claims widespread support for their plan, but the City Council refuses to allow even an advisory vote from the people of Suisun City, who would be stuck paying the bills for increased infrastructure and energy use.

Tell Suisun City leaders that Suisun residents deserve to have a vote in a project of this magnitude! Sign the petition to demand that the City Council LET THE PEOPLE VOTE. Suisun City and Solano County residents are encouraged to sign, as well as allies across the region, state, and country. Take action today:

What’s at Stake

This project paves over farmland, it puts our water supply at risk, and for what?

Data centers use significant energy and water resources, impacting communities’ utility prices, and create fewer jobs than almost any other use of land.

Background

For nearly 70 years, Greenbelt Alliance has stood on the front lines whenever sprawl threatened the landscapes and communities that define this region. In the face of the threat in Solano, we’ve paired our advocacy for open space protection with strong support for new climate-smart development within our existing cities and towns. In 2024, after pressure and mobilization from the Solano Together coalition, California Forever withdrew a proposed ballot initiative called the East Solano Plan at the last minute.

As a core member of the Solano Together coalition, we are working with partners such as the Orderly Growth Committee, Solano County Farm Bureau, and many more. We provide strategic, backbone, and communications support and coordination for a group of diverse partners. Now, we’re continuing to support environmentally sustainable growth and mobilize against harmful developments over six decades later. And with “California Forever,” the fight is ongoing.

Learn more at solanotogether.org and follow on social media @solanotogether.

Blog written with original content from Solano Together.

The post Sign Petition: Say No To California Forever’s Data Center City appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

The following statement was delivered during the Closing Plenary on June 18 2026 on behalf of the ENGO-DCJ constituency during the 64th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):

Thank you chairs, I speak on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice, ENGO-DCJ. We echo statements from TUNGO, WGC, YOUNGO and ENGO-CAN.These SBs are left with a bitter taste; we keep having the same discussions all the time! It is time to stop. 

The era of implementation must be the era of public, just and grant based accessible finance including adaptation and loss and damage. We demand a stand alone agenda item on Article 9.1 Climate Finance Work Programme at COP31.

We need a Just Transition mechanism with ambitious options on governance, accountability and implementation support. This means we need intersessional work — with full support for developing countries’ and observer constituencies’ participation.

We condemn the false solutions that exploit the land and the people, and divert us away from the Paris Agreement goals. 

We must acknowledge that climate action will not deliver as long as Big Polluters continue to write the rules of climate action. 

We urge COP31 presidencies to ensure full and broad social participation in Antalya, and the respect and safeguard of civil society’s rights to protest inside and outside the conference.

We demand an end to genocide and illegal wars around the world by the perpetrators of the climate crisis.

The post SB64 Intervention- June 18 Closing Plenary appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

The U.S. Constitution did not resolve the Declaration’s grievances once independence was won. A "Short-lived American Democracy" is the fifth video in our America 250: A Revolutionary Perspective series.

The post What is America 250: A Short-lived American Democracy appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Invenergy will redirect the funds toward natural gas plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri as well as geothermal projects, the U.S. Department of the Interior said.

The new criteria seeks to help corporate and organizational buyers understand what makes a “high-quality” low-carbon fuel and build on past standards from the climate solutions company.

Wealthy nations in the G7 have agreed to work more closely together to secure the minerals they need for the energy transition, AI and defence, and to diversify supply chains away from China, calling for more cooperation with “like-minded partners”.

But the agreement adopted at this week’s G7 leaders’ summit in France is vague on what co-operation with resource-rich developing countries could look like, with critics warning against creating a consumer club of powerful nations that excludes others from shaping standards and building green supply chains.

“The G7 communiqué reaffirms our suspicion that, for the G7, it is all about resource security, not just energy transition,” Claude Kabemba, executive director of Southern Africa Resource Watch, told Climate Home News.

• 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
• Jun 5, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier The scramble to stockpile critical minerals could drive up energy transition costs Researchers warn that uncoordinated stockpiling could push up prices of minerals needed for clean energy technologies and delay their roll out Read more
• Jun 10, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up With the world’s second-largest reserves of rare earths after China, Brazil is catching the eye of US and Chinese companies – spurring the government’s critical minerals policy push Read more

In a joint communique, the leaders of some of the world’s largest economies said they would step up coordination within the group and with partner countries to establish mineral processing and industrial capacity, support local value addition, promote innovation, develop standards, improve mineral traceability and share information on stockpiling systems.

