News Feeds

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

Jim Hansen and I have spent much of this year making seemingly opposite predictions about where 2026 will end up in the global temperature record books. He has argued since the spring that 2026 will be the warmest year on record; I have made the case that it is more likely than not to end up in second place. And in a recent post he framed our disagreement in memorably equine terms:

Based on this scientific evidence, we expect that when the horse race comes down the stretch, in November and December of this year, we will be riding a thoroughbred, a strong young horse, and Zeke will be atop a fading old nag.

For the record, I am the fading old nag in this metaphor. I have been called worse.

But here is the fun part: when the race comes down the final stretch at the end of 2026, there is a good chance we will both be declared winners. Hansen’s prediction is about NASA’s GISTEMP record specifically. Mine is about the average across the major surface temperature datasets. And when I run my own forecast model separately on each of six datasets, it gives GISTEMP a ~65% chance of a new 2026 record even as the multi-dataset average only has a ~32% chance and is likely to come in second place.

First, where my forecast stands. Back in December I projected 2026 at 1.41C (1.27C to 1.55C) above preindustrial levels, and in early June I revised that up to 1.46C (1.36C to 1.59C) as forecast models converged on a doozy of an El Niño developing in the latter half of the year. Hansen, via the Washington Post, cited my June estimate of a 26.6% chance that 2026 sets a new record.

That number has continued to creep up. With observations through June and the latest El Niño forecast ensemble, my current central estimate for 2026 is 1.50C (1.44C to 1.57C) above the 1850-1900 baseline in the average of six surface temperature datasets.1 That translates into a ~32% chance that 2026 beats 2024’s record, a ~66% chance it comes in second, and almost no chance (<2%) it falls to third or below. The figure below shows where those projections sit against the observational record.

Observed annual global mean surface temperature (average of GISTEMP, HadCRUT5, NOAA GlobalTemp, Berkeley Earth, JRA-3Q, and ERA5; °C relative to 1850–1900) and the 2026 and 2027 forecast medians with 25–75% and 5–95% Monte Carlo ranges, alongside the 2024 record (dashed) and the 1.5C level (dotted). Forecast updated 30 July 2026 with observations through June and the July-initialized multi-model El Niño ensemble.

Here we see 2026 sitting just below the 2024 record line, with 2027 well above it. So the horse race (to continue the metaphor) is drifting in Hansen’s direction, though still short of the finish line. In the average of all the groups reporting global surface temperatures, second warmest remains my central call for 2026.

It is worth being clear about why my odds keep rising, because it is not that 2026 has been running unexpectedly hot. Year-to-date temperatures have actually drifted slightly down since March (a January-June mean of 1.39C, versus 1.41C for January-March). What changed is the El Niño forecast. To show this, I reran my forecast as it would have looked with each month’s information: that month’s multi-model El Niño plume plus observations through that month.

Left: probability that 2026 exceeds the 2024 record in the six-dataset composite, recomputed at each monthly forecast vintage (that month’s multi-model El Niño forecast plume plus year-to-date observations through that month). Right: additive decomposition of the March-to-now rise into an observations step (March plume held fixed, observations updated through June) and an El Niño forecast step (July plume swapped in). Updated 30 July 2026.

The odds of a 2026 record in the composite have risen from ~7% at the March vintage to ~35% now,2 and the decomposition on the right shows that the strengthening El Niño forecast accounts for ~84% of that rise; incoming observations contributed just over 4 points. In other words, my drift toward Hansen’s position is not the 2026 observations through June being particularly extraordinary. It is the ENSO models converging on an unprecedentedly large event. If that El Niño underdelivers, these odds will sag back down. If it holds, the odds will likely hold as well. But it seems unlikely (I hope!) that we see continued strengthening of the El Niño forecast beyond what already would blow past the prior record by a “truly mind-numbing margin”.

But “the warmest year on record” is not a single number that nature hands us; it depends on whose record you check. Hansen’s prediction is specifically about GISTEMP. So a natural question is: what does my model say if I fit it to each dataset individually, using each dataset’s own 2024 record as the bar to clear? The figure below shows the result for six datasets: the four traditional surface station products (GISTEMP, HadCRUT5, NOAA GlobalTemp, and Berkeley Earth) and two reanalysis products (Copernicus/ERA5 and JRA-3Q).

Probability that 2026 exceeds each dataset’s own 2024 record, from the same statistical forecast model (trend, ENSO, and observed 2026 months) fit to each of six datasets separately, with 10,000 Monte Carlo draws sampling a 14-model El Niño forecast ensemble. Observations through June 2026 (May for HadCRUT5). Updated 30 July 2026.

The same model, fed the same El Niño forecast, gives 2026 a ~65% chance of a record in GISTEMP and a ~66% chance in Berkeley Earth,3 but only ~35% in HadCRUT5, ~24% in NOAA, ~13% in ERA5, and ~9% in JRA-3Q. Conveniently, the average across the six (~35%) lands nearly on the blended estimate (32%), which is a reassuring consistency check.

Why the spread? It is not that the datasets disagree much about how warm 2026 will be; the projections are quite similar. They disagree about how high the bar is. The reanalysis products (ERA5 and JRA-3Q) ran exceptionally hot during the 2023-2024 event, so their 2024 records sit further above their long-term trend lines and are harder to beat. GISTEMP’s 2026 median projection sits ~0.02C above its 2024 record, while ERA5’s sits ~0.05C below its own and JRA-3Q’s ~0.07C below. When the margin is a few hundredths of a degree, structural differences between datasets could end up deciding the race.

So Hansen predicting a GISTEMP record and me predicting second warmest in the multi-dataset average are, oddly, compatible bets. If 2026 sets a record in GISTEMP but not in the dataset average (or in ERA5), expect a flurry of confused headlines in January as people try and explain how its the warmest or second warmest year depending on what dataset you look at.

I should concede the larger point plainly: Hansen made this call earlier and more confidently than I did, and the odds have moved steadily his way since. If 2026 ends up warmest across the board, he won outright, and a 32% chance is the kind of thing that happens all the time. I’d also gently note that a probabilistic forecast of “second warmest, with a one-in-three chance of a record” is a difficult thing to lose spectacularly.

What our agreement on 2026 does not settle is the more consequential disagreement about why. Hansen’s forecast rests on a specific physical story: his argument for a climate sensitivity of 4-5C per doubled CO2, a large forcing boost from falling aerosols, and a warming rate that has roughly doubled.4 My forecast is simpler: it just relies on the long-term trend, the state of ENSO, and the year-to-date observations and ends up in more or less the same place. When a statistical model based on the historical trend and an El Niño forecast lands on essentially the same 2027 number as Hansen (more on that in a moment), it tells you that a single warm year, or even two, cannot distinguish between “very rapid acceleration driven by aerosols and high sensitivity” and “the trend and more modest acceleration plus a very strong El Niño.” That debate will be settled by energy balance observations and the post-El-Niño years, not by whether 2026 clears 2024 by 0.03C in one dataset.

And on 2027 there will be no horse race at all: my model puts the odds of a new record next year at ~91%. Here I should give Hansen his due on a second count. Back in December he was already predicting a ~1.7C 2027, at a time when my own central estimate was 1.57C. Seven months and many rounds of strengthening El Niño forecasts later, my regression has drifted up to 1.70C (1.48C to 1.93C): essentially the number he wrote down at the start.

Ultimately both probabilistic forecasts and confident predictions can be validated by the same outcome, and the interesting scientific disagreement (how fast is warming accelerating, and why) will outlive whatever the December photo finish shows. Either way we are in for quite a wild climate ride in both the latter half of 2026 and 2027 due to a combination of accelerating warming and a super El Niño event.

