You are here
News Feeds
Alaska Wilderness League Condemns Nomination of Steve Pearce to Lead Bureau of Land Management
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: May 19, 2026
Contact: Anja Semanco | anja@alaskawild.org | 724-967-2777
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In response to yesterday’s nomination of former Congressman Steve Pearce to serve as Director of the Bureau of Land Management Alex Cohen, director of government affairs at Alaska Wilderness League, issued the following statement:
“Time and again, this administration has shown it will go to extremes to sell off Alaska’s iconic public lands to private interests, from buying stakes in foreign mining companies to opening up every acre possible for development,” said Alex Cohen, government affairs director at Alaska Wilderness League. “Public lands belong in public hands, and Steve Pearce’s tenure in Congress — where he repeatedly demonstrated his opposition to protecting our public lands — makes him the wrong man for the top job at the BLM. We urge the Senate to reject his nomination this week, and we’ll oppose every effort he would bring to give away our wildest places if he’s confirmed.”
The Bureau of Land Management oversees roughly 245 million acres of public lands across the United States, including critical landscapes in Alaska that are central to subsistence traditions, wildlife habitat, recreation, and climate resilience.
During his time in Congress, Pearce built a record closely aligned with extractive industry interests, repeatedly supporting expanded drilling and mining on public lands while opposing conservation protections and climate action. His nomination comes as the administration intensifies efforts to dismantle protections across Alaska, including renewed attempts to expand drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, weakening protections for the Western Arctic, and rolling back protections for the Tongass National Forest.
###
Working Together in the Lower Gila River Corridor
ENCORE: May 19th! The Legacies of Ho Chi Minh and Malcolm X (both born today)
CCC: Investing in ‘urgent’ UK adaptation action ‘cheaper than climate damages’
Investing in flood defences, air conditioning and other measures to protect the UK from climate change will provide “long-term savings” for the country, according to the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
The government’s climate advisors have proposed a set of climate-adaptation actions that would require at least an extra £11bn per year in spending, largely from the private sector.
Most of this investment would go towards keeping buildings cool and protecting them from floods, as well as building reservoirs and supporting water-efficiency measures.
The committee says this is a “manageable level of investment” that will shave billions of pounds off climate change-driven damages that the UK will experience in the coming years.
Crucially, the CCC stresses that this approach would be “cheaper than facing the damages”.
This analysis comes from the CCC’s new “well-adapted UK” report, which sets out more than 100 actions that the committee says could help the UK prepare for global warming up to 2C above pre-industrial levels by 2050.
The CCC highlights 20 overarching objectives and a set of measurable targets that it says should be prioritised in the coming years, such as curbing deaths related to extreme heat.
This first-of-its-kind “solutions-focused” report will feed into the UK government’s upcoming fourth climate-change risk assessment, due in 2027, and inform its approach to climate adaptation.
Here, Carbon Brief provides an overview of the key messages in the 554-page report, including the actions highlighted by the CCC and the policy levers required to implement them.
- What is the ‘well-adapted UK’ report?
- What are the climate risks facing the UK?
- How much will it cost to prepare the UK for climate change?
- What measures does the CCC recommend?
The CCC’s new report on how to create a “well-adapted UK” sits alongside a legal process designed to ensure the country is prepared for the impacts of climate change.
It warns that the UK has not yet done enough to adapt to climate change and sets out priorities – as well as potential solutions – for the challenges ahead.
The CCC’s work stems from the Climate Change Act 2008, under which the UK government must publish a Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) every five years. This must set out the risks and opportunities the nation is facing due to climate change.
A key pillar of the act is the creation of the CCC, an independent body that provides advice on the climate-related risks facing the UK and how it should adapt.
The CCC has previously produced three technical reports to advise the government on adaptation. Today sees the publication of the fourth set of advice, officially known as the CCRA4-IA technical report. The “well-adapted UK” report sits alongside this.
(The CCC also makes more frequent assessments of adaptation strategies produced by England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland individually.)
This is the first time the CCC has produced “well-adapted UK”, which it describes as a “solution-focused report” providing suggested government actions to address adaptation needs.
Speaking during a press briefing ahead of the report launch, Baroness Brown, chair of the CCC’s adaptation committee, said:
“It’s a first for us, the first time we’ve produced a report of this sort.It forms part of our independent assessment for the fourth climate-change risk assessment and it contains our advice to government.
“It’s now nearly 20 years since the Climate Change Act was passed and, despite making very strong progress on reducing emissions since 2008, I think we all agree that we have done nothing like enough to address the increasing risk from the impacts of climate change to the UK today.”
The CCC report offers evidence to support action by individual UK governments, as well as other organisations focused on adaptation.
It highlights three priority areas as the UK prepares for 2C of warming by 2050: providing cooling to protect from heat; increasing flood preparedness; and improving water management.
The report says that deploying adaptation at scale around these priorities will help avoid loss of life, as well as disruption to people and the economy.
It also sets out climate risks, actions and enablers across 14 key systems, breaking the analysis down into sectors to allow for clear recommendations on what needs to be done and accountability for delivering progress.
However, the report notes that “climate risks do not simply sit in single systems. Many of the most dangerous risks will cascade across them.”
The CCC states that “adaptation cannot wait”, adding that the duty of the state to keep people safe and secure is being compromised by climate change. As such, it says adaptation needs the same level of focus and commitment as geopolitical and other threats.
The report says:
“Damage is already happening, which can be avoided. Taking action today is cheaper than taking action tomorrow. The main challenge is leadership, getting adaptation underway at sufficient scale and speed.”
Finally, the CCC states that adaptation cannot replace efforts to limit warming, but is instead an “essential complement” to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It describes adaptation action as “both necessary and achievable, but also urgent”.
What are the climate risks facing the UK?The UK is already facing increased threats of heatwaves, extreme rainfall and sea level rise due to human-driven burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, says the report.
Since 2000, the UK has experienced all 10 of its hottest years on record and temperatures passed 40C for the first time in 2022. There is a 50% likelihood of reaching those temperatures again in the next 12 years, says the CCC.
Warmer air can hold more moisture than colder air, with the result that these warmer temperatures have been accompanied by heavier and more intense rainfall in all seasons of the year across the UK.
Additionally, the UK has experienced about 200 millimetres of sea level rise since 1901, with this occurring at an accelerating rate over the last three decades, notes the CCC. The largest increases in sea levels have occurred on the country’s southern coast.
The level of risk facing the country in the future will be determined largely by the level of global emissions, states the report.
Under current emissions pathways, the world will reach around 2C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures by 2050, climbing to nearly 3C by the end of the century.
Lower warming levels are still possible, if countries strengthen their current climate policies and accelerate global emissions reductions. At the same time, scenarios involving even higher levels of warming “should be considered in long-term planning”, says the report.
The table below summarises potential changes to the UK’s climate hazards at 2C of global warming in 2050 and at 4C of global warming in 2100.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();In addition to direct impacts on the UK, says the report, the country “cannot be isolated” from global climate risks, such as destructive extreme-weather events.
The report notes that risk is based on three components: hazard; exposure; and vulnerability.
Hazard refers to the physical event that can cause damage. Exposure refers to the presence of people or assets in the area that may be affected by a hazard. Vulnerability is how susceptible something or someone is to experiencing damage if it is exposed to a hazard, accounting for the ability to take adaptation measures.
Current vulnerability and exposure are both highly variable across the country, with marginalised groups likely to be disproportionately impacted by climate change. How these will change in the future is highly uncertain, it says.
How much will it cost to prepare the UK for climate change?The CCC estimates that delivering its package of adaptation actions will require additional investment of at least £11bn per year, shared between public and private sectors.
(The report notes that, given limits in available information, this is “likely to be an underestimate, but it gives a sense of the scale of investment needed”.)
Roughly a third of this investment will likely be needed for air conditioning and passive cooling measures, according to the committee. Another third will be required for flood defences and water conservation.
Overall, the CCC says around 36% of the expected investment is in areas “that have tended to be funded by the public sector”, while 41% will likely fall to the private sector. The remaining costs are “undetermined”.
The committee stresses that “acting now is cheaper than acting later” and that investing in adaptation is “cheaper than facing the damages” caused by climate change.
Climate-related damages are already costing the UK economy and could grow to around 1-5% of GDP by 2050 – roughly £60-260bn per year – under scenarios of around 2C global warming, according to the CCC.
(The CCC has previously suggested that cutting emissions to net-zero would require investments of £20-40bn per year, yielding savings of a similar magnitude.)
In this context, the £11bn a year “is a manageable level of investment for the UK economy” that will deliver “long-term savings for both public and private actors”, states the report.
CCC analysis of a new adaptation package covering heat and health, urban heat and water scarcity suggests that these measures alone could save up to £12bn a year in climate-damage costs by the 2050s. This can be seen in the chart below.
Potential for a package of additional adaptation measures (light blue) to reduce costs from climate-change impacts, £bn, compared to existing adaptation measures (dark blue). Source: CCC analysis.At a launch event, Baroness Brown expanded on the figures, noting that climate change is already costing up to 2% of GDP per year. She added that this figure amounts to £60bn, which could rise to £260bn (5% of GDP) by 2050 without action.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }The CCC stresses that many adaptation actions are “low-cost or low-regret”, highlighting numerous examples that show very favourable benefit-cost ratios. For example, flood resilience measures tend to produce benefits five-times greater than their costs.
In addition, 53 of the 120 adaptation actions for which costs were assessed provided additional “co-benefits”, such as the energy and water bill savings that can result from water-efficiency improvements.
While the CCC does not provide a comprehensive estimate of the financial impact of such co-benefits, it says they “strengthen the case for action”.
The report also emphasises that it makes financial sense to target adaptation measures at people or assets that are particularly vulnerable to and at-risk from climate impacts.
What measures does the CCC recommend?The CCC’s report sets out a range of climate risks and required adaptation actions across 14 “key systems”, including health, land and the economy as a whole.
As well as proposing more than 100 “actions”, the committee lays out the kind of policies that could be implemented to achieve them. For example, actions in the building sector might require changes to planning policy.
The report also sets out key “enablers” for adaptation in each of these key systems. Common enablers are adequate financial resources, better monitoring processes and improved public awareness of adaptation issues.
The CCC sets out 20 overarching objectives and 39 proposed targets to guide the UK’s adaptation progress out to 2050, which “set out a clear and measurable ambition for a well-adapted UK”. These objectives and targets can be seen in the table below.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();The committee says its goals are “clearly measurable and time-bound” and will rely on actions being implemented – often cutting across different systems. For example, curbing deaths linked to extreme heat will rely on the construction of cooler buildings.
For each of the 14 key systems identified, the CCC says it has applied “10 principles for effective adaptation” in order to “inform meaningful recommendations to national government departments”.
Among other things, these principles include preparing for 2C of warming by 2050 and “considering” 4C of warming by 2100.
The following headings break down the key threats facing each of the key systems identified by the CCC – and the actions needed to prepare them for climate change.
HealthClimate change poses a direct threat to population health, with extreme heat linked to everything from increased threat of heart attacks to the spread of climate-sensitive infectious diseases.