They agreed to create a joint crisis-prevention mechanism with the support of the International Energy Agency to monitor mineral supply and demand disruptions, as well as establish harmonised platforms to provide information about the origin of minerals, starting with lithium and nickel.

The statement was endorsed by France, the UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and the European Union at the end of the three-day summit in Evian, on the French shores of Lake Geneva. Australia, which isn’t a G7 member, also supported the declaration.

Breaking dependency on China

Western governments have been scrambling to secure the minerals they need to produce clean energy technologies such as batteries, electric vehicles and wind turbines, as well as hardware for artificial intelligence and military equipment while breaking their dependence on China.  

China controls most supply chains for the strategic minerals they need, dominating the processing of 19 out of 20 critical minerals. The only exception is nickel, where Indonesia leads on supply and processing. Last year, Beijing spooked governments in Europe and the US when it imposed restrictions on rare earths exports, signalling its willingness to use its industrial clout to achieve its geopolitical objectives.

“We are all faced with risks of over-dependence and therefore vulnerability in our value chains,” French President Emmanuel Macron told a press conference, citing the “risks of divisions” among the group on how to respond to China’s control over strategic resources. “We have decided to move forward together,” he said.

Leaders agreed to aggregate demand to support the development of minerals projects and set targets for reducing dependencies on any single country outside the G7 by the end of the year.

A US proposal to regulate mineral prices and a French push to establish a permanent secretariat to track G7 initiatives on minerals failed to reach consensus among the group, according to Reuters.

Who has a seat at the table?

The declaration recognises the need for “mutually beneficial partnerships” and “plurilateral trade agreements” between G7 countries and “like-minded” and “trusted” partners to build diversified supply chains. Other parts of the text refer to “developing countries” and “emerging economies”.

A separate G7 statement on “mutually beneficial international partnerships” mentions the need for international cooperation along the whole of mineral supply chains.

“Who is going to be part of this conversation is unclear,” said Sébastien Treyer, executive director of France think-tank IDDRI, citing the ambiguity of the language and calling for developing countries to be part of the conversation.

Trade agreements that support green industrialisation can be “an entry point” for investment into value-addition projects in developing countries, said Treyer, but “how this is going to be operationalised is the key question”.

Moving beyond a ‘consumer club’

Resource-rich developing countries, particularly in Africa, have called for investment to build their industrial capacity to turn raw materials into high-value components for clean energy technologies such as batteries, capturing more domestic value and creating jobs.  

But Kabemba, whose organisation is based in South Africa, said the declaration says “nothing about transferring industrial capacity to previously exploited regions such Africa”.

“Africa needs to react with its own coalition of the willing to put Africa’s interests first, otherwise, Africa risks being locked into a role as a raw material supplier in a new economic order it is not helping to build,” he said.

• Apr 30, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Kenya seeks regional coordination to build African mineral value chains Kenyan President William Ruto is the latest African leader to announce an end to raw mineral exports as governments want to add more value to their resources Read more
• May 27, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Recycling could meet half of Europe’s critical mineral needs by 2050 A new report by an EU-funded research project says the bloc could harness its “urban mines” to reduce its dependence on China for energy transition minerals Read more
• May 15, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Ukraine can help Europe meet its battery material needs, experts say The country could contribute to the European Union’s efforts to reduce its dependence on China for graphite but the war poses major challenges Read more

Patrick Schröder, a resource governance expert at Chatham House, agreed that the G7 remains overwhelmingly focused on securing minerals supplies and reducing its dependence on China. “The benefits for developing country producers are only marginal in the G7 discussions,” he said.

Brazil, which is rich in rare earths, graphite and copper, was invited to attend the G7 meeting but did not endorse the minerals declaration – highlighting the need for future minerals framework to be more inclusive and responsive to producer-country concerns, said Schröder.

For Luc Tezenas, head of policy and advocacy at the Resource Justice Network, “the answer to rising geopolitical fragmentation cannot be to shrink multilateralism into a smaller club of ‘like-minded’ consumer economies”.

Instead, a non-binding minerals framework put forward by South Africa during its presidency of the G20 last year “shows more promise as a pathway forward because it attempts to link supply resilience with regional value chains and economic justice,” he said. The UK, which is presiding over the G20 next year, has the opportunity to build a more inclusive way forward, he added.

Circularity: another way to capture value

G7 nations also described the circular economy and the substitution of minerals in designing technologies as “key” to meet growing demand and secure sufficient supplies.