1 The blended forecast uses the average of GISTEMP, HadCRUT5, NOAA GlobalTemp, Berkeley Earth, JRA-3Q, and ERA5, each rebaselined to 1850-1900 using its own pre-1900 offset. The model regresses annual temperature on the year, the prior year’s anomaly, observed and forecast ENSO conditions, the year-to-date anomaly, and the latest monthly value, trained on 1950-2025 excluding major volcanic years, with 10,000 Monte Carlo draws sampling both regression uncertainty and a ~650-member multi-model El Niño forecast ensemble. The headline numbers use a relative (RONI-style) ENSO index; using the raw ONI instead gives a slightly warmer 1.51C and a 37% record chance, because the forecast El Niño is strong enough to sit beyond the range of the historical ONI training data.

2 This figure only uses 13 of the 14 El Niño models in the live ensemble as the 14th (SINTEX-F) was only added to the tracker in June and cannot be used for the retrospective calculations, which is why it puts today’s odds at ~35% rather than the headline ~32%.

3 It's worth noting that my odds for Berkeley Earth are notably higher than those provided (~12%) in the official Berkeley Earth update. This is largely due to my statistical model including the ENSO predictions for the remainder of the year which does not improve the fit much for most years (start-of-year ENSO conditions tend to be a much stronger predictor) but does matter in the rare years where strong El Nino events are forming like 1997, 2015, 2023, and 2026.

4 It's worth noting that Hansen’s estimate of ECS is well within our very likely uncertainty range of 2C to 5C per doubling CO2 in the IPCC AR6. And there has been some compelling evidence in recent years that ECS might be higher, though I’d personally give a central estimate closer to 3.5C than Hansen’s ~4.5C, as well as a new preprint suggesting forcing from the 2020 IMO low sulfur shipping fuel regulations may end up somewhere between Hansen’s high and my low-end estimate.

As America celebrates its 250-year anniversary, the Liberty Bell pavilion in Philadelphia is hosting millions of people from across the country. Recent upgrades, however, were designed to...

More than 35 groups today called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to withdraw its proposal to rescind its 2024 climate disclosure rule. The 2024 rule, which is currently stayed in litigation, requires large public companies to disclose climate-related financial risk information to investors, including Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions.

Led by Chair Paul Atkins, the SEC’s proposal ignores the reality of climate change as a growing source of financial risk for public companies and investors, as well as overwhelming investor demand for this more comparable, reliable climate disclosure. If finalized, the proposal would undermine transparency in capital markets to protect companies with high climate-related financial risks, the groups maintain.

“The proposal reflects the desire of Paul Atkins’s SEC to ignore growing financial risks from climate change and to deprive investors of essential information,” said Elyse Schupak, climate policy advocate for Public Citizen. “For polluting industries that seek to downplay their role driving the climate crisis and their exposure to related risks, finalizing the proposed rule would be a victory. The SEC should withdraw this proposal as it contradicts the Commission’s responsibility to facilitate transparency for investors and promote well functioning capital markets.”

“The 2024 climate disclosure rule set the SEC record for most comments ever collected on a regulation, and investors showed up nearly unanimously in support,” said Alex Martin, climate finance policy director at Americans for Financial Reform. “This move is another in a long string of recent SEC actions to empower corporations over investors, and reflects this administration’s far-reaching attempts to deny the reality of climate change. If finalized, this proposal will hurt workers saving for retirement by depriving people of information needed to assess companies’ financial risks due to climate change — and by endangering other critical disclosures as well.”

Sobre las asambleas Carlos Tornel Para el filósofo francés Jacques Rancière, todo orden social se sustenta en una partición previa de lo perceptible o en un orden de lo sensible: una distribución de espacios, voces y capacidades que determina quién y qué puede verse, decirse u oírse, y reconocerse como político. La política comienza, según Rancière, cuando esta disposición se ve interrumpida: cuando quienes no debían hablar se reúnen, se nombran a sí mismos y hacen

On Assemblies Carlos Tornel For French philosopher Jaques Rancière, every social order rests on a prior partition of the perceptible or an order of the sensible: a distribution of spaces, voices, and capacities that determines who and what can be seen, said or heard, and recognized as political. Politics begins, according to Rancière, when this arrangement is interrupted: when those who were not supposed to speak, gather, name themselves, and make TapestryAlternativesGTAGTAalternativesvs.GTA…

Checks & Balances Project (C&BP) has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the response times of Sussex County, Virginia, emergency medical responders.

AI-assisted searches indicate the records are on the Sussex County website, but links to those meetings and records don’t work. The failure to maintain the site and keep records available is an apparent violation of Virginia law.

Response times of the Stony Creek Volunteer Rescue Squad (SCRVS) run by Steve White, the chair of the county board of supervisors, are of particular interest. A ChatGPT search showed the SCVRS weeknight response times “consistently exceeded the 20-minute standard for several months.”

C&BP has reported that White voted to send taxpayer funds to SCVRS, which is an apparent violation of Virginia’s conflict-of-interest law. White also engineered the defunding of the positions of the county fire chief and deputy fire chief in September 2025 and the April firing of County Administrator Richard Douglas.

A previous Freedom of Information Act request by C&BP yielded an October 2025 memorandum of understanding between the county and SCVRS in which the county agreed to pay SCVRS $422,250 a year for EMS services. That amount was more than twice the revenues SCVRS reported in its publicly available tax returns from 2019, the last year they filed tax returns with the IRS.

The IRS suspended SCVRS’ nonprofit status in 2023 after it failed to file tax returns for three straight years.

Ray Locker is the executive director for Checks & Balances Project, an investigative watchdog blog holding government officials, lobbyists, and corporate management accountable to the public. Funding for C&BP is provided by Renew American Prosperity and individual donors.

You may also want to read:

Checks & Balances Project seeks Steve White’s emails with state address

Checks & Balances Project files FOIA request seeking Sussex County EMS records

C&BP seeks Sussex County records on firing of county administrator

Share Post Share

The post Checks & Balances Project seeks Sussex County EMS response times appeared first on Checks and Balances Project.

Editor’s Note: This article was published by Colorado Newsline, reprinted with permission through Creative Commons.

Feds to impose new cuts on lower Colorado River states amid climate-fueled megadrought ByChase Woodruff–July 31, 2026 2:26 pm Glen Canyon Dam holds back the waters of Lake Powell near Page, Arizona, on Feb. 2, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

The federal government on Friday formalized a set of guidelines for managing water use in the Colorado River Basin over the next decade, if Colorado and six other Western states can’t come to an agreement on how to deal with declining flows caused in large part by climate change.

“The Department has a responsibility to ensure the Colorado River system remains reliable and resilient for the millions of Americans, communities and industries that depend on it,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a press release. “This framework provides the flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions while preserving the opportunity for the Basin States to continue working toward durable, consensus-based solutions.”

Under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s “preferred alternative” for the management of the river’s reservoir system, outlined in a extensive environmental impact statement, the burden of the most severe cuts would continue to fall on the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, which could face mandatory cuts of up to 3 million acre-feet of water. The Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming would face only voluntary conservation targets totaling 200,000 acre-feet.

All seven states were parties to the Colorado River Compact, a 1922 agreement governing the use of water from the vital Western watershed. Today, the Colorado River provides water to an area inhabited by 40 million people across the Southwest, though agricultural uses account for the vast majority of consumption.

Since 2000, a megadrought caused largely by global warming — the region’s worst dry spell in at least 1,200 years — has stressed water supplies across the basin and pushed the Colorado River Compact to a breaking point. The last set of federal guidelines to address shortages, issued nearly 20 years ago, will expire Jan. 1, and the seven Colorado River Compact states failed to reach a new agreement before a federally imposed deadline in February.