At the same time, heatwaves and flooding can disrupt the normal functioning of the UK’s health and social-care system, which can also harm people’s health.
The CCC identifies the following “priority adaptation actions” to protect people from climate change, with a particular focus on minimising excess heat-related mortality and morbidity:
- Behavioural changes – supported by information services – to avoid health risks during hot weather;
- Public cooling spaces to protect vulnerable people during heat events;
- Visits by healthcare or community workers to high-risk people;
- Mental health treatment for people exposed to flooding;
- Surveillance and monitoring of climate hazards and climate-sensitive diseases;
- Early warning systems, including the expansion of heat alerts beyond England;
- Expanding natural areas that can provide shade and reduce the urban heat island effect;
- Maintaining “safe” water bodies that reduce breeding of endemic mosquitoes and harmful algal blooms.
The CCC also identifies priority actions to protect health and social-care facilities from extreme weather:
- Cooling measures in healthcare facilities, including retrofitting buildings with “passive cooling” measures and installing air conditioning;
- Flood defences and other protective measures, such as waterproofed electricals, at hospitals and care homes;
- Training for health professionals that focuses on climate-related health risks;
- Business continuity planning to manage staff absences during extreme-weather events;
- Occupational support to protect healthcare staff during extreme weather;
- Emergency scenario planning for climate-related emergencies.
Many of the required actions would fall to devolved governments and rely on public funding.
The CCC says the UK government could ensure facilities are built to cope with climate extremes by embedding adaptation in statutory health, building and environmental standards. It adds that there is also a need for education programmes to encourage behavioural change.
Crucially, the committee also highlights the need for sustained government funding for adaptation-specific measures. In total, the CCC says the known investment required to deliver adaptation in the health system could be around £0.7-1.7bn per year.
Built environment and communitiesClimate change presents numerous risks to the UK’s settlements, buildings and communities, according to the CCC.
The report notes that already, more than half of UK homes are at risk of overheating, 6.3m properties are located in flood-risk areas and extreme weather is causing millions of pounds of damage to properties every year.
Without additional adaptation measures by 2050, it says that the risk of overheating is projected to be 4.2 times higher and that 27% more homes are projected to be at risk of flooding and coastal erosion in England. In addition, the risk of subsidence in Great Britain will increase, with 11% of properties affected by the 2070s, as well as other impacts.
As such, the CCC has set out a series of recommended actions to ensure settlements, buildings and communities are fit-for-purpose and durable places to live and work:
- Building out catchment-scale flood defences, including a mix of engineering “hard” defences and natural defences;
- Expanding urban green infrastructure, for example, street trees, parks and waterways, to provide natural cooling and shade;
- Introducing more “sustainable drainage systems”, such as green roofs, permeable paving, rain gardens and others;
- Helping communities prepare for extreme-weather events;
- Build out nature-based solutions to manage changes from sea level rise and coastal erosion;
- Introducing cooling measures in buildings, including both active cooling – such as air conditioning – and passive cooling measures;
- Utilising government schemes, such as Flood Re, to help ensure all households can access insurance and that it is affordable.
The CCC highlights engagement with communities, ensuring that they are well informed about the future climate risks they face from extreme-weather events, as a key enabler of the above actions.
Holland Park, an affluent area of West London. Credit: BBA Travel / Alamy Stock PhotoIt notes that a number of policies are already in place to address flooding and overheating, as well as funding for large-scale flood-defence projects. However, it says more can be brought in to support the adaptation of the existing and planned building stock.
Public servicesThe CCC’s assessment of public services covers the facilities and operation of services outside of health and social care, such as education, justice and emergency services.
It highlights that hazards such as heatwaves and flooding can cause closure and disruption to the operation of services, as well as impact things such as children’s ability to concentrate. Even in the current climate, it says an estimated 4.3% of cumulative learning time is lost in England due to high temperatures.
Emergency workers are increasingly facing challenges created by climate change. For example, wildfires increase demand for fire and rescue, police and environmental-incident response services.
The CCC calls for the creation of new targets to help protect people from the impacts of increased temperatures and flood risk, including: internal temperatures in learning environments should be kept between 16-25C by 2050; and internal temperatures at prisons and justice facilities should be kept between 16-26C.
By 2030, all emergency services and incident responders should be equipped to meet all weather events, adds the committee.
The CCC sets out suggested actions the government could take to ensure that services operate during extreme weather at levels at least as good as today:
- Introducing outdoor shading, such as trees and canopies, at sites such as playgrounds and outside school gates;
- Rolling out passive cooling strategies;
- Introducing active cooling, such as air conditioning, where necessary to reduce indoor temperatures;
- Rolling out surface-water flood alleviation measures;
- Ensuring key assets are adapted, such as backup generators and response vehicles, so that climate change does not impact the delivery of public services;
- Rostering and timetabling should take into account climate-related travel and health issues, bolstered by flexible capacity within services and staff training;
- Introducing surveillance and early warning systems.
The CCC adds that retrofitting buildings to allow them to adapt to climate change will require both up-front funding and long-term revenue budgets, as will expansions of personnel.
It says policy should be used to ensure that building regulations and design standards for public buildings are suitable for future climate conditions. Additionally, the government should look to provide public funding, accessible and reliable climate information and help to improve joint working between different departments, delivery bodies and responders.
Cultural heritageThe CCC considers four aspects of cultural heritage in its report: cultural and archaeological sites and landscapes; buildings that are listed or otherwise significant; fixed assets, such as statues, monuments and shipwrecks; and moveable assets, such as art and historic documents.
Without adaptation, flooding, storms and coastal erosion may reduce access to these sites and assets, or even destroy them entirely. However, due to their varied nature, any adaptation plans need to be highly context-specific, it says.
Antony Gormley statue submerged in the Water of Leith at Bells Weir. Credit: Craig Brown / Alamy Stock Photo.The report notes that many of the CCC’s priority adaptation actions are broadly applicable across the four classes of cultural-heritage assets, such as:
- Increasing the frequency of inspections and repairs for built assets;
- Creating or strengthening flood barriers and coastal defences;
- Improving drainage around cultural-heritage sites;
- Adjusting opening times and access to help protect visitors and staff, such as temporary closures during extreme weather or installing raised walkways;
- Incorporating technology and digital solutions, such as early-warning systems, digitising collections and creating virtual tours;
- Managing loss, such as by relocating assets and transforming the use of historic buildings.
Adapting the UK’s cultural-heritage assets will require an unknown amount of funding, along with training to increase adaptation-planning capabilities, says the report. These plans must be developed for each context, it says, incorporating local risks, costs and the “potential acceptable future states” of these assets.
The report calls for heritage organisations to “plan for future climate conditions and share these plans for others to learn from”. It also recommends that such considerations should be required for projects receiving public funds in the future.
Water and wastewaterThe report groups together the UK’s water supply – both public and private – and wastewater infrastructure.
It notes that these systems are “not fit for the current, let alone future, climate”, with risks of both drought and floods expected to increase across the UK under future warming.
Droughts are the “most significant climate hazard” facing the water system, while heavy rainfall and flooding can damage both water and wastewater infrastructure and overwhelm the capacity of wastewater-transport systems.
The CCC proposes several priority adaptation actions for the water subsystem:
- Installing water-efficient products, such as low-flow fixtures on taps and toilets;
- Reusing non-potable water in specific instances, such as using rainwater to cool data centres;
- Encouraging behavioural changes, including through smart metering and water-efficiency labelling;
- Improving water-use efficiency in private use;
- Repairing leaks quickly – particularly the largest and most damaging ones;
- Installing protections against flooding and erosion;
- Increasing the use of reservoirs to store excess winter rainfall for summer usage;
- Improving pollution-management systems to protect existing water sources;
- Increasing water-treatment capacity and efficiency.
The committee also proposes actions to address adaptation in the wastewater subsystem:
- Separating the systems that carry rainwater from those that carry wastewater;
- Reducing the area of impermeable surfaces to decrease runoff;
- Encouraging behavioural changes to avoid blockages and flooding;
- Increasing the volume that the wastewater system can treat at a given time;
- Improving and decentralising water-treatment processes.
To adapt the water system to future climate change, the committee suggests creating minimum water-efficiency standards for appliances, as well as for new water users, such as data centres.
It also calls for increased planning and regulation between the water and wastewater sectors, as well as across other sectors that contribute heavily to water usage or wastewater generation.
Thames Water personnel fixing a burst water main near Windsor Castle. Credit: Maureen McLean / Alamy Stock Photo EnergyThe CCC warns that climate change is already impacting the energy sector. This includes electricity generation, storage and transport, as well as fuel production, storage and transport of gas, oil, bioenergy and sustainable aviation fuels.
It says that electricity networks are vulnerable to damage from flooding, high winds and increased heat, while heat and drought can reduce efficiency and capacity across the electricity grid and at power plants.
For example, the CCC says that in England, 22% of the electricity infrastructure is currently at risk of flooding, but this is expected to increase to 26% by 2040 due to climate change.
Flooding and water scarcity are the areas of most concern for the fuel-supply system.
The CCC adds that there are interdependencies between fuel and electricity systems.
The committee identifies the following adaptation actions to reduce the climate risk facing the energy system and to allow the current level of resilience to be maintained:
- Siting energy assets to reduce their exposure to climate hazards;
- Building redundancy into the energy system design to avoid single points of failure;
- Reinforcing existing energy assets and designing new ones with appropriate; protections;
- Ensuring that regular inspections of energy assets are undertaken and preventative maintenance is taken where possible;
- Managing vegetation around electricity and gas networks;
- Preparing ways to anticipate, respond to and recover from extreme events, such as early warning systems;
- Provide alternative sources of backup power.
The CCC identifies resources and funding as key enablers for undertaking these actions. It recognises the significant build-out of new equipment that is planned in the next five to 10 years in the energy sector, stating that it is “easier and more cost-effective to build resilience into infrastructure projects at the design stage rather than retrofitting later”.
Other enablers include clear plans, roles and responsibilities being set early and the use of technology and innovation.
The CCC notes that governance of the energy system is “complex”, with some elements centralised and others devolved, as well as splits across the public and private sectors. However, it says policy levers can be used to drive and monitor adaptation across segments, such as regulation, strategic planning and innovation provision.
The committee calls for continued UK government focus on timely and appropriate targets for investments, clarity on the future of the gas grid, wider mandatory adaptation reporting and other measures.
TransportThe committee’s transport-system assessment includes roads, rail and public transportation systems, as well as maritime and aviation infrastructure and operations.
The report notes that the interconnected nature of the UK’s transport system “offers some built-in redundancy”, but also increases the risk of cascading climate impacts.
The biggest climate hazard facing the UK’s transport system is flooding. However, it is also at risk from subsidence, erosion, high winds and extreme heat, according to the report.
Rail track dangling after heavy snow and floods at Stover Canal, Newton Abbot, Devon. Credit: nidpor / Alamy Stock PhotoThe CCC recommends the following measures as priorities for physically adapting the transport sector:
- Improving drainage systems across roadways, tunnels and urban rail systems;
- Installing coastal flood defences, such as seawalls and “rock armour”, near infrastructure located in floodplains;
- Reinforcing embankments, installing retaining structures and strengthening earthworks to protect against erosion;
- Using materials that are durable at higher temperatures, as well as integrating other temperature-reducing measures, such as shading and airflow;
- Reinforcing tall structures against high winds.
