News Feeds

NexGen Energy (TSX, NYSE: NXE) (ASX: NXG) is now the 100% owner of its portfolio of exploration assets in the southwestern Athabasca Basin after consolidating a minority interest held by Rio Tinto (ASX: RIO) on certain projects.

The Athabasca Basin is a region in the Canadian Shield of northern Saskatchewan and Alberta and currently supplies about 20% of the world’s uranium.

On Thursday, the Vancouver-headquartered uranium miner announced it has acquired Rio’s 10% production carried interest over 39 mineral claims in the region, including those hosting the PCE discovery, by exercising its right of first refusal on these assets.

Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed by the company.

As set out in the parties’ initial arrangement, Rio is entitled to a 10% undivided interest in future production from the mineral claims, carried through to the commencement of commercial production. This was put in place before NexGen acquired the land package in 2012.

The centrepiece of the claims package is PCE — or Patterson Corridor East — an uranium occurrence situated 3.5 km east of the world-class Arrow deposit that the NexGen team discovered in 2014.

Part of the larger, 100%-owned Rook I property, the Arrow deposit is host to one of the largest uranium resources in the world, containing 256.7 million lb. of U3O8 (uranium oxide) in the measured and indicated categories and another 80.7 million lb. in inferred.

Anchored by this resource, NexGen considers Rook I to be the largest development-stage uranium project in all of Canada. A feasibility study in 2021 estimated an after-tax net present value (at 8% discount) of C$3.47 billion with a 52.4% internal rate of return. The proposed mine, which is now in the engineering phase, could produce nearly 29 million lb. of U3O8 per year over the first half of its approximate 10.7-year life.

The PCE discovery, according to the company, could mirror that of Arrow due to their similarities in geology. Initial drilling results at PCE have indicated an expansive footprint with remarkable continuity of mineralization, it said.

In a press release, NexGen CEO Leigh Curyer said that the two deposits could help meet the “ever-growing need for a safe, secure supply of uranium,” citing that the market is currently in a deficit and the massive spending required to build AI data centres, which would be powered by nuclear energy.

“Given the world class extent, high grade and superior technical setting of mineralization discovered to date at our two projects, consolidating our portfolio at PCE and surrounding area to match our 100% ownership in our world-class Arrow deposit, is entirely in line with our strategic objective of becoming the future leader in uranium production worldwide,” Curyer said.

Shares of NexGen Energy surged more than 5% on Thursday in New York, closing at a near six-month high of $7.43 with a market capitalization of $4.4 billion. By Friday, the stock had pulled back to around $7.10.

If the working class does not tackle capitalism, then reactionary solutions will be imposed

Source

What would you do if an energy company declared that it planned to build a natural-gas pipeline through your property, your community, and the surrounding countryside?

For many residents of Virginia and West Virginia, that question became a reality in 2014 when a consortium of energy companies announced plans to build the Mountain Valley Pipeline, using eminent domain to claim a wide swath of public and private lands.

Residents and activists spent the next 10 years fighting the project. In the process, they connected with each other, built community resources and mutual-aid networks, and inspired other activists around the country.

They lost the fight — the pipeline started transmitting gas in 2024, two years after West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin struck a deal with President Joe Biden to help push the climate legislation known as the Inflation Reduction Act over the finish line.

But their experiences offer valuable lessons for other communities, says activist and artist Denali Sai Nalamalapu, who spent several years involved in the battle against the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Nalamalapu has now collected six residents’ stories — including a single mother, a photographer, a teacher, and an Indigenous seed keeper — in the new book, Holler: A Graphic Memoir of Rural Resistance (Timber Press).

The Revelator recently sat down with Nalamalapu to discuss the graphic novel, the ongoing climate fight, the problem of “false hope” narratives, and how to find balance in a worsening crisis. (This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.)

Could you put this book in the context of your greater activism?

I’ve been a climate organizer since I graduated college in 2017. I was living on Borneo in Malaysian territory through a Fulbright grant and was surrounded by the impacts of palm oil plantations and rainforest destruction. I was thinking a lot about how complicated environmental destruction and climate change are, even though our impulse is often to simplify things. That made me want to go into climate organizing and climate communications, where I became very interested in who was being left out from the narrative and who we weren’t speaking to, because climate communications can be very scientific and can be specific to Western audiences.