A map of the Colorado River Basin system. (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The combined amount of water stored in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the Colorado River system’s two key reservoirs, fell this month to its lowest level since May 1957 — before Lake Powell, created by the Glen Canyon Dam, had even begun to fill.

Without a major turnaround in hydrologic conditions in the near future, water levels in Lake Powell are expected to fall by next spring to below “minimum power pool,” at which point the Glen Canyon Dam’s hydroelectric turbines would be unable to operate.

Negotiations over a comprehensive new agreement have led to an increasingly bitter dispute between the Upper Basin states — led by Colorado, the river’s headwaters state and by far the Upper Basin’s largest water user — and the Lower Basin states, especially Arizona, which has borne the brunt of the cuts imposed in recent years. Arizona is widely expected to launch a high-stakes legal challenge as soon as this summer, alleging Colorado and other Upper Basin states are failing to meet an obligation under the original Colorado River Compact to allow enough water to flow downstream.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis issued a joint statement Friday with the governors of the other three Upper Basin states, saying that “both the Upper and Lower divisions of the basin are feeling the pain of severe drought,” and that they were “committed to continued good-faith discussions with our counterparts.”

“Many hours of meetings and negotiations took place between the Colorado River Basin states and these discussions will continue,” the statement said. “Today’s framework does not represent a final solution, but enables the River to be managed in the short-term while the seven states and (the Interior Department) continue to negotiate a consensus solution.”

In the absence of a new agreement among the states, the Bureau of Reclamation says it will continue to update its new guidelines every two years until 2036.

Andrea Travnicek, the Interior Department’s assistant secretary for water and science, said the plan “strikes a balance between flexibility and predictability … given unprecedented hydrologic conditions and the potential for considerable impacts on water users.”

In a statement, Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said he was “disappointed” by the failure to reach a new long-term agreement among the seven Colorado River Compact states.

“While a two-year operating plan is the bare minimum needed to operate the river, a long-term, consensus agreement that recognizes real hydrologic conditions is the only durable solution to bring certainty to the Colorado River,” Bennet said.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 3:47 p.m., July 31, 2026, to include a joint statement from Upper Basin governors.

PHILADELPHIA, PA (August 3, 2026) Feet First Philly (FFP), a pedestrian advocacy project of the Clean Air Council, launched the seventh round of its Public Space Enhancement Mini-Grant program in partnership with Philadelphia Department of Public Health’s Division of Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention.

The initiative funds projects aimed at improving Philadelphia’s pedestrian environment and public spaces, with Mini-Grant recipients receiving funding ranging from $500 to $2,500 to create public space enhancements and safety improvements. FFP is hosting an informational webinar on August 25.

“For the past six years, our Public Space Enhancement Mini-Grant program has successfully funded 80 projects that are led by community groups, businesses, and individuals across the Greater Philadelphia region”, said Titania Markland, Clean Air Council Sustainable Transportation Program Manager. “With the launch of the seventh round, we are excited for the new ideas that community leaders will propose to improve their public spaces. We are also able to offer an increase in funding for the first time since launching this program.”

“Environments shape health,” said Dr. Kinnari Chandriani, Director of the Health Department’s Division of Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention. “It is a joy to support communities throughout the city to enhance public spaces with mini-grant funding. We are excited for another round of inspiring projects to make our city safer, cleaner, and greener.” 

In 2020, FFP launched its first Public Space Enhancement Mini-Grant program with seven projects that were led by and benefited local communities. Since then, the program has awarded 80 Mini-Grants to local organizations all over Philadelphia and provided funding to:

• Extend efforts to clean up the Cobbs Creek Trail 
• Create a pocket park in Southwest Philadelphia 
• Replace a severely damaged sidewalk outside of a community garden in Kensington 
• Create a mural on a newsstand in Germantown
• Paint an artistic crosswalk in North Philadelphia 
• Add amenities to a local meadow to make it a walking destination 
• Install bike racks to prevent illegal sidewalk parking outside of a school 
• Help develop community gardens all over the city 

For the full list of projects awarded during the sixth round (2025-2026), read more here.

“Pedestrian advocacy projects bring communities together to create safer and healthier spaces,” said Sally Hecht, a Clean Air Council Transportation Program Coordinator. “They bring people from all walks of life together and make neighborhoods around Philadelphia safer and healthier. Through the Mini-Grants, we can give Philadelphians the ability to build their communities in ways that benefit and directly support their neighbors.” 

Safety is a top priority for this program, and applicants are encouraged to identify ways their project can improve safety in their communities. 

If you are interested in applying or want more information, attend the webinar on August 25 at 12 p.m. (noon) ET. Applicants can email shecht@cleanair.org to schedule a one-on-one meeting with Clean Air Council staff to discuss their project ideas. Applications for the Mini-Grant are open until Saturday, October 3 at 11:59 p.m. ET. 

###

Feet First Philly is Philadelphia’s only advocacy group dedicated to pedestrian rights, sponsored by the Clean Air Council.

As communities across the world endure record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires and rising living costs, the world’s biggest oil and gas companies have confirmed another blockbuster quarter of profits. The Make Polluters Pay coalition says the timing exposes the true cost of delaying the end of the fossil fuel era, and is calling on governments meeting in New York this month to seize a historic opportunity to make the polluters pay.

This summer’s extreme weather has spared no continent. Wildfires are tearing through Spain and France, forcing hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. In the United States, a series of heat domes pushed temperatures past 100°F (38°C), and smoke from hundreds of Canadian wildfires produced some of the world’s worst urban air quality across North America. India endured pre-monsoon temperatures above 48°C earlier this year, while torrential rain left hundreds dead in several countries in Africa since March.

Scientists estimate that emissions from just five fossil fuel corporations – BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies – were sufficient to cause around one in four of the heatwaves recorded globally between 2000 and 2023. Those same five companies are now announcing another blockbuster quarter of fossil fuel profits. TotalEnergies has reported adjusted net income of $5.4 billion for the second quarter of 2026, Shell profit hit $9.84bn in the three months to June, more than double compared with the same period last year. Exxon clocked $14.5 billion in profits this quarter; Chevron, $12.1 billion. BP is expected to announce comparable astronomical profits on the 4th of August.

That’s over USD $40 billion in profits by just 4 large oil companies, which is more than the entire GDP of over 100 countries, reaped in rewards while the rest of the world is left dealing with climate and energy chaos. The price spikes are driven in large part by volatility in oil prices during the war in Iran.

The results land as governments prepare to resume negotiations on a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation in New York this month. A mandatory surtax on highly polluting industries is gaining support as part of that process, alongside measures to prevent jurisdiction-shopping and anchor taxing rights in real economic activity. Analysis by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice and partners estimates that aton the profits of the world’s 100 largest oil and gas companies could have generated more than US$1 trillion since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. The Make Polluters Pay coalition says governments meeting in New York should seize the moment to get behind it.

To mark the moment, campaigners inflated a giant barrel of oil outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, London, calling on the UK government to back a permanent stronger taxex on fossil fuel profits and support a strong outcome at the UN tax talks.

David Hillman, Stamp out Poverty, said

“Big Oil has spent fifty years profiting from pollution while the rest of us pay the price in heatwaves, in wildfires, in energy bills we can barely afford. That’s why we’re bringing a giant oil barrel to the doorstep of Parliament: to make sure politicians can’t look away. Governments have a real chance this month, at the UN tax talks in New York, to finally make the polluters pay. They should take it.”

Anne Jellema, Executive Director of 350.org, said:

“From Bordeaux to Phoenix to Mumbai, families are living through the cost of climate delay, while the companies most responsible bank blockbuster bonanzas. That is not a coincidence; it is a business model. Governments meeting in New York this month have a genuine opportunity to change it. Calls are growing across the political spectrum for a proper global profits tax, so the industry that helped cause these disasters pays towards the recovery, the solutions and the protection people need. It’s simple fairness: those who caused the damage and profited from it should pay to fix it.”