It also recommends several operational adaptations for the sector:
- Increasing preventative maintenance, including by clearing drains, dredging waterways, patching tarmac and painting rails;
- Using technology to optimise schedule, route and speed-limit adjustments;
- Implementing contingency plans to protect system-critical assets during severe disruptions.
To implement these adaptation measures, the CCC recommends improving the available guidance and reporting for planners and operators. It notes that planning policies and design codes should embed an “appropriate consideration of climate risk”, such as exposure to hazards.
It also calls for improved resilience standards and engagement with the public to determine the level of service expected in the future and the level of investment required to achieve that.
WasteThe waste sector is facing climate risks predominantly relating to mine tailings and historic landfill sites, with heavier rainfall increasing the risk of landslides that can threaten communities, according to the CCC.
For example, 368 out of 2,590 coal-mine tips in Wales are currently categorised as posing a potential risk to public safety. Increased rainfall and storms under a 2C of global warming in 2050 will increase the potential for landslides at these sites, as well as the number of sites that require adaptation.
The report says that government action is needed to reduce these risks. It adds that better data and monitoring should be used to prioritise the sites that pose the greatest risk.
The CCC sets out actions to ensure these waste sites are managed safely and do not harm people or the environment around them:
- Improving drainage at waste sites and stabilising their slopes stabilised;
- Installing coastal and flood defences at waste sites where needed;
- Treating waste to stabilise or remove hazardous materials;
- Permanently removing or relocating waste from vulnerable sites.
The biggest enabler for these changes will be resources and funding, according to the CCC.
Local authorities have some regulatory power to manage historic waste sites, which it says they should use to ensure adaptation actions are taken.
Digital and telecomsThe digital and telecommunications sector is made up of both public and private networks, as well as infrastructure such as data centres, wired connections and other assets.
Climate change threatens the sector directly, by damaging or otherwise challenging this telecommunications infrastructure, according to the CCC. However, says the report, the “main climate risk” facing the telecoms sector is its “fundamental dependency on the power system”.
The report notes that storms and flooding can damage infrastructure and cause power failures, while high temperatures can overwhelm cooling systems and force systems to overheat.
The CCC calls for several physical adaptation measures to protect digital and telecoms assets:
- Choosing infrastructure sites to reduce vulnerabilities to flooding and wind;
- Installing physical protection measures, such as flood defences and underground cables, for existing infrastructure;
- Completing the changeover to fibre-based digital systems, which are more water-resistant than existing networks;
- Adopting cooling systems and upgrading existing ones to withstand projected future temperatures;
- Adopting more water-efficient cooling systems to reduce vulnerability to water shortages.
Resilience can also be achieved through redundancy measures, it says:
- Installing backup generators, on-site batteries and other redundancies for the power supply;
- Providing backup batteries to consumers to ensure access to emergency services in case of power outages;
- Creating redundancy in cooling systems and network connections;
- Encouraging consumers to store key data in multiple locations to reduce the impact of data-centre outages.
Some of these actions are already underway, notes the report. For example, the changeover to fibre-based systems is expected to be completed by January 2027.
It says resilience will also require regulatory clarity, such as confirming that the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) has a mandate to cover data centres, as well as climate resilience. It notes that this oversight is “expected to be confirmed” by the pending Cyber Security and Resilience Bill.
The CCC also calls for mandatory reporting of climate risks and resilience plans for companies that provide critical telecoms services.
LandEven if adaptation measures are taken, the land sector – including not just the UK’s terrestrial ecosystems, but also land-related commercial industries, such as farming and forestry – will “not all be able to stay the same as today”, says the report.
Changing temperatures and rainfall patterns are some of the most pressing challenges facing the land sector, with the hot-and-dry summer of 2025 causing more than £800m in revenue loss for England’s farmers.
Climate change is also increasing the frequency of threats, such as wildfires, pests and pathogens, as well as the spread of invasive alien species.
Flooded fields with hay bails on farmland on the Somerset Levels. Credit: Paul Glendell / Alamy Stock PhotoThe CCC identifies several priority actions for adaptation in the land sector, with different types of terrestrial ecosystems requiring different measures:
- Increasing the diversity and connectivity of habitats for both wild lands and land-based commercial activities;
- Rewetting peatlands and allowing other ecosystems to naturally regenerate;
- Managing the spread of invasive species, pests, pathogens and diseases;
- Preparing for wildfires, as well as reducing their occurrence and spread through managing fuel loads and maintaining fire breaks;
- Encouraging the use of resilient soil- and water-management practices and improving on-farm biodiversity;
- Adjusting farm planning in response to the changing climate, such as by shifting to different crops or adjusting the timing of planting and harvesting;
- Planting shade trees near riverbanks;
- Creating new coastal habitats;
- Manually moving vulnerable species to locations where they may be able to thrive under a changed climate.
It adds that achieving resilience in the land sector can also be aided by reducing the non-climate pressures that threaten habitats, such as pollution.
The committee notes that delivering on these actions will require both the support of government agencies and private landowners. It says that doing so will require public funding for adaptation, cultural awareness and acceptance of change, as well as flexible regulation and coherent frameworks on land use.
SeaSimilar to the land sector, the CCC’s suggestions for sea-system adaptation measures cut across multiple other sectors, including human health, international trade and food security.
The UK’s seas are already both warming and acidifying in response to human-caused fossil-fuel emissions, with impacts up and down the marine food chain.
By 2050, without adaptation measures, the UK could experience seabird population declines of more than 70%, fisheries employment losses of up to 20% and a rise in disease outbreaks, says the report.
The CCC identifies the following priority adaptation actions focused on both marine habitats and on human activities related to the sea sector:
- Creating larger, better-connected marine protected areas;
- Improving international cooperation around marine protection;
- Diversifying the species targeted by fisheries – moving away from cold-water species, such as cod and haddock, towards warmer-water ones, such as tuna;
- Increasing the genetic diversity of farmed species to increase resilience to disease;
- Sustainably managing wild fish populations, even if this means reducing fishing in the short term;
- Investing in more resilient equipment to withstand stronger storms;
- Relocating aquaculture away from the migration pathways of wild species;
- Preventing the spread of invasive species, diseases, pests and pathogens.
Similar to the land system, the committee says that reducing external pressures – including pollution and harmful fishing practices – can support achieving resilience in the sea system.
The report notes several existing policies that can aid in adaptation for the sea system, including the UK Marine Strategy and the 2020 Fisheries Act. However, it notes that “many actions to adapt [the sector] sit within the industry itself”.
Specific government actions that can support adaptation include changing the licensing and quotas for the fishing industry to reduce the pressure of overfishing, it adds.
Food securityThe report considers the “food security” system to include food and agricultural inputs imported from abroad, separate from the country’s own farming and fisheries.
It notes that in 2023, 40% of the UK’s food was imported.
A number of extreme weather events pose hazards to food production and transport, potentially impacting food security both in the UK and globally. These events can also drive up food prices, while warming trends can lower average crop yields and drive changes in the suitability of growing regions.
While agricultural productivity is projected to continue to increase in the future due to improved technological efficiency, it is “unclear how these trends will interact with climate change and extreme weather shocks”, says the report.
Dry and cracked soil in a field in rural Worcestershire, during dry weather. Credit: Alan Harbottle / Alamy Stock PhotoAdapting the UK’s food-security system will require undertaking a number of priority actions, says the CCC:
- Shifting working hours for agricultural labourers, providing shading and taking other measures to protect workers from heat stress;
- Investing in capacity-building, skills and technology to improve sustainability and efficiency for local producers;
- Diversifying the supply chains of both imported foods and inputs to UK agriculture, such as fertilisers, animal feed and fuel;
- Reducing food waste (edible food that is discarded at the retail level or by consumers);
- Investing in resilient cold-chain infrastructure for transporting and storing temperature-sensitive food products;
- Stress-testing the global commodity markets and preparing for potential shocks, such as export bans;
- Considering centralised stockpiling of critical food supplies.
Many of these actions are “expected to be delivered by market forces and industry”, says the report, although doing so will require engagement with and improved information for these actors. It suggests that requiring food-related businesses to disclose their climate risks could facilitate adaptation decisions.
The report also suggests strengthening international collaboration, such as through food-trade agreements, as well as providing support to vulnerable groups to alleviate potential food-price inflation due to climate shocks.
Economy and financeThe CCC divides the economy and finance sector into three subsystems: businesses, which provide goods and services; finance, which provides banking, investment and insurance services; and the macroeconomy, which accounts for the country’s overall economic strength through GDP, employment, inflation and other indicators.
All three of these subsystems are impacted by climate change, says the report.
Climate hazards, such as heatwaves, storms and flooding, can disrupt supply chains and daily operations in the business sector.
Climate-related damages can threaten financial assets and increase insurance costs, which can “reduce capacity to recover from climate events and create risks to financial stability and economic growth”, it says.
Meanwhile, macroeconomic indicators such as GDP and inflation can be “negatively affected by all climate-related impacts across sectors”, adds the report.
For the business subsystem, the CCC recommends the following priority adaptation actions:
- Identifying and managing climate-related risks to commercial assets, such as by installing flood defences and air-conditioning systems;
- Protecting workers from climate hazards, such as by adjusting working hours or providing shade and water;
- Reducing supply-chain exposure to climate hazards by diversifying suppliers, stockpiling resources and making procurement decisions with climate risk in mind;
- Identifying opportunities for businesses to provide adaptation innovations, goods and services.
For the finance subsystem, the committee outlines the following priorities:
- Collecting company-level data on climate risks and adaptation;
- Incorporating climate risks and adaptation costs into financial decisions;
- Reducing financial risks by accounting for the climate risks posed to financial institutions’ capital assets;
- Integrating adaptation into insurance products, pooling risk and issuing climate-responsive products, such as resilience bonds, which fund adaptation projects.
The CCC also details several priority actions for the macroeconomy:
- Creating a fiscal framework for the UK government that incorporates adaptation costs and potential future climate-related spending;
- Effectively responding to climate-related inflationary pressures;
- Reducing the climate risks associated with critical supply chains, such as energy, food and pharmaceuticals.
Carrying out these actions will require resources and capacity-building for businesses and financial institutions, as well as clearly defined roles and responsibilities for all involved actors, says the report.
National security and international engagementThe final sectoral section in the CCC’s “well-adapted UK” report looks at how international climate change poses risks to national security, foreign policy and development interests.
The committee says a key message is that the UK is interconnected with the rest of the world, meaning that no matter how well-adapted the country is domestically, it will be threatened by international climate risks.
The CCC says that national security ”cannot be ensured without climate resilience”. Moreover, it says that the UK has an obligation to help other countries adapt and build resilience – and that it will benefit from such aid.
This comes just days after the UK announced its intention to cut funding to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund, which provides climate financing for developing countries.
The CCC highlights that “climate-change impacts, weak economic development and inequality exacerbate each other”, as well as noting that climate hazards are a growing driver of involuntary migration.