Ultimately I landed in the Mountain Valley Pipeline site in Appalachia in 2021.

One of my big questions there was, where could we be more accessible and who are we leaving out of our audience, because the audience could be so big with a fossil fuel pipeline during this point in the climate crisis.

And you carried that over to the book, where you interviewed a range of people who seem like the people who would often get ignored in these narratives. Are you hoping that readers have six opportunities to see a little something of themselves in that book?

Yeah, that’s a big part of why I wrote the book and how I wrote it. In talking to people like Karolyn Givens, whose story is featured in the second chapter, I was struck by how many of us have grandmothers who are nurses or other people in our family who worked in the medical field. I hope that people pick up the book and see someone like Karolyn or Becky Crabtree, who is a science teacher. So many of us have teachers in our lives.

And they can see how these ordinary people use the skills that they already had to be part of resistance to a powerful, giant, fossil fuel project, even though they weren’t career activists.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Dietrich Linde (@d.ietrich)

I’m so taken by the artwork in this book. It’s pared down, a little cartoony. But the linework is very evocative and reveals the destruction and the pain on these people’s faces. Did you learn anything through drawing it in this approach?

I always felt like my path as an artist was too winding, like I didn’t have necessarily a specific medium that was my thing. I was just always obsessed with making art, whether that was painting portraits most recently, or in my very early days of childhood that was cartooning and comics. And the thing that surprised me is that all those different journeys —through ceramics and printmaking and cartooning and portraiture — did come together in this large project.

For example, I spent so much time during the pandemic in oil and acrylic portraiture, so I learned a lot about the shadows on people’s faces. There’s not a lot I could do to really make those emotions on people’s faces be super realistic, because by design they weren’t supposed to be. But shadows are one way to connect them to the way I see people.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Orion Magazine (@orion_magazine)

Now, this is a fight that did not pan out. A lot of people and land faced a lot of destruction. The pipeline still pretty much went through as planned. But there’s still an important message you’re trying to convey here about hope and about continuing to fight these pipelines. Can you speak about that?

I feel that at this point in the climate crisis and in the climate movement, we can’t just be looking for 100% crystal-clear wins, because the reality is that our future will be imperfect — especially when we think about how reluctant and combative leaders and the United States have been to retiring fossil fuels. And when we look at the way capitalism has such a tight grip on our world, I think that it’s important to tell stories that have more complexity than just “we won.”

And the Mountain Valley pipeline is one of those stories. Being part of the movement, I saw every day that it mattered that we fought against the pipeline for 10 years.

There were some anecdotes that suggested that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline getting canceled was connected to the fierce direct-action movement against the Mountain Valley pipeline. The Atlantic Coast developers didn’t want to put up with that degree of resistance.

And there are many other ways to look at the community that was built, the mutual aid networks that were built around monitoring water quality across the route, the ordinary people who learned about our regulatory agencies and how we can advocate for planetary well-being and community well-being in those agencies.

All these things felt very important in the day-to-day and I think, looking back, are important to remember. Because I think we lose out if we just have complete 100% happy hope or complete despair. There’s so much in between, and I hope that this book can contribute to all of the stories and possibilities in between.

There are now hundreds of smaller pipelines in the works or in the planning phases around the country. People in those communities could learn from this book.

We’re definitely seeing that with the Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate site, where many people living on the main line still support the resistors on the extension that MVP is trying to build into North Carolina.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by TIRN (@turtleislandrestorationnetwork)

Generally, the fossil-fuel industry has changed its playbook from the massive pipelines we saw 10 years ago to much smaller pipelines.

I think one thing that feels important and makes me feel hopeful as an activist is that many people see the connections between all these pipelines, all these small projects and the banks and insurers behind them. And people are seeing more clearly how capitalism is behind this, and corporate greed is behind this.

There’s certainly a lot of work left to do, and a lot more people to share the message with. But the reality of this massive pipeline going through — and then MVP pursuing a tiny extension along with a bunch of other smaller projects in the southeast — is that these movements are quite connected and the pipeline fighters are learning from each other.

I hope that this book can be part of people’s journey, whether they’re shifting from the mentality of fighting big projects to fighting many smaller projects, or they’re newer to the climate movement and they’re trying to learn about the history of the fight and all the possibilities that are before them in terms of how they resist.