Tyrone Scott, Head of Campaigns, War on Want
“While people struggle with soaring bills and communities across the world lose homes, livelihoods and lives to climate disasters, fossil fuel corporations are banking another quarter of enormous profits. This is wealth extracted from people and the planet. The UK Government must stop protecting polluters and start making them pay through permanent taxes on fossil fuel profits, a wealth tax on the super-rich and by backing a strong UN Tax Convention that ends corporate tax avoidance. Those who have profited most from the climate crisis must fund the transition and the repair.”

The Make Polluters Pay coalition is calling on governments worldwide to introduce permanent, higher taxes on oil and gas profits, to fund emergency response, recovery and long-term resilience for communities on the frontline of the crisis, and to back a strong, binding outcome at this month’s UN tax convention talks.

After three years of intense and divisive negotiations, the seven Colorado River Basin states failed to reach a long-term agreement, forcing the federal government to step in.

Federal water managers on Friday announced a new 10-year plan to manage the Colorado River that opens the door to unprecedented water supply cuts. Arizona, California, and Nevada, the three lower basin states, could face up to 3 million acre-feet in water cuts. The upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming will also have to conserve up to 200,000 acre-feet, or 65 billion gallons in the coming decade.

The plan released Friday by the Interior department marks the first time federal authorities have stepped in to determine the management for the waterway that supports 40 million people, 30 Tribes, and 5.5 million acres of farmland across the Southwest. The new management framework comes amid an ongoing crisis on the Colorado River due to drought and overuse of the river’s dwindling supplies. As of last Thursday, Lake Powell was 22 percent full and Lake Mead was 27 percent full. Scientists have warned that warmer temperatures and drier soils caused by climate change are shrinking the river’s flow, as are winters with significantly less mountain snowpack, the source of the vast majority of the river’s water.

Burgum doubles down on debunked Reflecting Pool ‘vandals’ claims

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro asked a judge to drop the Trump administration’s case against David Hearn, a former U.S. Olympian, whom it had accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The Department of Justice said Friday that flawed installation, not vandalism, caused the ‌liner of the newly renovated reflecting pool to peel. Despite the DOJ’s reversal, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum doubled down on blaming vandals, posting on X over the weekend, “The evidence is clear, vandals have repeatedly caused damage to the Reflecting Pool.”

Pirro said that DOJ prosecutors had been misled by the Interior department, which had awarded a no-bid contract to a first-time government contractor to repair the iconic landmark. Pirro blamed both the government’s vendor and the administration’s timetable, saying the pool’s poor state “was the result of a flawed installation by the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings, and the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration” on July 4.

Quick hits Federal government proposes steep cuts for Colorado River Basin states

Denver Post | PBS News | Colorado Sun | New York Times | The Hill | Reuters | Arizona Republic | The Guardian | Washington Post | KJZZ | CNN | Arizona Mirror | 8 News Now | Los Angeles Times

DOJ dismisses ‘vandalism’ charges while Doug Burgum doubles down on debunked claims

New York Times | The Hill | Associated Press | Advocate | Reuters | NOTUS | Wall Street Journal

National park ranger quits, tours visitor centers to fight censorship

SFGATE

More livestock grazing on public lands could spell trouble for ecosystem health

Sierra Magazine | St George News

Forest Service moves toward unrestricted motorized access in area used by iconic western elk herd

Outdoor Life

Utahns brave 100-degree heat to protest shrinking of national monuments

Fox13

Helicopter tried to pick up firefighters before deadly burn over in western Colorado

Denver Post

The conflict over permanent climbing anchors in wilderness areas

High Country News

Quote of the day

The last 20 years everybody has played this game which is, ‘Let’s wait on the hydrology and hope the hydrology bails us out,’ but that’s become a very dangerous game to play. If you have another crappy year like this year, you could be looking at 4 or 5 million acre-feet cuts, because the reservoirs would be completely empty.”

—Brad Udall, climate scientist at Colorado State University’s Colorado Water Center, Washington Post

Picture This

@usinterior

Come celebrate the First Peoples of Yellowstone with us. From August 2–8, join Voices of Yellowstone near the North Entrance in Gardiner, Montana, for a week honoring the Indigenous cultures woven into this land: past, present, and future.

There’s a lot to take part in. An opening ceremony with the lighting of the teepees, guided cultural tours across the park (registration required), a native art market, live music, speakers, and a community potluck.

Voices of Yellowstone is hosted by @ynpforever in partnership with Yellowstone National Park, alongside the Pretty Shield Foundation, @rockymountaintlc, and @visitgardinermt. We hope to see you there.

Photos by Jacob W. Frank / NPS

Featured image: Colorado River Basin map. Source: usgs.gov

The post Federal government proposes steep cuts for Colorado River water use appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on Todd Blanche’s nomination for Attorney General on Tuesday, after Blanche’s Department of Justice (DOJ) reached an agreement with Republican Senator John Cornyn with a stated goal of rescinding the corrupt $1.8 billion slush fund intended to pay Trump’s cronies and January 6th rioters and limiting his new tax immunity.

In response to the news, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement:

“The late-night deal reached between the DOJ and the Republican Senators who had been objecting to the Blanche nomination is clearly a face-saving exercise to try to get the Senators to ‘yes’ on that nomination, not real limitations on pro-Trump cronyism. President Trump gets to keep tax immunity for himself, his sons and the Trump Organization, potentially saving the President millions in taxes owed to the American people.

“And on the slush fund itself, Trump has not waived his rights under the scheme that called on Blanche to establish the fund, and nothing prevents Blanche from simply reestablishing it if the Senate confirms him.

“In addition, nothing in what Blanche sent out prevents the DOJ from settling lawsuits brought by the January 6th rioters and other Trump cronies, and paying them out of the general fund. We saw a staggering seven-figure deal in that vein just last week.

“And if the inadequate deal on the slush fund and Trump tax immunity wasn’t enough to stop this unfit nominee, his horrifying lack of empathy and ineptitude when it comes to the Epstein files and the way he has engaged with the victims should disqualify him instantly.

“Whatever happens at the committee vote on Tuesday, there is still time to keep Trump’s fixer from becoming AG, to keep the DOJ from becoming solely a Trump revenge agency, and Senators must do the right thing and block Blanche before it is too late.”

What whale are we talking about this month?

Thanks for asking. Last month we talked about Rice’s whales, one of the rarest whale species. This time I wanted to talk about the more commonly seen minke whale — in fact, that’s their official name, common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).

NOAA Fisheries

So … they’re common?

Yeah, kind of. No whale species are exactly common these days, but minkes have a population of around 180,000. Their extinction risk has been assessed as “least concern.”

Something tells me you’re actually kind of concerned.

Sigh…that’s true. Iceland has started whaling again, despite global anti-whaling sentiment, and could start catching minke whales this summer. (They’ve already caught a couple of fin whales for the first time in years, which is incredibly disappointing.)

Hmph. Excuse me while I go cancel my tour of Reykjavík nightclubs.

Good call. Iceland is only expected to hunt a few hundred whales this year, so it won’t pose an immediate and massive threat to these species, but — as they say — slippery slopes…

Are there other reasons — perhaps happier ones — that you wanted to talk about minkes?

Yes, absolutely. Minke whales are among the most widely distributed whales. They’re the only marine mammal species I’ve observed on both coasts of the United States, and to me that’s amazing. I’ve seen them a couple of times on trips to Monterey, California, but I used to see minke whales most often in the decade we lived in Maine.