It recommends the following measures to help maintain UK national security and fulfil international commitments in the face of global climate risks:
- Adapting the defence sector, including training and equipping forces to operate in more extreme weather conditions;
- Embedding climate considerations within decision-making processes;
- Providing direct adaptation assistance to support other countries and territories;
- Mobilising international private adaptation finance;
- Sharing and exporting the UK’s capabilities internationally, both in climate science and financial services.
Financial resources are one of the most important enablers for these actions, alongside a clear division of roles and responsibilities and effective use of data and monitoring.
The CCC also calls for sustained diplomacy and engagement on climate adaptation.
Experts: Why migration is ‘not a failure of adaptation’ in a warming world
Risk and adaptation
|UN report: Five charts which explain the ‘gap’ in finance for climate adaptation
Risk and adaptation
|Guest post: How adaptation has cut flood deaths and losses in Europe
Attribution
|Guest post: More than 70% of adaptation plans for European cities are ‘inconsistent’
Guest posts
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_72fedb35ce89591dd50c18c976861c0a .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post CCC: Investing in ‘urgent’ UK adaptation action ‘cheaper than climate damages’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Boone County to Discuss Moratorium on CO2 Pipelines at May 27 Public Hearing
Nebraskans: Sign the Letter of Support for Boone County CO2 Pipeline Moratorium
The Boone County, Nebraska Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 27 to discuss a proposed moratorium on CO2 pipeline construction in the county.
- WHAT: Public Hearing to Discuss CO2 Pipeline Moratorium
- WHO: Boone County, Nebraska Commissioners
- WHEN: Wednesday, May 27, 10:30 A.M.
- WHERE: 222 South 4th St., Albion, NE, 68620
Landowners and residents of Boone County and others in the vicinity who want to protect property rights against eminent domain land seizures, and who oppose the risky Summit CO2 pipeline are encouraged to attend the hearing in person to show support, and share their concerns during public comments.
Faced with the looming prospect of local landowners being targeted by Summit Carbon Solutions to obtain easements for its proposed risky CO2 pipeline, and potentially seeking to use eminent domain, Commissioners in Boone County are taking action to protect their community. The public hearing and vote by Commissioners on a proposed moratorium on the construction of CO2 pipelines in Boone County follows similar previous actions taken by neighboring counties. Stanton County unanimously denied Summit’s permit request in February 2024, and Dakota County tabled the company’s request in November 2025 and has since removed it from their agenda.
Bold Nebraska supported a bill introduced in the Nebraska Legislature in 2026, LB 916, which would have banned eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in Nebraska. Shelli Meyer, whose family’s land in Dixon County is threatened by the Summit pipeline, testified and Bold’s Founder Jane Kleeb also submitted testimony along with over 700 Nebraskans who wrote letters to their Senators urging them to support LB 916.
Bold will support another bill to ban eminent domain for CO2 pipelines next year, but in the meantime — show your support for the Boone County Commissioners by signing a letter endorsing the CO2 Pipeline Moratorium before the public hearing on May 27.
Nebraskans: Sign the Letter of Support for Boone County CO2 Pipeline Moratorium
Now Hiring: Legal Fellow (Salt Lake City)
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah (on-site, full-time, exempt)
Salary Range: $70,000-$78,000, commensurate with experience
Application Deadline: June 15, 2026
Download the Legal Fellow Job Description as a PDF
About the Southern Utah Wilderness AllianceThe Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is the only nonprofit organization working full-time to protect Utah’s redrock wilderness—some of the most spectacular public lands in America. Since 1983, SUWA’s staff, board, and members have worked to defend this landscape from threats like fossil fuel development, unnecessary road construction, and destructive off-road vehicle use. With offices in Salt Lake City, Moab, and Washington, DC, and tens of thousands of supporters across the country, SUWA has secured lasting protections for more than 5.5 million acres of wild public lands.
Our mission is to preserve the outstanding wilderness at the heart of the Colorado Plateau and ensure these lands remain in their natural state for the benefit of all. We are committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work and in our organization, knowing that the redrock is for everyone.
Position SummaryThe legal fellow is a 2-year litigation position that will focus on defense of Utah’s wildest federal public lands. SUWA’s litigation docket includes cases involving national monuments, off-road vehicles, Quiet Title Act (R.S. 2477), energy development, and vegetation removal. The legal fellow works closely with other program staff in SUWA’s Salt Lake and Moab offices and is supervised by the legal director.
Qualifications- 1-3 years of relevant experience, including familiarity with federal public land, environmental, and administrative law statutes and regulations.
- Demonstrated interest in environmentalism or conservation—passion for wilderness and public lands preferred.
- Excellent time management, analytical, legal research, and writing skills.
- Ability to handle a substantial workload that will, at times, require working nights and weekends.
- Commitment to wilderness preservation and SUWA’s mission.
- Utah Bar Licensure: (1) Utah bar membership, or (2) the ability to transfer UBE score; or (3) be admitted by motion
- Location: SUWA’s Salt Lake City Office. We work a hybrid schedule with at least 3 days per week in the office.
- Salary range: $70,000-$78,000, commensurate with experience.
- Comprehensive benefits package including health, dental, vision, retirement contributions, and general leave policies; details can be found online at suwa.org/careers
Please submit a cover letter, resume, law school transcript, 3-5 page writing sample, and 3 references to Steve Bloch, Legal Director, at hiring@suwa.org.
Application deadline: June 15, 2026
The lands SUWA works to protect are the ancestral homelands of many Tribes, including those that were forcibly removed at the hands of the U.S. government in an effort to exterminate their cultures, languages, and ways of life. These injustices are still felt today, but the quest to erase the Tribes failed: Indigenous communities continue their traditions and remain an integral part of the landscape and our community. We are committed to working toward understanding this history; to expanding present-day common ground, collaboration, and reconciliation with our Tribal neighbors; and to advocating that Tribes receive a seat at the table when others would exclude them.
SUWA is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in hiring or employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, disability, veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local law.
The post Now Hiring: Legal Fellow (Salt Lake City) appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
May 2026 Redrock Report
Grand Staircase-Escalante Remains in the Spotlight
For months now, the fight to protect Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’s management plan has been the number one priority at SUWA. Senator Lee and Representative Maloy are seeking to undo the plan using the Congressional Review Act (additional background can be found here) and their efforts may soon be coming to a head: we’re anticipating a vote in either the House or the Senate during the first two weeks of June.
If both chambers of Congress pass the measure by simple majority votes, the plan will be undone and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be barred from issuing another plan that is “substantially the same” in the future. Thanks to the Protect Wild Utah movement, opposition is growing nationwide—conveyed through phone calls, in-district meetings, letters to the editor, DC fly-ins, and so much more—and we know members of Congress are getting the message!
Here are a few recent materials we wanted to highlight:
- Executive Director Scott Braden has a piece—Congress is gunning for a National Monument in Utah—in Writers on the Range.
- Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert wrote an op-ed for the Salt Lake Tribune (which no longer has a paywall!)
- The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has issued a statement in opposition to use of the CRA.
- Over 150 scientists joined a sign-on letter in opposition, garnering stories in the Salt Lake Tribune, Outside, and other outlets.
- SUWA launched a “Love for GSE” Storymap of art inspired by the monument (and we’re still accepting submissions)
We’ll be in touch as soon as we know more about the vote timing. No matter where you live, our Grassroots Organizing Team can help you find the most effective ways to take action. Click here to learn more.
Photo © Jeff Foott
Speak Up for the San Rafael Swell and Desert!
Utah’s San Rafael Swell and San Rafael Desert are home to irreplaceable cultural and historic resources, important wildlife habitat, and unmatched recreation opportunities, including destinations such as Mexican Mountain, Buckhorn Draw, Tomsich Butte, Sweetwater Reef, designated wilderness areas, and the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area. Unfortunately, Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering substantially expanding damaging off-road vehicle use across these unique landscapes.
As a refresher, the BLM completed travel management plans for these two regions in 2022 and 2024. Those plans were far from ideal, designating hundreds of miles of new motorized vehicle routes at the expense of natural and cultural resources as well as non-motorized recreationists. Now the BLM is planning to go even further with a proposal to open hundreds of miles of additional off-road vehicle routes in its latest quest to transform quiet, wild places into motorized playgrounds.
The agency is accepting public comments through Monday, June 8. While the comment deadline is the same for each plan, they are being analyzed separately. Please follow the link below to submit comments, especially if you have first-hand knowledge of one or both landscapes.
>> Click here to submit your comments by June 8.
Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA
Tell BLM: No Active Airstrip in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness!
The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Price field office is proposing to authorize aircraft takeoffs and landings in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness by designating the unauthorized Keg Knoll backcountry airstrip as open for aircraft use. The airstrip is located on the west side of Labyrinth Canyon and north of Canyonlands National Park.
While the Wilderness Act gives the BLM some discretion to allow (or prohibit) continued use at airstrips that were legally established prior to wilderness designation, it does not allow the agency to authorize aircraft use when the airstrip was not legally open prior to the wilderness designation. That’s the situation here. And there are plenty of backcountry airstrips throughout Utah that don’t impact designated wilderness areas (only around 4% of BLM land in Utah is designated wilderness).
The BLM is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) and intends to issue a decision soon. Please follow the link below to submit comments as soon as possible. At the Trump administration’s direction, the agency is not planning to release a draft EA to the public or hold a formal public comment period.
>> Click here to submit comments now
Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA
Proposed Plan for San Rafael Swell Recreation Area Favors Development, ORV Dominance
Last week, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the final environmental assessment and proposed resource management plan (RMP) amendment for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area and surrounding region. You may recall that this 117,000-acre recreation area was established under the 2019 Dingell Act, along with 663,000 acres of BLM wilderness and other conservation designations.
The BLM is required to update its management plan for each of the new designations. Unfortunately, for the recreation area, it’s choosing to reverse course and emphasize off-road vehicle use and extractive development over conservation. This includes removing over 12,000 acres of natural areas (wilderness-quality lands managed to protect their wilderness values), eliminating commonsense recreation management and resource protection requirements, and reducing or eliminating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern outside of designated wilderness.
“We’re disappointed that BLM, at the behest of the Trump administration, squandered this opportunity to set out a proactive, comprehensive vision for resource protection and recreation management in the incredible San Rafael Swell and instead focused its energy and limited resources on rolling back existing protections to allow for more development and off-road vehicle abuse,” said SUWA Wildlands Director Neal Clark.
Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA
DC Update: The Good, Bad, and Ugly News from this Month
The Bad: Senate Confirms Steve Pearce as BLM Director. Yesterday, by a vote of 46–43 the U.S. Senate confirmed anti-public lands politician and former U.S. Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) as the next director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
“Today’s vote is disappointing,” said SUWA DC Director Travis Hammill. “Anyone who cares about the future of public lands, national monuments, or the redrock knows that Steve Pearce has fundamentally disqualifying views—such as opposing the very existence of public lands—and should not hold the position of Director of the Bureau of Land Management.” >> Read our full statement
The Ugly: Trump Interior Department Rescinds Public Lands Rule. We’ve known for a while that this was coming, and last week the BLM’s Public Lands Rule (aka the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule) was officially rescinded. Responding to the news, SUWA Legal Director Steve Bloch said, “The Public Lands Rule reiterated that the BLM had to put conservation on equal footing with other uses and laid out a framework for the agency to restore degraded landscapes and protect intact public lands for current and future generations. Americans and Utahns widely supported the Rule and we are deeply disappointed to see the Trump administration’s shortsighted effort to undo it. Our work to Protect Wild Utah continues, undeterred.” >> Read our full statement
The Good: House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition (SEEC) Endorses ARRWA. Earlier this month, the SEEC endorsed 21 member-led bills—and America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (championed by SEEC member Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-NM-01) is among them! According to the coalition’s May 7 release, “The bills we are endorsing today reiterate that we must protect our nature and wildlife, invest in American science and clean energy innovation, hold polluters and corrupt corporations accountable, and safeguard our communities against rapidly worsening extreme weather fueled by the climate crisis. This is the future that the American people want and deserve.”
>> Please add your support today by asking your members of Congress to cosponsor America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (or thanking them if they already have!).
The post May 2026 Redrock Report appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
DECLARATION OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLA
Today we woke up to the news that, once again, Israeli forces have kidnapped members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Among them is our comrade in international struggles, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), a member of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB) and the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), who played an important role in the operational secretariat of the Peoples Summit toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
We cannot allow Israel to continue carrying out these illegal detentions without taking into account that these individuals are not at war, and that their only weapon is the defense of life. The kidnapping in international waters violates international law and the principles of humanitarian action.
Therefore, we call on the Government of Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), other governments, as well as the international community as a whole, to do everything possible to guarantee the release, safety, and free passage of the Flotilla to its destination.
We, the organizations, networks, and social movements that organized the Peoples Summit in Belém during COP30, express our support for Beatriz Moreira, our comrade, and for all the crew members of the Flotilla, and we demand their immediate release!
In accordance with what was stated in the final declaration of the Peoples Summit, we reaffirm that: “For more than 80 years, the Palestinian people have been victims of genocide perpetrated by the Zionist state of Israel, which has bombed the Gaza Strip, forcibly displaced millions of people and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly children, women and the elderly. We totally repudiate the genocide perpetrated against Palestine. We offer our support and solidarity to the people who bravely resist…”
WE WILL CONTINUE THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE UNTIL THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLES ARE FREE!
Download the statement in Español, Português, Türkçe
SIGNED BY
- AIP – Articulação Internacional dos Povos
- Alba Movimentos
- AMA – Assembleia Mundial pela Amazônia
- AMB – Articulação de Mulheres Brasileiras
- ANA – Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia
- APIB – Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil
- APMDD – Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development
- CAN – Climate Action Network
- Climate Justice Coalition – Turkey
- Coalizão Negra por Direitos
- COIAB – Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira
- Comitê Brasileiro de Defensores de Direitos Humanos e Terra de Direitos
- CONAQ – Coordenação Nacional de Articulação das Comunidades Negras Rurais Quilombolas
- CONJUCLIMA
- CONTAG – Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores Rurais Agricultores e Agricultoras Familiares
- CSA – Confederación Sindical de las Américas
- CUT – Central Única dos Trabalhadores
- DCJ – Demand Climate Justice
- Engajamundo
- FASE – Solidariedade e Educação
- FBOMS – Fórum Brasileiro de ONGs e Movimentos Sociais para o Meio Ambiente e o Desenvolvimento
- FOEI – Friends of the Earth International
- FONSANPOTMA – Forum Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional dos Povos Tradicionais de Matriz Africana
- FOSPA – Fórum Social Pan-Amazônico
- Fossil Fuel Treaty
- GCB – Grupo Carta de Belém
- GFC – Global Forest Coalition
- GGJ – Grassroots Global Justice
- GTA – Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico
- GIMCC- Perú Grupo Impulsor de Mujeres y Cambio Climático
- Iniciativa Internacional de Mulheres de Corpo Territorio (já existente)
- Iniciativa internacional de mujeres en defensa de cuerpos y territorios
- IPB – International Peace Bureau
- Jornada Continental por la Democracia y contra el Neoliberalismo
- LVC – La Via Campesina / CLOC
- MAR – Movimiento de Afectados por Represas
- MAB – Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens
- MAM – Movimento pela Soberania Popular na Mineração
- MICQB – Movimento Interestadual das Quebradeiras de Coco Babaçu
- MMM – Marcha Mundial de Mulheres
- MNU – Movimento Negro Unificado
- MPA – Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores
- MST – Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra
- MTST – Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Teto
- OC – Observatório do Clima
- Peoples Dialogue
- Peoples’ Climate Summit 2026, Beyond COP 31, Antalya
- PICS – Palestinian Institute for Climate Strategy
- PLACJC – Plataforma Latinoamericana por la Justicia Climática
- Pororoka
- REBEA – Rede Brasileira de Educação Ambiental
- Rede PCTs
- REPAM – Rede Eclesial Pan-Amazônica
- STC – Seed the Commons
- TUED – Trade Union for Energy Democracy
- TSF-Mining – Thematic Social Forum in Mining and Extractive Economy
- UNE – União Nacional dos Estudantes
- WFFP – World Forum of Fisher Peoples
- WMW – World March of Women
- WoW – War on Want
Today we woke up to the news that, once again, Israeli forces have kidnapped members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Among them is our comrade in international struggles, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), a member of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB) and the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), who played an important role in the operational secretariat of the Peoples Summit toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
We cannot allow Israel to continue carrying out these illegal detentions without taking into account that these individuals are not at war, and that their only weapon is the defense of life. The kidnapping in international waters violates international law and the principles of humanitarian action.
Therefore, we call on the Government of Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), other governments, as well as the international community as a whole, to do everything possible to guarantee the release, safety, and free passage of the Flotilla to its destination.
We, the organizations, networks, and social movements that organized the Peoples Summit in Belém during COP30, express our support for Beatriz Moreira, our comrade, and for all the crew members of the Flotilla, and we demand their immediate release!
In accordance with what was stated in the final declaration of the Peoples Summit, we reaffirm that: “For more than 80 years, the Palestinian people have been victims of genocide perpetrated by the Zionist state of Israel, which has bombed the Gaza Strip, forcibly displaced millions of people and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly children, women and the elderly. We totally repudiate the genocide perpetrated against Palestine. We offer our support and solidarity to the people who bravely resist…”
WE WILL CONTINUE THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE UNTIL THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLES ARE FREE!
DECLARAÇÃO DE SOLIDARIEDADE COM A GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLAHoje amanhecemos com a notícia de que, novamente, forças israelenses sequestraram integrantes da Global Sumud Flotilha, entre elas está a nossa companheira de lutas internacionais, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), membro do Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens (MAB) e do Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), que desempenhou um importante trabalho na secretaria operativa da Cúpula dos Povos rumo à COP30, em Belém, no Brasil.
Não podemos permitir que Israel siga realizando detenções ilegais sem levar em conta que eles e elas não estão em guerra, que sua única arma é a defesa da vida. O sequestro em águas internacionais viola o direito internacional e as premissas de ação humanitária.
Portanto: exigimos do Governo do Brasil e ao Ministério de Relações Exteriores (Itamaraty), dos demais países, bem como do conjunto da comunidade internacional que façam todo o possível para garantir a libertação, a segurança e o livre trânsito da Flotilha até o seu destino.
Nós, as organizações, redes e movimentos sociais que organizaram a Cúpula dos Povos em Belém, durante a COP30, manifestamos nosso apoio a Beatriz Moreira, nossa companheira, e a todas e todos os tripulantes da Flotilha, e exigimos sua liberdade imediata!
De acordo com o exposto na declaração final da Cúpula dos Povos, reafirmamos que: “Há mais de 80 anos, o povo palestino tem sido vítima de genocídio praticado pelo Estado sionista de Israel, que bombardeou a faixa de Gaza, deslocou pela força milhões de pessoas e matou dezenas de milhares de inocentes, a maioria crianças, mulheres e idosos. Nosso repúdio total ao genocídio praticado contra a Palestina. Nosso apoio e abraço solidário ao povo que bravamente resiste…”
CONTINUAREMOS A LUTA INTERNACIONAL ATÉ QUE O POVO PALESTINO SEJA LIVRE!
KÜRESEL SUMUD FİLOSU İLE DAYANIŞMA AÇIKLAMASIBugün, İsrail güçlerinin bir kez daha Küresel Sumud Filosu üyelerini kaçırdığı haberiyle uyandık.
Aralarında, uluslararası mücadelelerdeki yoldaşımız, Barajlardan Etkilenen Halklar Hareketi (MAB) ve Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR) üyesi ve Brezilya’nın Belém kentinde düzenlenen COP30’a Doğru Halkların İklim Zirvesi’nin operasyonel sekreterliğinde önemli bir rol oynayan Beatriz Moreira (Bia) da bulunmakta.
Bu kişilerin savaşta olmadıklarını ve tek silahlarının hayatlarını savunmak olduğunu hesaba katmadan, İsrail’in bu yasa dışı gözaltıları gerçekleştirmeye devam etmesine izin veremeyiz. Uluslararası sularda yapılan kaçırma, uluslararası hukuku ve insani eylem ilkelerini ihlal etmektedir.
Bu nedenle, Brezilya Hükûmetini, Dışişleri Bakanlığını, diğer hükûmetleri ve bir bütün olarak uluslararası toplumu, Filo’nun serbest bırakılması, güvenliği ve varış noktasına özgürce ulaşması için mümkün olan her şeyi yapmaya çağırıyoruz.
Biz, COP30 esnasında Belém’de Halkların Zirvesi’ni düzenleyen örgütler, ağlar ve sosyal hareketler olarak, yoldaşımız Beatriz Moreira’ya ve Filo’nun tüm mürettebat üyelerine desteğimizi ifade ediyor ve derhal serbest bırakılmalarını talep ediyoruz!
Halkların Zirvesi’nin nihai bildirisinde yazdıklarımıza uygun olarak yineliyoruz: “Filistin halkı 80 yılı aşkın süredir, Gazze Şeridi’ni bombalayan, milyonlarca insanı zorla yerinden eden ve çoğunluğu çocuk, kadın ve yaşlı olmak üzere on binlerce masum insanı öldüren Siyonist İsrail devleti tarafından gerçekleştirilen soykırımın kurbanı olmuştur. Filistin’e karşı işlenen soykırımı tamamen kınıyoruz. Cesurca direnen halka desteğimizi ve dayanışmamızı sunuyoruz…”
FİLİSTİN HALKLARI ÖZGÜR OLANA KADAR ULUSLARARASI MÜCADELEYE DEVAM EDECEĞİZ!
The post DECLARATION OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLA appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.
Calif. Republican State Senator Blames State Gas Taxes, Dems. for High Fuel Prices
The deadline for legislation to be passed through committee has come and gone in the State Senate. Among the legislation that failed to advance was Senate Bill 1035: Motor vehicle fuel tax: greenhouse gas reduction programs: suspension, by Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach), which would have suspended the state’s gas tax.
Yesterday, Strickland bemoaned the failure of his legislation in a partisan rant aimed at blaming gas prices on Democrats and the gas tax.