This, they said, includes increasing recycling capacity by setting targets, combatting the illegal transfer of used products and components, and promoting the recovery of minerals from secondary sources such as mining waste.

“We also recognise the opportunity for emerging market and developing economies to benefit from capturing added value through the recycling and secondary processing of their mining waste, as well as from circular economy innovations,” they said.

Schröder, of Chatham House, said the challenge now lies in demonstrating that intentions can be turned into creating a circular economy for minerals through investments, business support and a favourable policy environment.

The post Warning against ‘consumer club’ as G7 forms critical minerals alliance appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Department of Defense said the xAI data center powered by the gas plant is critical to national security, revealing Grok was used to fire thousands of missiles in the Iran war.

PFAS are one of the biggest public health threats of our time. These “forever chemicals” have infested seemingly every facet of our lives, from water and soil to kitchen products, safety equipment, and even our babies’ toys. As a country we need real urgency to address this risk quickly and do it the right way.

Despite rollbacks and standstills of PFAS regulation federally, we’re seeing impressive bipartisan support to tackle forever chemicals at the state level. This is an important step in the right direction. But as states introduce legislation to regulate PFAS, it’s imperative that they move forward with responsible legislation that has been proven to be effective.

There are two policy paths moving through state legislatures, which I call the “Michigan model” and the “Maine model.”

Maine and Michigan both lead the charge for state-level PFAS regulation, but there are two key differences in their approaches that make the Maine Model the gold standard for states to follow.

First, Maine’s model takes a proactive approach, banning PFAS from consumer products before they’re manufactured.

Second, Maine was the first state in the nation to pass a comprehensive ban on the land application of sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, and the sale and distribution of sludge-derived compost. This stops PFAS before they have a chance to pollute our state’s drinking water, farmland, and local communities.

As a Maine policy leader who helped pass this legislation in my home state, I’ve seen the benefits of having a proactive strategy against PFAS. Currently, every state other than Maine and Connecticut is adding to its PFAS contamination through additional sludge spreading, which just deepens the crisis, increasing future remediation and health costs.

States Need a Proactive Legislative Strategy

Though Michigan was an early leader in setting drinking-water standards (Maximum Contaminant Level or MCLs) for specific PFAS chemicals, the Great Lakes state has now fallen behind. Michigan’s PFAS strategy depends on detecting PFAS and mitigating it through cleanup initiatives — a strategy that’s well intended but leaves room for harm to reach the public.

Adding to this, states are finding themselves needing more money to pay for PFAS cleanups, as settlements from polluters aren’t covering the costs.

Maine’s policies stand out because they anticipate the impact of sweeping PFAS prevention measures and create safety nets for the businesses and communities that are most at risk. This shows up in different ways, but a prime example is our partnership with farmers who have been harmed by toxic sludge threatening their land and livelihood.

About six years ago, we started to work with farmers who were no longer able to cultivate and sell their products safely due to PFAS contamination from fertilizer and sewage sludge on their land. We created a PFAS emergency relief fund, which gives farmers the resources they need to navigate safe transitions for their farms. The fund can help farmers pay for initial PFAS testing, access wellness and mental-health services, and sometimes receive short-term income replacement and invest in infrastructure adaptations — which are all essential when you lose your livelihood.

Since creating the infrastructure to transition farms safely away from threats of PFAS contamination, we have supported more than 100 farms. Only the earliest farms to discover contamination — prior to a safety net being in place — have faced closure.

This safety net for our agricultural leaders has been so successful because it prioritizes public health, financial stability, and long-term sustainability. Our food systems, public health, and economic vitality depend on our policies to both turn off the tap on PFAS chemicals being added to products that end up in the waste stream and create safety nets throughout the transition to cleaner infrastructure so small businesses are protected.

Combatting Lax Sludge Standards and Fighting for Accountability

In addition to being proactive, states need to set smart thresholds for sludge. Michigan has set incredibly high contamination thresholds for PFAS concentration in biosolids, which means that large amounts of contaminants will still be applied to the land. If thresholds aren’t meaningful, they aren’t protecting anybody.

Legislation with smart thresholds for sludge has quickly proven itself to be crucial, as attempts to water down anti-sludge policies are cropping up in states across the country. These attempts show up as high thresholds for PFAS contamination in sludge and liability shields for corporations engaged in sludge disposal. To prevent this policy trend from growing, it’s imperative that anti-sludge and anti-PFAS legislation addresses corporate loopholes like these.

Maine’s policies opt for a more comprehensive approach, regulating PFAS as an entire category rather than by individual chemical regulations. Furthermore, we were the first state to mandate a near-total ban on PFAS in products.