You’re on tour now. You’re doing some signings and some events. What kind of reaction are you getting?

I started writing this book before the MVP was greenlit and completed. I didn’t know how it would change the reception that it was a completed project. But I’m really pleased that people are still willing to learn from the people in the book and the overall story, even though the project was completed.

I have also really enjoyed meeting expat Appalachians who feel so connected to the region and to the history of fossil fuel resistance.

Every place I go, I meet people who are very connected to these mountains, where the Appalachian Trail runs and where people have either childhood memories or hiking memories. That’s a beautiful thing, because I live in Southwest Virginia because of my love for the mountains.

And then, more broadly, I’m hearing from people about this moment.

One thing that I’m hearing is that people are very disinterested in false hope and people talking down to them about how “everything’s going to be okay.” Because we’re all seeing so clearly that things are not okay and that they are getting much worse, and that what’s happening on the federal level is very violent and is hurting people.

So, what comes next? Are you still in the fight? Are you looking at other stories to tell? Or are you just working on trying to help people in their communities right now?

I really enjoy a life of balanced organizing and creative work. I think after the November election and after the Mountain Valley pipeline was greenlit and then constructed — and the gas is flowing now — it became clear to me that two of the most important levers of power we have are our local elections and our mutual aid networks.

In terms of organizing, that’s what I’m really interested in: how we can elect climate champions on the local levels, given the clown show that is the federal government right now. And then I think it’s important that we know our neighbors and develop mutual aid networks and are prepared for storms like Hurricane Helene or other disastrous floods and wildfires.

One thing I learned working on a pipeline site that we lost is that it can be a precarious thing to anchor your hope in one action. Something that’s important to me is that I’m working on local elections near me and around the country, involved in my mutual aid networks, doing creative work — just having a diversity of things I’m doing that address climate change in different ways that are rooted in community. Right now I’m thinking about that notion of hope and what it means to actually believe in a possibility of a climate future — or of a better future in a way that doesn’t feel like it’s diluting oneself or diluting the reader in terms of false hope.

I find that having creative projects ongoing as I organize is a helpful way to keep up my energy. Otherwise, I get too pigeon-holed in one part of the work, and it’s easy to feel more despair.

Specifically, I’m interested in creating more stories for younger audiences, because I think we can never have enough support and stories for young people who are figuring out the world they’re going to enter.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter. Scan the QR code, or sign up here. Previously in The Revelator:

Building a Flock: How an Unlikely Birder Found Activism — and Community — in Nature

The post A Memoir of Resistance Shows Readers the Dangers of Fossil-Fuel Pipelines — and How to Fight Them appeared first on The Revelator.

Close to 900 million people across the Global South live in densely packed urban slums, which often sit in floodplains. A new study finds that one in three slum dwellers is at risk of "disastrous" flooding, a risk that is set to grow as warming spurs more intense rainfall around the world.

Read more on E360 →

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed. 
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week World court’s ‘landmark’ climate opinion

POLLUTERS ‘ACCOUNTABLE’: The UN’s highest court has told “wealthy” countries “they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change”, reported Reuters. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a much-awaited advisory opinion that small island states have described as a “legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable”, the newswire added.

‘INHERENT RIGHT’: The Associated Press said that, during a two-hour hearing to present the unanimous opinion, Japanese judge Yuji Iwasawa told the court that the “human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is…inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights”. The newswire said activists described this as a “turning point in international climate law”.

‘LEGAL WEIGHT’: The Times noted that the “view is non-binding on governments, including the [UK], and the US does not recognise the court’s jurisdiction”. However, the “ICJ’s advisory opinions carry great legal weight and are seen to contribute to the clarification of international law”, the newspaper added. Carbon Brief has just published an in-depth Q&A on what the opinion means for climate change.

Renewables ‘breakthrough’

BRINK OF BREAKTHROUGH: UN secretary-general António Guterres said on Tuesday that the “world is on the brink of a breakthrough in the climate fight and fossil fuels are running out of road”, the Guardian reported, as two new reports were published illustrating the growing dominance of renewable energy. In his online speech, Guterres said the global energy transition is now “unstoppable” due to “smart economics”.