“At a time when affordability is the top concern for families, Senate Democrats said ‘Hell no’ to much-needed financial relief. This was a missed opportunity to take action,” he declared. “Here in California, despite all the talk about fighting for affordability and California being a leader on policy, Sacramento Democrats are falling in line with Governor Newsom and refusing even to discuss relief at the pump.”
But It’s Not That SimpleIt’s true that California has both the highest gas tax in the country ($.79 per gallon) and the highest gas prices in the country ($6.15 on average, as of yesterday). The total gas tax paid by Californians is only $.25 higher than the national average, but the cost per gallon is $1.61 higher.
In short:
- Crude oil prices: the cost of oil on the global market is the single biggest factor affecting California gasoline prices.
- Refinery operations: outages, maintenance, or unexpected shutdowns at California refineries can quickly drive prices higher.
- California’s cleaner-burning fuel requirements: the state’s unique gasoline blend costs more to produce and limits where fuel can be sourced.
- Taxes and environmental fees: state and federal gas taxes, Cap-and-Trade, and Low Carbon Fuel Standard costs all add to pump prices.
- Supply and transportation constraints: California lacks interstate gasoline pipelines and relies heavily on in-state refining and marine imports, making the market more vulnerable to disruptions.
For more details, the state’s energy commission gives a pretty neutral look at the various influences and Streetsblog did its own breakdown a couple of weeks ago.
Of course, Strickland’s press statement excludes the reason for the massive global increase in crude oil costs in the past two and a half months because of President Donald Trump war against Iran. Iran responded to the initial attack from the United States by not allowing oil tankers and other trade through the Strait of Hormuz. 20% of the world’s oil supply comes through the strait in normal times, and the global oil market has been thrown into chaos. In the U.S., that means an average 50% increase in the cost of gasoline at the pump.
And of course, there’s a cost to Californians in reducing or suspending the gas tax. California’s gas taxes and fees fund transportation infrastructure and programs, including road and highway maintenance, public transit, bridge repairs, traffic safety improvements, and efforts to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Other states that have suspended or reduced the tax in response to the price hikes from Trump’s war, including Utah, Indiana, and Georgia, have large surpluses in their general fund that have offset the reduced revenue from gas taxes.
Whither the Feds?Trump himself is talking about suspending the federal gas tax of $.18, which would take a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Given that prominent Democrats in the Senate have already signaled their support, it is likely that legislation for a “gas tax holiday” would have majority support, should it be brought to a vote.
The federal gas tax pays for the maintenance, repair, and construction of national infrastructure, including highways, bridges, and mass transit systems. Revenue from the tax goes directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
What is the sunscreen filter bemotrizinol?
For the first time in over 25 years, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to approve a new sunscreen ultraviolet, or UV, filter for the U.S. market: bemotrizinol, or BEMT.
It’s a UV filter that since 1999 has been used in sunscreens in other countries, offering greater protection against harmful ultraviolet A, or UVA, rays.
UVA radiation is the sun wavelength that penetrates deepest into the skin, leads to premature skin aging, suppresses the immune system and increases risk of skin cancers, like melanoma. The sunscreens most Americans use do not provide enough UVA protection.
For decades, Americans have had access to fewer sunscreen ingredients than consumers in Europe and Asia. In some cases the sunscreen sold in the U.S. offers UVA protection that is much worse than the sunscreens sold overseas.
EWG’s own peer-reviewed research found that U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.
But that might be about to change.
Proposal could improve sunscreen optionsIn late 2025, the FDA proposed to add BEMT to the U.S. list of active ingredients allowed in sunscreens. The proposal allows for use up to 6%.
If the agency finalizes its decision, BEMT will be the first new UV filter approved for the U.S. market in over 25 years.
BEMT could be widely adopted into sunscreen formulations, since it will be allowed for use in combination with almost all currently approved active ingredients.
The only restriction on using the filter would be a ban on combining it with two other UV filters: para-aminobenzoic acid, or PABA, and trolamine salicylate. In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed these two filters are not “generally recognized as safe and effective,” or GRASE, for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S.
In the European Union, BEMT is sold by numerous companies under trade names that include Tinosorb® S, Parsol® Shield, AakoSun BEMT, and Escalol™ S. The chemical company CIBA Speciality Chemicals invented the filter and applied for FDA approval in 2005, so it has already had more than two decades of regulatory review. CIBA was acquired by BASF, which manufactures and markets BEMT internationally.
DSM, a pharmaceutical company, has been leading calls for FDA approval of its version of BEMT, sold as PARSOL® Shield. If the FDA finalizes its approval, DSM would have 18 months of marketing exclusivity.
After that period, other manufacturers would be able to use BEMT in their formulations, which should expand the range of products available to consumers.
Data submitted to the FDA about products with BEMT at concentrations up to 6%, led the agency to propose the ingredient as safe and effective.
Similarly, European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety 1999 findings report that at levels up to 10%, BEMT does not irritate the skin and is not associated in animal studies with harm to the reproductive system.
A step forward in UVA protectionThe most important use of BEMT would be closing the UVA protection gap that has plagued American sunscreens for decades.
In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, and the FDA oversees sunscreen safety. The agency said in 2019 and 2021 only two of 16 ingredients on the market – zinc oxide and titanium – are GRASE.
Due to safety concerns, the FDA has flagged PABA and trolamine salicylate as not GRASE.
The 12 other ingredients on the U.S. market are also not GRASE. But that status is primarily due to insufficient data. The agency has requested additional safety data on these ingredients, although they are still allowed for use in products sold in the U.S.
Problems with existing filtersThe best sunscreens are those that provide broad spectrum protection – from both UVA and ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays.
UVA rays don’t easily burn the skin. But they can cause it to age, suppress the immune system and contribute to the development of skin cancer.
Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens today that are effective at reducing UVA rays significantly.
Avobenzone is chemically unstable and must be paired with other ingredients to prevent it from breaking down in sunlight. Breakdown products of avobenzone have also been shown to cause allergic reactions.
BEMT solves these problems. According to the FDA review, it provides strong broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation.
It is more stable in sunlight than avobenzone and – unlike avobenzone – can be combined with zinc oxide to provide greater UVA protection. It also has more safety data than any non-mineral filters on the U.S. market.
Minimal health concernsData suggests that most available non-mineral UV filters may have safety concerns.
The FDA’s proposed approval of BEMT includes extensive scientific review requiring data on absorption into the body and likelihood of irritation and sensitization, as well as animal studies of carcinogenicity and potential to harm reproduction or development.
Minimal skin absorption
Documents submitted to the FDA report that BEMT at concentrations up to 6% is minimally absorbed into the body and the amount that does absorb is below the concentration FDA considers to be indicative of systemic exposure after application.
Compared to the other 12 ingredient chemical filters on the U.S. market, BEMT has robust data for safety and does not absorb into the skin.
FDA studies in 2019 and 2020 showed that a one-time application of six other chemical actives – oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, avobenzone and octinoxate – were absorbed through the skin at levels above 0.5 nanograms per milliliter, the maximum concentration the FDA says may be found in blood without potential safety concerns.
One ingredient, oxybenzone, was detected at 258.1 nanograms per milliliter in blood after multiple lotion applications – 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern.
No evidence of carcinogenicity
In a two-year long animal study, BEMT was applied to the skin of rats. The results indicated that BEMT did not cause abnormal, unregulated growth on the skin. This suggests that BEMT is likely not cancer-causing when applied to skin.
No reproductive harm
The FDA also reviewed a multi-generational reproductive study and concluded that there were no harmful reproductive effects on the rats giving birth or the survival and development of their offspring.
Not irritating
Data submitted to the FDA also included a repeated insult patch test and cumulative irritation patch test, a photo-allergenicity test and a phototoxicity test. Results suggest BEMT was not irritating to the skin.
More options are still neededApproving BEMT is a meaningful step forward, but it doesn’t solve every problem with the U.S. sunscreen market.
For over 20 years, companies have submitted some safety data to the FDA in hopes of adding BEMT to the U.S. market. Even with the addition of avobenzone in 1999, the U.S. has been left with fewer options because the FDA’s approval process has been so slow.
In sunscreens sold in Europe and elsewhere worldwide, BEMT is formulated with other active ingredients that are not approved for use in the U.S.
Sunscreens are often formulated with a mixture of active ingredients and, even with the addition of BEMT, the U.S. sunscreen market, would still lag behind the EU market.
In the U.S., 16 active ingredients are permitted and in the EU, about 30 filters are available for formulation.
With a law known as the 2020 CARES Act, the FDA’s rules for over-the-counter drugs were modernized. The law restructured the regulation of all OTC monograph drugs and replaced the legacy rulemaking process with a streamlined administrative order system. This change simplified the regulatory process.
If the FDA finalizes the addition of BEMT, it’ll be the first new sunscreen active ingredient allowed in the U.S. in nearly 30 years. Other sunscreen companies could also submit applications to allow additional sunscreen ingredients on the market.
But, so far, these manufacturers seem unwilling to produce the safety data that the FDA requests.
Tips for sun safety- Cover up and wear sunglasses. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants provide the best protection from UV rays. Good shades protect your eyes from UV radiation, which may cause cataracts.
- Find shade or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella or take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade, because they are still developing the tanning pigments, known as melanin, that protect skin.
- Wear sunscreen. EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens evaluates the safety and efficacy of SPF-rated products, including sunscreens for recreational use and SPF-rated daily-use moisturizers and lip products. The best ratings are for products that provide broad spectrum protection formulated with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns when absorbed by the body.
- Look for EWG Verified®. Consumers can also shop for EWG Verified sunscreens, making it easier to find products that are safer and effective.
‘Balcony solar’ bill to cut energy costs clears California Senate
SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group applauds California’s Senate for passing a bill today that would let residents install small, portable “balcony solar” systems in apartments, condos and single-family homes, bringing them relief from sky-high electricity bills.
Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, cleared the Senate in a 35-1 vote, with four abstensions. It now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.
The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network.
“EWG commends the Senate for advancing this proposal, a major step forward for energy affordability and consumer choice,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California.
A 400-watt balcony solar system can cut monthly utility bills for the average apartment dweller by up to $250 per year. Small balcony solar systems start at $500 today, but broader adoption enabled by SB 868 could drive prices down and give renters and low-income households more access to clean energy.
“These systems are simple, practical and proven. They give people the ability to plug into clean energy savings immediately,” said Del Chiaro.
Balcony solar systems are as simple as plugging in a toaster or other electrical appliance at home. But red tape means the systems aren’t widely used. SB 868 would eliminate those barriers.
“We strongly encourage the Assembly to promptly take up and pass the balcony solar bill, ensuring that as we head into a hot summer, millions of Californians can look forward to having access to this technology and begin to see meaningful reductions in their energy bills,” Del Chiaro added.
Consumer-friendly cost-saving toolCalifornia’s electricity rates have climbed dramatically in recent years, leaving the state with some of the nation’s highest energy costs.
SB 868 would give Californians a practical, consumer-friendly tool to take greater control over their energy bills. System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances like fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers or an air conditioning unit.
The bill includes strict safety requirements modeled on internationally recognized standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science organization, or an equivalent nationally recognized testing laboratory.