Our state has also passed legislation that pushes for accountability from manufacturers who are unable to rid their products of PFAS, giving them a Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) determination. Our Department of Environmental Protection will only issue a CUU to businesses if the department has determined a product is essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and for which alternatives are not reasonably available.

Pretty soon it won’t be a choice of whether or not states take action against PFAS, but how they do it. And Maine’s policy is the blueprint for how the rest of America should address this issue to prevent this poisonous public-health threat at the source.

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

The Silent Threat Beneath Our Feet: How Deregulation Fuels the Spread of Forever Chemicals

The post Amid National PFAS Frenzy, the ‘Maine Model’ Shows States How to Stop ‘Forever Chemicals’ at the Source appeared first on The Revelator.

“AMERICA 250,” The official government celebration of the semiquincentinnial of the United States, is brought to you by the following corporate sponsors. That’s not a joke. 

The post Press Release: Challenging Propaganda, Activists Tell Real History of USA at 250 appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

The climate pattern should reduce Atlantic storm activity this year, but utilities still face localized power outage concerns as flooding and wildfires shift to other parts of the country, experts say.

The PJM Interconnection improperly makes ratepayers pay for data center-driven transmission projects that don’t benefit them, according to Maryland's ratepayer advocate.

By Paul Watkinson, Stefan Ruchti-Crowley, Anju Sharma, Ovais Sarmad and Benito Müller.

In the corridors of the World Conference Centre in Bonn, where the June Climate Meetings (SB64) will conclude on Thursday, the need for change is palpable.

Delegates are grappling once again with overcrowded agendas, growing demands on limited negotiating time, external geopolitical pressures that reverberate internally to test the limits of a consensus-based process, and concerns over its future financial sustainability.

Bonn Bulletin: Finance row threatens to scupper work on adaptation goal

There is growing frustration with a process that consumes vast amounts of time to produce outcomes that are often too incremental to match the accelerating reality of the climate crisis.

The climate regime has delivered. But it is in danger of not delivering enough.

More effective multilateralism

There is no denying the successes of the UN climate process. Over three decades, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement established a universal framework for climate action, created transparency and accountability mechanisms, and sent powerful signals to governments, businesses and investors.

Thanks in large part to this framework, the world is no longer on a trajectory of more than 4°C of warming, clean technology costs have fallen dramatically, and participation in the global climate effort remains nearly universal.

Yet, global temperatures continue to break records. Climate impacts are intensifying across every region. The world remains far off track to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. As warming approaches – and may exceed – 1.5°C, every additional fraction of a degree brings greater losses of lives, livelihoods and ecosystems, with the greatest burdens falling on the most vulnerable countries and communities.

• Jun 17, 2026 Science Science ‘under attack’ from fossil fuel interests at UN climate talks A coalition of some rich nations and the world’s most vulnerable have vowed to protect climate science in UN negotiations Read more
• Jun 15, 2026 Carbon markets UN’s first Paris Agreement carbon credits face human rights and climate concerns Civil society groups allege the cookstove project in Myanmar exaggerated its climate impact while maintaining ties with military junta Read more

We remain convinced that the answer to the climate crisis is not less multilateralism, but more effective multilateralism.

The hard truth is that the UNFCCC remains largely organised around the logic of treaty-making, while the central challenge of climate action has shifted to implementation. A process designed to negotiate agreements and deliver decision text as the outcome is now required to support implementation on the ground—and it is struggling.

There is a structural mismatch between what the climate process was designed to do, and what it needs to do now.

Consultations on reforms

Discussions on the urgency of reform are widespread and no longer confined to the margins. Formally, the Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM) process is exploring ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the process.

The UNFCCC Executive Secretary has also convened a High-Level Informal Consultative Roundtable for strategic reflection on how to strengthen the complementarity between the intergovernmental process and action in the real economy.

Defending multilateralism today requires adapting it.

The good news is that meaningful reform does not require reopening treaties, renegotiating the Paris Agreement, or indeed even resolving long-standing differences on the Rules of Procedure to change the consensus rule. Stefan Ruchti-Crowley and Paul Watkinson’s recent paper for ecbi (European Capacity Building Initiative), Quo Vadis COP? Reforming UNFCCC Sessions to Improve Negotiations and Support Implementation, outlines a practical toolbox of four reforms that can be pursued within the existing institutional framework.

First, the process must improve its agendas.