Money was tight back then, but I always made sure to take a whale-watching trip early in the summer, before tourist season cranked up. Minke whales show up fairly frequently off the Maine coast — and many other places in the northern hemisphere and as far south as South Africa — but they’re kind of invisible in the media. No one ever seems to talk about them. I thought it was time to change that.

Cool. So hit me up with some cool minke facts.

You got it.

First up, there’s a reason I never got a good photo of a minke on those whale-watching tours: They’re fast. They’ve been clocked at 20 miles per hour or more, which makes them pretty good at avoiding predators (and shutterbugs).

You were probably just afraid of dropping your camera into the ocean.

You’re not wrong.

Anyway, their size helps keep them both fast and difficult to spot: Your average minke weighs about 20,000 pounds, which seems like a lot, but that actually makes them one of the smaller whales, with the biggest reaching lengths of about 35 feet.

But some are quite a bit smaller. There’s a group of dwarf minke whales who top out at about 26 feet and 14,000 pounds. Interestingly, dwarf minkes don’t appear to be a separate species or subspecies, just a variation.

Another interesting detail: Minkes are usually solitary whales. Although mass feedings have been documented, these animals usually swim by themselves or in groups of two or three.

So what’s the deal with their name? I don’t suppose they’re secretly related to minks or other weasels?

Like a lot of species, they’re named after a person — but in this case, I don’t think it’s much of an honor. According to NOAA, minke whales “received their common name from a Norwegian novice whaling spotter named Meincke, who supposedly mistook a minke whale for a blue whale.”

How…? Blue whales are so much bigger!

Well, they did say Meincke was a novice.

So what’s your favorite thing about minkes?

One thing I love is the variation in their vocalizations. They click, they grunt, they emit pulses and ratchets, and some of them make “boing” sounds — a noise that mystified scientists who kept hearing it underwater for 50 years until it was finally attributed to minkes in 2005.

The evidence of regional differences in their calls keeps stacking up. Some make a vocalization called “star wars,” while others make a “bio duck” quacking.

The most recent research I found described a minke whale who was emitting “pulse trains” off the coast of Florida — sounds the whale altered when they realized researchers were nearby.

Well, nobody likes eavesdroppers.

True.

Meanwhile, there’s another mystery…

I don’t like where this is going.

Yeah, me either. For the past decade, NOAA has tracked elevated minke mortalities along the Atlantic coast, stretching from Georgia up through Maine. As of this writing, they’ve documented 209 dead minkes — although numbers dropped in 2025 and only one dead whale has been found so far this year. According to the agency, “Preliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious diseases. These findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more research is needed.”

Despite the inconclusive causes of death, Donald Trump, RFK, Jr., and others on the extreme right wing have used some of these deaths as an excuse to attack offshore wind power, though there’s absolutely no evidence that turbine noise harms whales.

On the other hand, as we talked about last month, noise from offshore oil development — which the Trump admin keeps championing — really does harm some species, like Rice’s whales.

So what whale are we talking about next month?

We’re heading to the Arctic to uncover one of the world’s most mysterious whale species: the narwhal.

Cool! Good thing I got my passport renewed before a certain someone stamped his mugshot all over it!

Good call.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy.

The post Whale of the Month: Minke Whale appeared first on The Revelator.

A recent report from Altus Impact, Groundswell International, and the Association Nourrir Sans Détruire (ANSD) finds that agroecological practices produce better results for farmers in Burkina Faso. The results hold even in drought-stricken areas, with producers seeing higher crop yields and better financial outcomes.

The report, Transformational Agroecology in Burkina Faso, provides concrete data that agroecological practices in Burkina Faso are key to establishing stable farms and farmers.

Extreme rains, flooding events, severe droughts, armed conflict, and deforestation are contributing to large-scale land degradation, displacement, and food insecurity in the landlocked nation. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees reports that more than 2 million people were internally displaced at the end of 2024 in Burkina Faso.

“It was important for us to create this assessment now to show evidence that agroecology can not only feed the growing population thanks to its ability to significantly increase farm yield, but also augment farmers’ and their households’ revenue,” Tsuamba Bourgou, Groundswell International’s West Africa Regional Coordinator, tells Food Tank.

The authors analyzed data from over 400 small-scale farming households in eastern Burkina Faso, comparing per-hectare profitability across different farming styles. These ranged from conventional to early and advanced agroecological practices.

Farmers practicing advanced agroecology, defined as using three or more practices such as zaï (a practice that involves digging small pits to conserve water), half-moons (digging semi-circular earthen basins to collect rainwater), low tillage, no residue burning, stone contour barriers, and Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration of trees, saw yields that were 77 percent higher than conventional farmers and nearly double those of farmers just beginning their transition.

According to the Transformational Agroecology report, 80 percent of Burkinabé depend on farming and pastoralism for their livelihoods. Yields, food security, and farmer income are critical measures of success in the report.

Advanced agroecological farmers fared dramatically better on both fronts: they held median food stocks of 300 kg, triple those of farmers still in transition, and were far less likely to have run out of food in the past year (13 percent versus 45 percent). They also carried significantly less debt, US$8 compared to US$35, and showed greater creditworthiness with rural banks and other financial institutions.

“It enables income diversification (crops, forest products, livestock) and ensures a decent standard of living,” Ali Dianou, co-author of the report and Executive Director of ANSD, tells Food Tank. “Farmers who adopt these practices have less debt and better financial solvency.” Farmers practicing advanced agroecology saw 67 percent higher net incomes than farmers using few or no agroecological practices.

Agroecology also offers environmental benefits, helping vulnerable farming communities remain on their land even in the most difficult climate conditions, potentially keeping climate displacement at bay.

The report finds that agroecological farmers witnessed soil regeneration, which improved soil health, fixed nitrogen, and reintroduced stronger root systems less prone to erosion, all of which helps retain soil moisture and creates a buffer against both drought stress and flood risks.

Groundswell International, ANSD, and Altus Impact aim to scale agroecological practices at a territorial level, using the report’s findings as a tool for advocacy and community sensitization. The report has already been shared widely among NGOs.

Looking ahead, Dianou outlined several long-term goals for his organization, ANSD, including the development of a national agroecology strategy for Burkina Faso. ANSD also aims to shift public funding away from chemical fertilizers and toward organic alternatives, while attracting private investment through blended finance and risk mitigation instruments.

They hope that this work can center the role farmers play in shaping agricultural knowledge informed by indigenous practices.

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

Photo courtesy of Association Nourrir Sans Détruire

The post Agroecology Pays Off: Report Highlights Major Gains for Burkina Faso Farmers appeared first on Food Tank.

The post What is di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)? appeared first on ANHE.

El Niño is expected to intensify in the weeks ahead, fueling more severe heat across the globe, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization. The forecast comes as blistering heat shatters temperature records from Europe to Asia.

Read more on E360 →

Print article Share

When carbon dioxide (CO2) is released from a factory or power plant, the gas can be captured and permanently stored underground, preventing it from driving climate change.

This is the idea underpinning carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology that is at the heart of many nations’ net-zero plans.

Influential organisations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), describe CCS as “critical” for cutting emissions from key sectors – and for helping to avoid dangerous global warming.

In particular, capturing CO2 is seen as one of the only viable options for decarbonising some of the world’s highest-emitting industries, such as cement production.

The UK, for example, has committed to investing as much as £21.7bn over the coming decades in its nascent CCS industry, as part of the nation’s net-zero strategy.

Yet, in the UK and elsewhere, there has been a backlash against plans for CCS.

Citing high costs, ties to the fossil-fuel industry and a “history of poor performance”, critics describe CCS as a “dangerous distraction” or a “false climate solution”. 