The legislation also requires that balcony solar systems have automatic shutoff protections that are triggered within seconds if the grid goes down, helping protect utility workers.
Balcony solar is already thriving in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. But in California, regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many.
SB 868 would remove those barriers while establishing statewide safety standards that do not currently exist.
###
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 19, 2026Guest Essay on Proposed Hydrogen Facility in Questa
Opinion By Om Jaya
Mice and MenThe best laid plans of mice and men is an expression to signify, despite careful planning, that projects can still fail and cause grief. Big promises often lead to big problems. Moss Landing in California, the Moly Corp/Chevron mine in Questa, Oak Flat in Arizona, the national list is growing. These massive developments are always at the risk of environmental impact and the health and safety of communities. Corporations use clever advertising to sway public opinion, and publish articles on why it’s good for you to support them. Their tone is of concern for public interest but when asked for environmental, health, and safety assessments, they often reply unrealistically.
Guilty companies back out of harmful projects after they’ve taken enough resources and their stock holders are satisfied. These capital groups make promises to restore and balance the land they’ve destroyed and always fall short of their commitments. While capital groups make millions, a few locals earn well, but the environmental destruction is done and serious health issues emerge. The shadow of dishonest corporations and soft handed representatives linger forever.
And now we are faced again with a potential Mice and Men story: the proposed installation of a hydrogen plant and hundreds of acres of solar panels in Questa, along with the proposed hydrogen plants in Taos and Picuris. These possible productions (pilot, in other words, experimental) have rightfully been upsetting local and national citizens who have taken the time to research and uncover the potential environmental impacts and the risks of health and safety to our community.
Kit Carson Electric Coop has been crafting one sided adds disguised as articles that cleverly sway public opinion, falsely stating that all is green, proper environmental assessments have been done, and that they have had no push back. Truth be told, as our community wakes up to this undeveloped proposal, push back is rapidly increasing and the community’s questions of concern are not being fully answered.
Luis Reyes of KCEC tells us everything’s in order, shows no legal proof, and the mayor of Questa, John Ortega, remains silent. Questa Village Councilor Daryl Ortega (no relation to the mayor) has asked Luis Reyes for a copy of the original USDA grant application and other documents related to the $231 million award that funds the project; months later, Luis continues to avoid the request. The latest statement from KCEC is the most alarming: they have done an impact study in case the hydrogen plant explodes. An explosion impact report looks good on paper, but how can we predict the unpredictable power of nature? Why is KCEC so desperate to begin this project?
We are the ones we have been waiting for, so let’s step up and protect our right to have influence on the land we live and love on. Worldwide, alternative clean methods of creating and storing energy are rapidly being developed while hydrogen continues to propose challenges. KCEC needs to imagine a back to the land picture of Taos and not support one of corporate industrial take over. Getting back to the land is not a fantasy, it’s a necessity. We don’t need an eye sore dinosaur (hydrogen plant) that will become obsolete while it is breaking down. A construction mistake like this will not weaken but will challenge the spirit of our people and discolor our already tarnished past.
And there is hope. A new wave of a conscious and vibrant attitude is rising in Taos County, one of regeneration and revival. A vision of returning to community, local culture, food, and arts, one of giving rights back to the land and taking responsibility for its uses. Let’s nourish the nature we are famous for, not stress it with thousands of solar panels and hydrogen plants.
What if our children and their children and the elk and eagle could speak. Will they have to fight for the health and safety of their lives and the protection of the environment, and will their cries fall on deaf ears?
No, we as concerned citizens won’t let that happen.
Conservation Leadership Initiative Students Soar to New Heights
Audubon Awarded $460,917 to Design Coastal Resilience Strategy for East River Marsh in Guilford, Connecticut
Restoring Riparian Buffers at Green Mountain Audubon Center
Fighting decades of broken promises in Uganda
The ongoing expansion of airports in Uganda is being opposed by community-led advocacy campaigns which put the struggles of communities facing displacement front and centre. Here Ayebaze Moreen explains how the campaign developed. The expansion of Uganda’s aviation infrastructure – including projects at Entebbe International Airport, Anai Airport in Lira, Arua Airport…
ISO New England sees marginal winter benefit from behind-the-meter batteries
The grid operator’s first 10-year forecast to incorporate small, customer-sited energy storage systems finds considerable uncertainty about their role on a changing grid.
A First-Time Camper’s Bird’s-Eye View of the Platte River Safari
“Zero waste is possible”: GAIA Africa Members return from Philippines with lessons for tackling waste pollution
For 10 days in the Philippines, environmental advocates from across the world moved through neighbourhoods before sunrise with waste pickers, sorted discarded plastics by hand, observed community composting systems, and studied how ordinary residents are helping to build functioning zero-waste communities.
This included six environmental organisations from Africa (Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and Togo.) The experience, participants from Africa say, challenged long-held assumptions about waste management and offered practical lessons that could help African communities confront the growing crisis of plastic pollution.
The Asia-Pacific Zero Waste Academy, co-organised by the Mother Earth Foundation and GAIA Asia Pacific, brought together 36 participants from 12 countries for an intensive training programme on community-level zero-waste implementation. Through workshops, field visits and study tours, participants were exposed to waste segregation systems, reuse and refill models, composting initiatives and material recovery facilities operating across communities in the Philippines.
The programme sought to demonstrate that zero waste “is not just a concept, it is a system we can build”.
Participants engaged directly with waste pickers and community waste workers in barangays such as San Agustin, where they participated in waste collection exercises, monitoring activities, and community education campaigns. They also conducted baseline surveys and observed how local governments and residents collaborate to sustain waste management systems.
Visits to material recovery facilities in Dampalit, Malabon City, San Fernando, and Barangay Malpitic in Pampanga offered practical insights into waste-sorting, recycling, and reduction systems. Attendees later travelled to Dumaguete City for dialogues with members of the Dumaguete Waste Workers Association and the Philippines National Waste Pickers Alliance, where discussions focused on the social and economic dimensions of zero-waste systems.
For End Plastic Pollution, Mazingira Plus, Up Cycle It Ghana, NGO Jeunes Verts Togo, and CODAF, the experience challenged assumptions about what is required to build sustainable waste systems.
Abdalla Mikulu, executive director of Mazingira Plus in Tanzania, said the academy deepened his understanding of how women-led community systems are addressing plastic pollution and organic waste challenges.
“I was especially inspired by the adaptability of reuse and refill models across different local contexts and their role in reducing single-use plastics,” he said. “It reinforced that zero waste systems can be designed to fit both low- and high-income communities through context-specific approaches.”
Participants also undertook Waste Assessment and Brand Audits (Waba), sorting through discarded packaging to trace patterns of production and consumption. The exercise examined how single-use packaging travels across borders into local communities and highlighted the structural systems driving plastic pollution.
The academy concluded with “The Great Challenge”, during which participants designed practical zero waste implementation plans. The African participants presented a model for implementing a zero waste system in a community in Togo, focusing on reuse, refill systems and organic waste management.
Nirere Sadrach, founder of End Plastic Pollution Uganda, described the programme as an opportunity to gain practical knowledge that could strengthen zero-waste projects in Uganda.
“It was an opportunity to experience the practice of waste segregation, reuse, refill and composting, and to work with waste pickers and community leaders to ensure the functionality of the zero waste model,” he said.
For Melody Enyinnaya of CODAF Nigeria, the academy marked “a paradigm shift”.
“Witnessing communities in Malabon, San Fernando and Siquijor living proof that zero waste is not a distant ideal but an achievable, everyday reality, powered by strong legislation, community ownership and remarkably simple infrastructure, has completely transformed how I approach our work in Nigeria,” she said.
She argued that African countries require “stronger political will, better data, and communities that are trusted and empowered to lead” rather than expensive technologies.
Frank Sekyere of Upcycle It Ghana said the programme demonstrated that adopting zero waste approaches was “a necessary step towards a sustainable future”.
“The hands-on experience, particularly with the 10 steps to zero waste implementation, was truly eye-opening,” he said. “Every effort, no matter how small, plays a vital role in creating a cleaner, more sustainable world.”
Raissa Oureya of the NGO Jeunes Verts Togo said the academy demonstrated that zero-waste communities can be built with locally available resources and strong local leadership.
“I am returning motivated and full of energy to implement the zero waste project in my municipality, Golfe 4,” she said. “Zero waste is not perfect, but it’s possible.”
ENDS.
The post “Zero waste is possible”: GAIA Africa Members return from Philippines with lessons for tackling waste pollution first appeared on GAIA.
Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario
Among a flurry of posts on social media last weekend, US president Donald Trump declared “good riddance” to a specific emissions scenario used in global climate projections.
The “RCP8.5” scenario, which envisages a future of very high carbon emissions, was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, the president wrote in block capitals.
This was “just admitted” by the UN’s “top climate committee”, he falsely claimed, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The post was quickly picked up by right-leaning media, amplifying Trump’s misrepresentation of emissions scenarios and the role of the IPCC.
His claim follows the publication of a new set of emissions scenarios that will feed into the next IPCC reports.
While the new scenarios no longer include such high emissions as in RCP8.5, they also show it is “not possible” to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels without significant “overshoot”, one of the authors tells Carbon Brief.
Moreover, projections suggest that the world is still on course for between 2.5C and 3C of warming, another author says.
This level of warming was previously described as “catastrophic” by the UN.
In this factcheck, Carbon Brief looks at Trump’s comments, the debate around RCP8.5 and the “good” and “bad” news within the latest scenarios.
- What did Trump say?
- What is RCP8.5?
- Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?
- How has RCP8.5 been replaced?
- How is the IPCC involved?
In the late evening of Saturday 16 May, Trump posted the following message on his Truth Social social-media platform:
“Dumocrats” is a derogatory nickname for Democrat politicians, debuted by the president in a televised Fox News interview on Thursday 14 May, according to the Independent.
By “top climate committee”, the president was presumably referring to the IPCC, the UN body responsible for assessing science about human-caused climate change.
However, the IPCC does not develop, control or own climate scenarios. Moreover, it has not published anything stating that any climate scenario is “wrong”. (For more, see: How is the IPCC involved?)
Nevertheless, right-leaning media outlets have reported on Trump’s comments, in many instances repeating his false assertion that the RCP8.5 climate scenario had been developed by the IPCC.
The New York Post misleadingly claimed that the IPCC “had quietly adjusted” its framework of emission scenarios. The Daily Caller, a pro-Trump conspiratorial US outlet, adds its own falsehoods stating that “IPCC researchers revised their modelling approach last month, swapping the extreme pathway for seven alternative scenarios”. The climate-sceptic Australian claimed that scientists had “quietly scrapped the apocalyptic forecasts that have terrified policymakers and the public”.
With Fox News also covering Trump’s comments, along with an earlier article by the Times, much of the reporting around RCP8.5 in recent days has been driven by media controlled by the climate-sceptic mogul Rupert Murdoch.
It is not the first time the Trump administration has attacked RCP8.5. In an executive order issued in May 2025 – entitled, “Restoring gold-standard science” – the White House included the climate scenario in a list of examples of how the previous government had “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner”.