The formal process is burdened by crowded agendas and overlapping workstreams. Consolidating agenda items under broader thematic pillars (such as mitigation, adaptation, finance and transparency); developing good practices for agenda adoption; removing legacy “ghost” items; and concluding outstanding business on the Kyoto Protocol will create more space for substantive discussions and implementation.

Second, the process must organise its work more strategically.

The climate process currently attempts to address nearly every issue at every session. A more strategic approach would use thematic multi-year programmes of work; better align review cycles and timelines; improve coherence across the many bodies and processes that have accumulated over time, often to the extent that even insiders have lost oversight; and also make better use of inter-sessional and pre-sessional meetings.

Third, the process must focus more deliberately on implementation.

Critically, not every challenge requires a negotiated outcome. Negotiations should focus on issues that genuinely require collective decision-making. Other discussions should prioritise learning, cooperation and practical problem-solving.

Existing formats such as Talanoa Dialogues, roundtables and other facilitative approaches should be expanded. Likewise, the Enhanced Transparency Framework should become a stronger mechanism for mutual learning and accountability rather than a largely procedural reporting and “box-ticking” exercise.

Fourth, the process must make structural changes and broaden participation.

National delegations should include a broader range of practitioners and policymakers, including a Head of Implementation. The process should strengthen engagement with sectoral ministers, investors, technology providers, scientists, local authorities and non-Party stakeholders.

Stronger links are necessary between science policy and implementation, and with international institutions that shape the enabling conditions for climate action, particularly finance and development. Platforms to address systemic barriers along with AI-enabled learning by doing will equally support strengthened action.

Delivering commitments with limited resources

The case for reform is becoming even stronger as financial pressures intensify.

Improving efficiency is not simply desirable; it has become unavoidable. The UNFCCC faces growing budgetary constraints arising from delayed contributions, uncertainty surrounding major donors, and broader reductions across the UN system.

A process that is better organised, more implementation-focused and less encumbered by procedural overload will be far better equipped to navigate a future of tighter resources.

Leadership will be crucial.

Panama environment minister backs calls for reform of UN climate process

COP presidencies have an important role to play, as do the Chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies. The UNFCCC Executive Secretary and Secretariat must take a bold approach to work in coordination with the COP Bureau to implement urgent changes.

Careful diplomacy will, of course, be essential. Parties must be reassured that reform is intended to strengthen the effectiveness of the regime, not weaken its governance. The objective is not to replace mandates, but to ensure that mandates can be fulfilled more effectively. It is to ensure that negotiation is used where negotiation is needed, while other forms of cooperation are used where they can deliver better results.

The UNFCCC remains the cornerstone of international climate cooperation. No other forum combines its legitimacy, universality and legal authority. But the multilateral climate process must evolve from a system primarily designed to negotiate commitments into one that is equally capable of supporting their delivery.

The post The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation appeared first on Climate Home News.

One of the key tasks for this year’s Bonn talks is to agree on how to put into practice the indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation, which were hurriedly redrafted by governments at the end of COP30 after years of painstaking work by experts.

Making them usable involves drawing up contextual information (metadata) and methodologies for the indicators. They include metrics such as the number of people per 100,000 who are covered by early warning systems or the proportion of the population vulnerable to climate change that have access to mental health and psychosocial support.

There has been some arguing in Bonn over who should do this work. More government negotiators or more technical experts? Should there be an Indigenous Peoples representative on the taskforce?

But the main sticking point – and the one that could prevent any agreement before the talks end today – is, as usual, finance. Developing countries are united in demanding that the COP30 agreement to triple adaptation finance by 2035 be referenced in the GGA agreement here in Bonn. Most developed countries are opposed, having long wanted to keep the GGA and finance separate.

New data shows rich nations likely missed 2025 goal to double adaptation finance

Although the tripling goal has already been agreed, Bethan Laughlin from the Zoological Society of London said that restating in the GGA text here “sends an important political signal on the need to address the widening adaptation finance gap, and helps maintain pressure on developed countries to scale up their support”. 

One of the concerns some developing countries had about the GGA indicators agreed at COP30 is that they will be blamed if they fail to meet them. Rich nations, on the other hand, likely fear that, if finance is linked to the GGA and they fail to triple it, it is they who will be held responsible for a lack of progress instead. 

At the time of publication, governments were holding informal consultations to see if they could find a way forward. But, given that on Wednesday night they could not even agree on whether a new draft text should form a basis for negotiations, the odds of overcoming their differences in the remaining hours look slim.