Time and again, the outlook for the roll-out of CCS has been scaled back, as the technology has failed to deliver as quickly as expected – and as policy support has wavered.

Furthermore, critics state that the technology remains “unproven” on the scale required to make a meaningful impact on global emissions.

In this Q&A, Carbon Brief explores the role CCS is expected to play in achieving net-zero, its record to date and the reasons it has been criticised, using the UK as an example.

• What is CCS?
• How much CCS capacity has been built so far?
• What role is CCS expected to play in reaching net-zero?
• Why is CCS controversial?
• What are the UK’s plans for scaling up CCS?

Article Contents Expand menu

• What is CCS?
• How much CCS capacity has been built so far?
• What role is CCS expected to play in reaching net-zero?
• Why is CCS controversial?
• What are the UK’s plans for scaling up CCS?

What is CCS?

CCS involves capturing CO2 emissions released from a large source, such as a gas power plant or a cement factory.

The CO2 is separated from the facility’s exhaust stream, generally using a chemical solvent, before being compressed into a liquid and transported via pipeline or vehicle. The CO2 is then stored by injecting it into underground reservoirs, such as depleted oil fields or saline aquifers.

The term “CCUS” is sometimes also used, referring to the “utilisation” of CO2 to make products, including fertilisers, fuels or building materials. Such uses do not necessarily lead to permanent emissions cuts, as the CO2 can end up later being released back into the atmosphere. 

(“CCS” is used in this Q&A, unless quoting another organisation that specifically refers to “CCUS”.)

The infographic below shows the stages of capturing CO2 and transporting it to be either stored or used in other applications.

Infographic adapted by Carbon Brief from the IEA.

Carbon capture technology was originally rolled out at US and Canadian oil wells in the early 1970s as a way to achieve “enhanced oil recovery”. This involves injecting captured CO2 into depleted wells – a process that stores CO2, but also helps to extract more oil.

This remains, by far, the most significant end use for captured CO2 worldwide, with around three-quarters of it used for this purpose. 

Moreover, most of the CO2 currently captured is a by-product of gas purification – the process by which fossil fuels such as methane are separated from other, unwanted substances. Selling this CO2 can make such gas projects more economically viable.

Therefore, as shown in the chart below, which is based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data, the majority of CO2 that is both captured and used today helps the fossil-fuel industry to extract and sell more oil and gas.

CCS was first proposed as a way to deal with CO2 emissions in a 1976 academic article, which imagined injecting the captured gas into the ocean.

It is only since the early 2000s that CCS has gained traction as a proposed climate solution, with a 2005 “special report” by the IPCC exploring the topic. At that time, the authors note there were just three small-scale projects trying to capture and permanently store CO2.

Installing CCS at factories or power plants and permanently storing the CO2 would mean that, in theory, such facilities could continue using fossil fuels without contributing to climate change. 

Such applications are often mentioned alongside two related technologies, both of which could be used to “suck” CO2 out of the atmosphere and, thus, deliver “negative emissions”.

One is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crops absorb CO2 as they grow and BECCS  involves a power plant burning these crops, then storing the resulting CO2. 

The other technology is direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). 

These technologies are classed as “CO2 removal”, as they involve absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere using plants or machines and then storing it permanently.

By contrast, CCS installed at a factory is considered a way to avoid CO2 emitted by that specific facility from entering the atmosphere. This Q&A focuses on such applications, which account for the vast majority of existing and planned CCS.

First mention in the academic literature of capturing and storing CO2 for climate change mitigation. Source: Marchetti, C. (1977). How much CCS capacity has been built so far?

As of February 2026, there were a total of 75 operational CCS projects around the world. As noted above, almost all of them are at fossil-fuel extraction and processing sites, according to the IEA’s database. 

Together, these projects capture 62.5m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) each year. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of Ecuador.

(This compares with the 22 CCS projects, promising to capture 40MtCO2 annually, that were operational or under construction as of 2014.)

As the chart below shows, the amount of CO2 currently being captured and stored is a tiny fraction of the total emissions from fossil-fuel use.

“CO2 captured and stored” includes all projects that capture CO2 and use it for enhanced oil recovery, store it permanently underground or use it “with significant climate benefits”, according to the IEA.

In a 2020 report, the IEA explained that the “story of CCUS has largely been one of unmet expectations: its potential to mitigate climate change has been recognised for decades, but deployment has been slow”.

A wave of interest in CCS in the 2000s, largely from countries in Europe and North America, focused on enabling coal power plants to continue operating with lower emissions. 

This interest largely petered out, as plummeting renewable energy costs weakened the case for coal plants with CCS. Today, there are only seven operating CCS-coal plants worldwide – five in China, one in the US and one in Canada.

Yet the Paris Agreement in 2015 – and the national net-zero targets that followed – highlighted the need for deep emissions cuts in sectors that previously expected to continue emitting for decades. This, once again, has fuelled interest in the use of CCS.

In recent years, there has also been growing interest in producing low-carbon “blue” hydrogen from gas with CCS. 

Hydrogen is widely seen as key for decarbonising certain sectors – particularly in industry – but analyses suggest that it may be difficult to make sufficient “green” hydrogen using renewable power on the timescales required.

As the map below shows, most CCS capacity is based in the US and Canada, with other major fossil-fuel producers such as Norway, Brazil and the Gulf states also contributing.

Projects listed in the IEA CCUS database as split between two countries are divided equally between them. This includes projects that only store CO2, but it excludes projects that only transport CO2. DACCS projects are excluded.

A surge of projects have entered the global CCS pipeline in recent years. According to the IEA, 93.7MtCO2 of capture or storage capacity is under construction as of February 2026 and another 1,279.6MtCO2 is in the “planning” stages.

“Planned” projects include any initiative at early concept, feasibility or engineering study stages and the industry has a long history of projects being cancelled or delayed. 

Nevertheless, this pipeline of projects could lead to a large expansion of facilities dedicated to permanent CO2 storage that does not involve extracting more oil.

The planned projects – if they are realised – would also include significant growth in sectors where CCS is virtually non-existent, such as steel, hydrogen and cement production, as shown in the chart below.

A project is considered “under construction” by the IEA if a final investment decision has been announced and construction is on-going or imminent. A project is considered “planned” if it is at concept, feasibility or engineering study stage. What role is CCS expected to play in reaching net-zero?

It will be impossible to stop dangerous climate change unless the world reaches net-zero emissions, according to the IPCC. The amount of global warming – and whether the Paris Agreement temperature target can be met – depends on when net-zero is reached.

Many global pathways that have been set out for achieving net-zero, including a majority of the IPCC-assessed pathways where global warming is limited to 1.5C, rely on the use of CCS at fossil-fuel plants and industrial sites.

“These models have been quite instrumental in bringing CCS back onto the agenda,” Lina Lefstad, an ecological economist at Lund University, tells Carbon Brief. 

Influential organisations relying on CCS in their net-zero scenarios range from the  International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) through to the oil company Shell. The IEA has stated that net-zero would be “virtually impossible” without CCS.

These scenarios often include 10s to 100s of times more CCS capacity being built in the coming decades. The IEA includes 1.7GtCO2 being captured by 2035 in its net-zero scenario – nearly 30 times more than is captured today.

(Some of the much higher numbers in scenarios assessed by the IPCC have been dismissed by experts as implausible, especially given the slow rollout of CCS to date.)

When considering CCS for both emissions cuts and removals, Dr Jennifer Roberts, a researcher at the University of Strathclyde and deputy director at the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC), tells Carbon Brief the situation is clear:

“From an IPCC climate modelling perspective…reaching net-zero without CCS is far more expensive, disruptive and potentially out of reach.”