Federal agencies, it claimed, had been using RCP8.5 to “assess the potential effects of climate change in a higher warming scenario”, despite scientists warning that “presenting RCP8.5 as a likely outcome is misleading”.
The executive order came after Project 2025 – a policy wishlist for Trump’s second term published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, an influential rightwing, climate-sceptic thinktank in the US – criticised the climate scenario.
The manifesto said a “day-one” priority for the new government should be to “eliminate” the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “use of unauthorised regulatory inputs”, such as “unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on RCP8.5”.
What is RCP8.5?Scientists use emissions scenarios to explore potential future climates, based on how global energy and land use could change in the decades to come.
These scenarios are not predictions or forecasts of what will happen in the future. Therefore, Trump’s declaration that projections under RCP8.5 were “wrong, wrong, wrong” misrepresents the purpose of emissions scenarios.
Different modelling groups have produced thousands of different scenarios over the years. RCP8.5 was developed by scientists back in the early 2010s as one of a set of four consistent “representative concentration pathways”, or RCPs, for climate modellers to use.
As their name suggests, the RCPs were representative of the vast array of scenarios in the scientific literature.
Their corresponding numbers – 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 – do not describe temperature rise (as some mistakenly assume), but the level of “radiative forcing” that each pathway reaches by 2100. This forcing level is a measure of the change in the Earth’s “energy balance” (in watts per square metre) caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
As the highest forcing of the set, RCP8.5 was a scenario of very high emissions and extensive global warming.
When it was originally published in 2011, RCP8.5 was intended to reflect the high end – roughly the 90th percentile – of the baseline scenarios available in the scientific literature at the time.
A “baseline” scenario is one that assumes no climate mitigation, explains Dr Chris Smith, senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. He tells Carbon Brief:
“RCP8.5 was developed as a no-climate-policy scenario, often called ‘reference’ or ‘baseline’ scenarios. These are used to benchmark the actions of climate policy.”
Under RCP8.5, the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) in 2013 projected a best estimate of 4.3C of temperature rise by 2081-2100, compared to the pre-industrial period, with a “likely” range of 3.2C to 5.4C.
The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs. The SSPs included a set of five socioeconomic “narratives”, which described factors such as population change, economic growth and the rate of technological development.
The SSPs were then used in the IPCC’s sixth assessment (AR6) cycle, which ran over 2015-23. The upper end of the AR6 temperature projections was provided by the successor to RCP8.5, known as SSP5-8.5, which indicated warming of 4.4C by 2081-2100, with a “very likely” range of 3.3C to 5.7C.
Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?Prof Detlef van Vuuren from Utrecht University, a leading figure in the development of emissions scenarios for many years, tells Carbon Brief that RCP8.5 is a “low-probability, high-risk scenario and it was always meant like that”.
The scenario assumed a world without climate policy and was designed to explore the consequences of high levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. It was not, van Vueren says, a “best-guess scenario” of what the future held in store.
However, in some research papers, RCP8.5 was characterised as “business as usual”, suggesting that it was the likely outcome if society did not pursue climate action.
This was “incorrect”, says van Vuuren, noting that RCP8.5 “is not a likely outcome”. He adds: “It’s never been a likely outcome.”
Over time, RCP8.5 became hotly debated in academic circles, with some scientists arguing that such high emissions were becoming increasingly unlikely and others claiming that RCP8.5 was still consistent with historical cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Carbon Brief unpacked the arguments in this debate in a detailed explainer in 2019.
The charts below, originally included in a 2012 Nature commentary and then updated each year by the authors, shows how projected CO2 emissions under RCP8.5 (red line) compares with the other RCPs (bold coloured lines) and observations (black line).
The left-hand chart shows total CO2 emissions, including land-use change, while the right-hand chart shows CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and producing cement – the dominant drivers of 21st century emissions.
Global total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land use (left) and global fossil CO2 emissions (left) for historical observations (black lines) and the four RCP (coloured bold lines) for 1980-2050. Originally produced as part of Peters et al. (2012) and since updated by Glen Peters and Robbie Andrew.While emission trends up to the early 2010s approximately tracked RCP8.5, a flattening of emissions growth in the years since has meant they have not kept pace with the sustained rises that were assumed in the scenario.
Over the past decade, global emissions have more closely tracked RCP4.5, one of the two “medium stabilisation scenarios” of the original four RCPs.
The debate around RCP8.5 has not just focused on current emissions, but also on the scenario’s underlying assumptions for the future.
When it was published in 2011, the world had just seen unprecedented growth in global CO2 emissions, which had increased by 30% over the previous decade. Global coal use had increased by nearly 50% over the same period. Cleaner alternatives remained expensive in most countries and the idea of continued rapid growth in coal use seemed realistic.
Critics of RCP8.5 point to its assumptions for a dramatic expansion of coal use in the future, as well as high growth in global population.
For example, in a 2017 paper, two scientists argued that the “return to coal” envisaged in RCP8.5 would require an unprecedented five-fold increase in global coal use by the end of the century. Such an outcome was “exceptionally unlikely”, the authors wrote.
However, others have argued that while high-emissions scenarios are becoming increasingly unlikely, they still have an important role to play. For example, they highlight risks that only emerge under higher levels of warming.
In addition, research has shown that feedbacks in the climate system – where warming triggers the release of more CO2 and methane, which warms the planet further – could mean that human-caused emissions lead to a higher radiative forcing and have a greater climate impact than initially assumed.
In a post on the RealClimate website, Dr Gavin Schmidt – director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – unpacks why scenarios are updated and “why high-end scenarios are important”.
How has RCP8.5 been replaced?As the IPCC heads into its seventh assessment cycle (AR7), scientists have been developing the emissions scenarios and climate model projections that will – eventually – feed into its reports.
For the emissions scenarios, that process – known as ScenarioMIP – started back in 2023 at a meeting in Reading, UK. This involved scientists representing “different climate research communities”, explains van Vuuren.
This “brainstorming” session devised the outlines for the new scenarios, he says. After more meetings, these were subsequently developed into a proposal that was – after review – translated into a journal paper. After review from scientists and the public, the final paper was published in April.
The paper sets out seven all-new emissions scenarios, replacing the SSPs (and its predecessors, the RCPs). For simplicity, the new scenarios are named according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The figures below show the emissions (left) and the estimated global temperature changes (right) under the proposed scenarios, from the “low-to-negative” emissions scenario (turquoise) up to a “high-emissions” scenario (brown).
The greenhouse gas emissions for each of the CMIP7 climate scenarios (left) and the associated estimated average temperature change over 2000-2150 from a 1850-1900 baseline (right) using the FaIR emulator. Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren et al. (2026)(It should be noted that, while the ScenarioMIP paper has been published, there remains an embargo on using the scenario data produced by integrated assessment models – often referred to as IAMs – to publish academic papers, analysis or even social media posts until 1 September this year. Carbon Brief will publish a detailed explainer on the new scenarios once the embargo lifts.)
When compared to the SSPs that came before, the range in future emissions in the new scenarios “will be smaller”, the authors say in the paper:
“On the high-end of the range, the…high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends…At the low end, many…emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020-30 period.”
In other words, the combination of technological progress and action on climate change that, to date, remains insufficient, means that scenarios of very high or very low emissions are now not considered plausible.
Another way of looking at it is that the “range of potential futures has narrowed”, explains Smith, one of the authors on the paper.
If you “draw a fan or plume of potential future emissions that start in 2025”, it lies entirely within the spread of scenarios from a decade ago, he says:
“So you’ve ruled out futures at the high end. You’ve also ruled out futures at the low end – so it’s now not possible to limit warming to 1.5C, at least in the short term or the medium term.”
This is a mix of “good” and “bad” news, Smith adds.
“In the latest set of scenarios, the lowest [scenario sees] peaking at about 1.7C, so we’ve also lost that low end, but the good news is we’ve lost the high end…Back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future, because we’ve actually bent the curve [on emissions] enough to eliminate that possibility.”
The new “high” scenario projects warming in 2100 of closer to 3.3C (with a range of 2.5C to 4.4C).
To be clear, this “high” scenario would still come with catastrophic climate impacts, even if the level of warming would remain slightly below what was set out in RCP8.5.
Van Vuuren adds that the world is “now on a trajectory to 2.5-3C of warming”. As a result, “we don’t have any scenario anymore that can reach 1.5C with limited overshoot – we will have a significant overshoot”.
How is the IPCC involved?Contrary to Trump’s claims, the common set of future emissions scenarios used by climate scientists are not developed by the IPCC, the UN climate-science body that produces landmark reports about climate change.
Instead, the development process described above is driven by a group of Earth system modelling experts convened by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
CMIP – an initiative of another UN body, the World Climate Research Programme – coordinates the work of dozens of climate modelling centres around the world.
Working in six-to-eight year cycles, CMIP asks modelling centres around the world to run a common set of climate-model experiments – simulations that use the same inputs and conditions – that allows for results to be collected together and more easily compared.
For experiments that explore how the climate might change in the future, modelling centres are instructed to run simulations against a fixed set of future climate scenarios, each with different levels of concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change.
These future emissions scenarios are revisited each time CMIP embarks on a new “phase” of climate-modelling coordination, to reflect advances in scientific understanding and the pace of real-world climate action.
The group tasked with producing the design of future scenarios, as well as the “input files” for climate models, is the “scenario model intercomparison project”, or ScenarioMIP.
CMIP aligns its work with the schedule of the IPCC, coordinating a new set of model runs for each IPCC assessment cycle.
For example, the IPCC’s AR5 in 2013 featured climate models from the fifth phase of CMIP (CMIP5), whereas AR6 in 2021 used climate models from CMIP’s sixth phase (CMIP6).
AR7 will feature models from CMIP’s ongoing seventh phase (CMIP7). The first results from CMIP7 model runs are expected later this year.
The IPCC is consulted during the CMIP process, van Vuuren tells Carbon Brief, but its input is “no different from any other review comment” that the ScenarioMIP team received.
Thus, while the IPCC relies on model runs coordinated by CMIP in its landmark reports, it does not play a role in designing future emissions scenarios, nor in deciding when they should be retired.
Dr Robert Vautard, co-chair of IPCC AR7 Working Group I, tells Carbon Brief that the IPCC does not “do or coordinate research”. Its role, he says, is to “synthesise existing knowledge” and produce “regular” reviews of climate-science literature.
He adds that ScenarioMIP is just one set of scenarios the climate-science body assesses in its reports:
“IPCC assesses all scenarios, or sets of scenarios, that the scientific community produces. IPCC does not produce scenarios. CMIP7 will be [one] set of scenarios assessed by IPCC [for AR7] – but there will be many others.”
The IPCC has also released a statement in response to the recent reporting, reiterating that the paper on the new scenarios “belongs to the broader body of scientific literature produced by the international research community, under the coordination of the WCRP, not the IPCC”. It adds:
“The IPCC does not conduct its own research, run models or make measurements. It does not own the scenarios described in the mentioned paper, nor does it own any of the scenarios assessed in the sixth assessment report.”
Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets
Factchecks
|Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets
Factchecks
|Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas
Energy
|Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump
Factchecks
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_1270d8a4c2c1404fcbe3c5c8e86b17a4 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.