Nations agree to disagree on Adaptation Fund board seats

The risk that much-needed funds for adapting to climate change lie out of reach in inaccessible bank accounts while the world gets warmer has grown, after governments failed in Bonn to resolve an ongoing row over how to categorise richer and poorer nations.

The June talks aimed to agree on transitioning the UN’s Adaptation Fund to “exclusively” serve the Paris Agreement, rather than also serving the older Kyoto Protocol. That decision could then have been officially rubber-stamped early on at COP31.

But the seemingly straightforward decision has been complicated, as Global North and South countries could not agree on how to formally define each other.

Less wealthy nations want seats on the Adaptation Fund’s board to continue to be split between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries as they are now. Annex 1 is a list of wealthier countries drawn up by governments in 1992. 

Those Annex 1 countries agree that board seats should be split but want the two categories to be called “developed” and “developing”, which are less rigid categories and can evolve in line with countries’ changing economic status.

Bonn Bulletin: Adaptation Fund stalemate puts people at risk, says head

The underlying issue is that the European Union and others want bigger and richer developing countries like China and Saudi Arabia to be given responsibility for paying climate finance alongside traditional donor governments. China, in particular, has fiercely resisted this, with backing from other non-Annex 1/developing countries.

According to draft conclusions for Bonn, although there is alignment on the less controversial issues of updating the fund’s terms and conditions to serve the Paris Agreement and the timing of a regular review of its work, governments will agree not to agree on the Adaptation Fund board’s composition and will pick up the matter again at COP31. Often, major compromises can only be made by the environment ministers who attend COPs, not the more junior officials who come to Bonn.

But this delay raises the risk that countries do not fully agree to transition the fund at COP31. That would mean the fund cannot access money raised from a 5% tax on all carbon credits – other than those based in the most-vulnerable nations – from the UN’s new Article 6.4 carbon trading mechanism.

This could amount to millions of dollars lying idle as adaptation needs rise. The fund’s head Mikko Ollikainen told Climate Home News on Tuesday in Bonn that this “will lead to loss and damage and that’s going to be even more costlier than adaptation – and the cost will be borne by people who have done least to cause this problem who typically don’t have social safety networks to support them”.

US exit from UNFCCC leaves hole in budget

Even though the United States didn’t participate in the Bonn talks, Washington’s decisions still loomed large over the discussions. Last January, the Trump administration decided to withdraw not only from the Paris Agreement – as in his first term – but also from the UN Climate Convention (UNFCCC). 

The move will have a significant impact on the financing of the Bonn-based body and the myriad of activities in its ever-growing agenda, according to a brief information event held by the secretariat at the Bonn climate talks. 

SBI Chair Julia Gardiner mentioned that the US withdrawal could limit the Secretariat’s ability to support countries, especially developing ones, in advancing climate action. 

The US withdrawal formally takes effect on February 27 2027, so the withdrawal will have a direct impact on the next budget for 2028-2029, the UNFCCC secretariat said in the briefing. Washington is currently the  single largest financial contributor to the convention. Its withdrawal will cut core contributions by 21% or EUR16.9 million over the two-year period.

Who will step in to fill the gap?

When Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement soon after his inauguration in January 2025, US billionaire Michael Bloomberg promised to cover the shortfall left by Washington, together with other unnamed funders. Since then, his namesake philanthropy has given the UN climate change body at least $17 million, according to UNFCCC documents. 

But Bloomberg or any other non-state donor could only contribute to the budget for supplementary activities, not to the core budget on which, for example, the holding of the Bonn meetings or any event mandated by governments depends, Tobias Holle, managing director of Shifting Advocacy, told Climate Home News. 

The money in the supplementary activities budget can not be used to cover core budget needs, he explained, adding that funding for that can only come from governments.

After Trump’s pullback, Bloomberg promises to fill US funding gap to UN climate body

According to the US-based think-tank Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “one scenario will be that, with the budget gap equally redistributed among current contributors, other Parties [like China, Japan, Germany, UK, France] would have to increase their contributions by about 27% to maintain the current budget.” 

For Holle, even if the budget shortfall represents a challenge, “this situation could be an opportunity” to advance on the reform of the UN climate process and improve the joint work of the climate convention with other treaties like those on biodiversity and desertification. 

The UN will continue consultations with countries and present its proposed 2028-2029 budget in April 2027. At the time of publication, the UN climate body had not commented on the issue.

The post Bonn Bulletin: Finance row threatens to scupper work on adaptation goal appeared first on Climate Home News.