This does not mean that it would be impossible to reach net-zero without using CCS. However, net-zero scenarios that use little or no CCS rely on dramatic changes elsewhere, such as much lower global energy demand.

Net-zero scenarios often include a crucial role for CCS in “hard-to-abate” sectors, referring to activities that lack available, low-cost options to fully decarbonise. In particular, CCS is widely seen as vital for decarbonising parts of heavy industry. 

The IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6) summary for policymakers calls CCS a “critical mitigation option” for some sectors, including cement and chemicals. The technical summary of the AR6 Working Group III report says that “CCS will be required to mitigate remaining CO2” in industrial sectors.

The IEA describes CCS as “virtually the only technology” that can significantly cut cement emissions, which account for around 7% of the global total. (Much of this CO2 comes from chemical processes, meaning it would still be released if the industry was electrified.)

Yet, the understanding of “hard-to-abate” emissions is changing, as alternatives to CCS become cheaper and increasingly available. As a result, CCS has become a less attractive option in some sectors, as well as being seen as less vital in some others.

Carbon Brief analysis shows that the IEA has reduced its outlook for CCS in the power sector by a third, compared to its expectations in 2021, as the chart below shows. 

This reflects both slow progress in deploying CCS and rapid cost reductions in renewables, which make running gas or coal power plants less attractive.

Data comes from IEA world energy outlooks between 2021-2025.

(Even prior to this adjustment, the IEA’s net-zero scenario was already at the lower end of CCS use, compared to those assessed by the IPCC.)

This declining role for CCS in the power sector would mean its use is more concentrated in industry. 

Industrial sectors – particularly cement, steel and chemicals – account for 60% of the CO2 captured in 2050 under the IEA’s net-zero scenario, as shown in the figure below. The remaining 40% is roughly split between electricity generation and blue hydrogen production.

Climate NGOs Bellona and E3G have stressed that with “limited public funding, infrastructure constraints and political attention, prioritisation is essential” for CCS. Their “CCS ladder” places CCS in cement and lime production at the top – with the highest “climate value” – while power CCS has “low and decreasing value”.

Despite this, the focus of the CCS sector so far has not been in heavy industry, which represents less than 10% of announced capacity.

Another key consideration is the role governments are assigning to CCS in their national net-zero strategies. 

One study found that 33 of the 67 long-term net-zero strategies submitted to the UN by governments, with a further 10 indicating some potential use. 

It concluded that high-income countries that produce a lot of oil and gas, such as Canada and Norway, showed the “firmest commitment” to capturing and storing CO2.

Nations have agreed at UN climate talks to “phase down” coal power that is “unabated”. This is generally understood to mean coal power without CCS – leaving space to develop “abated” coal plants. This could allow China, for example, to continue using its sizable coal fleet with CCS to reduce emissions.

Why is CCS controversial?

Despite its role in many net-zero scenarios, CCS remains a highly contested technology. 

It has long been framed in some circles as a “false solution” to climate change, that is backed and lobbied for by fossil-fuel companies to “delay” the clean-energy transition. 

Critics argue that CCS is expensive – especially compared to increasingly cheap wind and solar power – in part because it significantly increases the energy requirements of a facility. 

A University of Oxford working paper published in 2023 concluded that a “low-CCS” pathway to net-zero emissions would cost around $1tn less a year compared to a “high-CCS” pathway. The researchers stated that “no evidence is found for technological learning or associated cost reductions” in the development of CCS to date. 

(They added that CCS is “still likely necessary” for cement and chemical production.)

Pointing to the limited progress in scaling up the technology so far, some question whether CCS can play the role envisaged in many net-zero scenarios.

Responding to the IPCC’s most recent report, for example, the Centre for International Environmental Law stated that “abated fossil fuels only exist in models”. 

Proponents of CCS contest the notion that CCS is “untested” or “unreliable”, pointing to some projects that have been operating for many years. Moreover, most of the component parts that make up a working CCS project are in wide use for other purposes.

Yet, another key criticism levelled at CCS projects is that they simply do not capture enough CO2, diminishing their role as a climate solution.

There is a widespread view that CCS projects should aim to capture at least 90% of the CO2 being emitted. UK guidelines are among those targeting a higher capture rate of 95%.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has assessed the performance of existing projects. Its 2023 analysis is shown in the chart below.

The thinktank concluded that, in reality, most existing CCS projects are far below such capture rates, meaning they continue to emit significant amounts of CO2. (Capture is the most expensive part of the CCS process.)

Based on data analysed by IEEFA from the following projects: Petra Nova and Boundary Dam coal plants, US and Canada; Terrell, Lost Cabin, Shute Creek and Century Plant gas processing facilities, US, and Gorgon, Australia; Quest, Air Liquide and Air Products hydrogen production projects, US and Canada; Great Plains Synfuel and Coffeyville gasification projects, US; Enid and PCS Nitrogen fertiliser projects, US; Bonanza Bio Energy ethanol production, US; and Emirates Steel/Al Reyadah steel project, United Arab Emirates. 

Once the CO2 is captured, it must be stored. The IPCC says there is ample global geological storage available for CO2. It also says that, as long as sites are “appropriately selected and managed”, CO2 “can be permanently isolated from the atmosphere”.

Nevertheless, critics have noted that even relatively low rates of leakage along the transportation and storage chain could have a big climate impact when deployed at scale.

The continued use of gas in gas-CCS or blue hydrogen projects also brings risks of upstream emissions more broadly, such as methane leaks. (See: What are the UK’s plans for scaling up CCS?)

Considering these factors, in 2023 Climate Analytics assessed a “high CCS pathway” from the IPCC database. It concluded that if CO2 was captured at rates seen in existing facilities – around 50% – and upstream emissions remain high, CCS use could see an extra 86GtCO2e emitted by 2050. 

The report found that even the IEA’s net-zero scenario, which relies on “more limited fossil CCS use”, could result in an additional 16GtCO2e due to “underperforming fossil CCS”.

All of this calls into question many uses of CCS, according to Andrew Reid, energy finance analyst at IEEFA: “Is there really any point in trying to decarbonise fossil fuels, which comes with significant technical, timing and additional cost risk?” Reid tells Carbon Brief:

“As for cement and chemicals, again, there are alternatives, but these are nascent and expensive. CCS may be a solution here and if investment is going to be made in any area, it most likely should be these.”

On the other hand, CCS advocates argue that gas, for example, is likely to be an important, “dispatchable” part of many electricity systems as nations transition to clean energy.

Prof Stuart Haszeldine, a CCS researcher at the University of Edinburgh, explains this position to Carbon Brief:

“If we’re going to burn gas, then we should be fitting CCS on that…Otherwise we’re just going to say it’s OK for us to burn lots of gas and carry on emitting.”

There is also a line of argument referred to – sometimes pejoratively – as “techno-optimism”, which often stresses CCS as a core climate solution. This was exemplified by a controversial report on climate action in 2025 by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), in which the former UK prime minister wrote that CCS should be “at the centre of the battle”.

This diverges from the IPCC’s conclusion that, while CCS will likely have a role in achieving net-zero emissions, its contribution will be dwarfed by that of renewables.

CCS also attracts criticism due to its connection to the fossil-fuel industry. Dr Jen Roberts at the UKCCSRC tells Carbon Brief that she agrees these links make for complicated messaging:

“CCS is critical for net-zero, but is intrinsically tied with an industry sector that is climate polluting and historically anti-climate lobbying.”

Roberts says careful policymaking, including the development of business models and standards, can support CCS in hard-to-abate sectors where it is most needed. 

Some experts suggest that governments should require companies to capture and store their emissions under the “polluter pays” principle.

Roberts also notes that fossil-fuel companies have the experience and the workforce needed to scale up CCS. “Oil and gas companies can evidence a track record in multi-million or billion-dollar subsurface engineering projects,” Roberts adds.

Despite the fossil-fuel industry’s apparent support for CCS, one 2021 study co-authored by Haszeldine noted that they had, in fact, invested relatively small amounts in the technology, compared to renewables and nature-based solutions.

Lina Lefstad at Lund University questions whether the fossil-fuel industry stands to benefit financially through the deployment of CCS as much as some critics imply:

“People seem really worried that the fossil-fuel industry is going to come out the winner again, but if that was the case I think we would have large-scale CCS by now.”

What are the UK’s plans for scaling up CCS?

The UK government has committed “up to” £21.7bn of funding over 25 years to support the nation’s first five CCS projects and to make the nation an “early leader” in the sector.

This package, supported by both the former Conservative and current Labour governments, is intended to help create “clusters” of connected facilities across industrial areas of the UK.

Some have suggested that this represents a large pot of government spending, which could be raided to support more pressing priorities. Indeed, media coverage often points to CCS funding as a potential target for government cuts, or as a way to boost, say, military spending.

This is in spite of the fact that three quarters of the funding is expected to come from levies on consumers, rather than government budgets.

The first two CCS clusters, which are currently set to be deployed in the late-2020s, are the East Coast Cluster in north-east England and HyNet in north-west England and north Wales. The second two, scheduled for around 2030, are Acorn in north-east Scotland and Viking in the Humber.

The projects are expected to include blue-hydrogen production, gas power with CCS and industrial uses. The CO2 captured would be pumped into offshore saline aquifers and depleted gas fields.

Former UK energy secretary Ed Miliband has stated that CCS will “unlock” hard-to-abate sectors and play an “important role” in achieving clean power by 2030.

This position is supported by the UK government’s climate advisors at the Climate Change Committee (CCC), who have consistently stressed that CCS is “essential” for net-zero. 

In the CCC’s most recent net-zero pathway, released as part of its seventh carbon budget advice, CCS contributes 2% of emissions cuts in 2030 and 8% in 2050, as shown in the chart below. (If CO2 removals using BECCS are included, this increases to 15% in 2050.)

The CCC maintains that it “cannot see a route to net-zero that does not include CCS”. Nevertheless, the committee has downgraded its expectations for CCS in recent years. 

Between the CCC’s sixth and seventh carbon budget advice, its recommendations for power and industry CCS capacity dropped from 46MtCO2 to 41MtCO2. 

Dr Jamie Tarlton, the committee’s CCS lead, addressed this at a conference in March 2025, stating that it was “partly because we see more opportunities for decarbonising the other sectors and reducing those residual emissions than we saw five years ago”.

More recently, the UK government also scaled back its expectations for industrial CCS in its latest carbon budget delivery plan for 2035, bringing it more in line with the CCC’s net-zero pathway. It still describes CCS as “part of the most cost-effective route to net-zero”.

The UK’s CCS plans have drawn criticism. A September 2024 letter to Miliband signed by 22 scientists and activists expressed concern about “locking the UK into a fossil-fuel based pathway”. 

They note that the gas-CCS power plants and blue hydrogen facilities initially backed by the government would leave the UK reliant on gas imports, as North Sea production declines. This could be expensive and result in “upstream” emissions due to methane leaks.

(At the end of 2025, BP withdrew its involvement in one of the blue hydrogen facilities at the Teesside site. A data centre is planned for the site instead.)

Net Zero Teesside, a gas-CCS power plant in the East Coast Cluster run by BP and Equinor, has been unsuccessfully challenged in court over its emissions savings. The challenge was based on the idea that potential upstream emissions could significantly exceed any emissions cuts from CCS use.

According to a report by Carbon Tracker, the lifecycle emissions of Net Zero Teesside gas-CCS power plant would depend heavily on where it sources its fuel.

The project could cut emissions by around three-quarters, relative to an unabated gas plant, says the report. But it adds that if the plant relies on imported gas with high upstream emissions, then it might only cut emissions by a quarter.

(Most of the upstream emissions from imported gas would be released overseas, meaning they would not be counted in the UK’s official emissions inventory.)

Besides driving “gas dependence” in the UK, the government’s approach has drawn criticism for failing to ensure that CCS is prioritised in the industries that are hardest to decarbonise.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee in early 2025 took aim at the government’s cluster-based approach. It said this “does not ensure that financial support for CCUS is directed at the sectors which will need it most” – highlighting cement production.

(Of the CO2 captured in the CCC’s net-zero pathway in 2050, around 40% is in the industrial and waste sectors, while the remaining 60% is from gas power plants and the production of fuels such as hydrogen.)

Dr Andrew Boswell, the energy analyst who challenged Net Zero Teesside in court, says he is “more nuanced” when it comes to applications of CCS that do not involve gas. “There may be a case for cement, lime and waste…However, the case is unproven,” he tells Carbon Brief.

The Public Accounts Committee report also criticised the “high-risk” approach of using public funds for CCS projects, as well as slow progress in developing the technology. 

Enrique Cornejo, head of energy policy at fossil-fuel trade body Offshore Energies UK, tells Carbon Brief that the UK needs to maintain momentum and deploy CCS in order to “achieve economies of scale” and to reduce the cost of the technology more broadly:

“It is indeed necessary to streamline the cluster sequencing process to ensure that emitters in sectors such as cement have a clear route to the CCS market.”

related Q&A: What do China’s provincial five-year plans say about climate and energy? 18.06.2026 China policy Analysis: China’s CO2 climbs 2% in early 2026 due to ‘wasted’ wind and solar 04.06.2026 Coal Q&A: What does India’s new Paris Agreement pledge mean for climate action? 27.03.2026 Emissions Analysis: India’s CO2 emissions in 2025 grew at slowest rate in two decades 26.03.2026 Emissions

The post Q&A: Does the world need ‘carbon capture and storage’ to reach net-zero? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The post Regional Forum Road Show appeared first on ANHE.

Headline News:

• “Dominion Runs Into Delay On 2.6-GW CVOW” • Dominion Energy has delayed the expected final turbine installation at the 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project to the end of 2027. The utility blamed delays on its own jack-up vessel and weather contingencies, as well as the stop-work order issued to CVOW by the Trump administration last year. [reNews]

Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (Dominion image)

• “Ember’s Electric Coaches Show Intercity Bus Electrification Is Already Here” • Edinburgh makes electric transit visible. The city has electrified regional rail, trams, electric buses, including large battery-electric double-deckers that stand out clearly. The urban buses were always expected to be among the first to electrify, but intercity buses have taken that place. [CleanTechnica]
• “Cierco Signs Lease Agreement For Llŷr Floaters” • Cierco has signed an agreement for lease with the UK Crown Estate for its two 100-MW Llŷr floating wind projects off south-west Wales. The agreement grants Cierco the formal rights to an area around 30 km off Pembrokeshire where the two test and demonstration schemes will be deployed. [reNews]
• “Washington Wildfires Spread To Over 7,700 Acres, 600 Structures Damaged Or Destroyed” • Together, the Old Trails Fire, the Fairview Fire, and the Autumn Lane Fire are being called the Spokane Complex Fire, authorities said. They are burning over 7,700 acres with 0% containment in the Spokane area amid dangerous, windy conditions. [ABC News]
• “Eversource Books $164 Million Impairment On Revolution Wind” • Connecticut utility Eversource recorded a $164 million impairment on the 704-MW Revolution Wind offshore wind farm. CEO Joseph Nolan blamed two separate stop work orders issued by the Trump administration for the charges but said the project is on track to be finished on time. [reNews]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

The post Application Open For the ANHE Environmental Health Nurse Fellowship! appeared first on ANHE.