RENEWABLES ‘CHEAPER’: The first of the new reports, from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), said that around 90% of renewable power projects globally are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, Reuters said. The second, from the UN drawing on data from multiple international agencies, found that renewables made up 92.5% of all new electricity capacity additions and 74% of electricity generation growth in 2024, the Financial Times reported. Carbon Brief pulled out five key takeaways from both reports.

Around the world

• IN DANGER: The Trump administration has “drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding”, known as the “endangerment finding”, that “gives the US government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change”, reported the New York Times.
• EU-CHINA SUMMIT: The EU and China have “committed to leading the world in the fight against climate change” in a joint statement released on Thursday following a meeting between the two superpowers, Bloomberg said. Carbon Brief’s China Briefing newsletter provided more details.
• JAPAN EYES NUCLEAR: A Japanese utility has become the first since the Fukushima nuclear disaster 14 years ago to take steps towards building a new reactor, reported Channel News Asia.
• SHELL QUITS INITIATIVE: Shell and other fossil-fuel companies have “abandoned” a six-year-long attempt to define a net-zero emissions strategy “after being told that such a standard would require them to stop developing new oil and gas fields”, according to the Financial Times.
• FLASH FLOODS: Ongoing flash flooding in Pakistan has killed at least 266 people over the past month, the Hindu reported.

50C

The temperature in some parts of Iran this week – as authorities asked people to limit drinking water amid an ongoing drought crisis, reported the Guardian.

Latest research

• Climate change is creating “new vulnerabilities” for pandemics | Carbon Brief
• South American lands stewarded by “Afro-descendant” people coincide with areas with “high biodiversity” and are associated with a 29-55% reduction in forest loss, compared to control sites | Communications Earth & Environment
• The “true price” of solar geoengineering is “much higher than its modest technical costs would indicate” | npj Climate Action

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

New research covered by Carbon Brief this week found that one in three people in informal settlements in the global south live in floodplains and are at risk of a “disastrous flood”. The chart above draws on data from the study, published in Nature Cities, to illustrate where in the world has the highest number of “slum residents” living in floodplains.

Spotlight Antarctica’s oldest ice arrives in UK

Carbon Brief recently visited British Antarctic Survey scientists responsible for uncovering the secrets of Antarctica’s oldest ice.

Standing in a freezer in Cambridge – with a -25C chill licking at his nostrils – British Antarctic Survey (BAS) lab manager Jack Humby excitedly opens up an unassuming polystyrene box.

Using his bare hands, he pulls out its contents. Long square-shaped sections of crystal clear ice – wrapped in plastic labelling which way is up – are revealed.

Little about the appearance of the ice gives away that it is at least 1.2m years old.

It has journeyed to the BAS headquarters on the outskirts of Cambridge from an ice core drilling camp in East Antarctica.

British Antarctic Survey lab manager Jack Humby holds 1.2m-year-old Antarctic ice. Credit: Daisy Dunne

In January, scientists at the camp vertically drilled a 2,800m-long ice core, with on-site tests revealing it was likely to be at least 1.2m years old. The ice was then flown to a nearby port and shipped to Europe aboard the Italian icebreaker Laura Bassi.

The ice was drilled as part of the Beyond Epica Oldest Ice project, a large-scale field operation involving multiple research teams and laboratories across Europe.

‘One shot’

Owing to its specialist equipment and research expertise, BAS has been tasked with analysing the ice to reveal its secrets.

Though not visible to the human eye, the ice contains organic compounds and tiny pockets of air from periods stretching back hundreds of thousands of years.

Over the next seven weeks, the research team at BAS will work around the clock to analyse these features. However, in order to do so, they will have to melt the ice.

Dr Liz Thomas, head of the ice cores team at BAS, told journalists:

“It’s a huge responsibility because this is a one shot. Given how much effort has gone into drilling these cores, we have to get this absolutely right.”

To conduct their analysis, the team plan to use a gold-plated instrument to melt the square-shaped sections of ice being stored in the freezer room.

The meltwater will then be piped into a specially designed lab next door, which contains millions of pounds worth of analysis equipment, according to Humby.

Climates past

The analysis will help scientists work out how old the ice actually is. Though initial tests suggest it is at least 1.2m years old, but the team believe it could be up to 1.5m years old or even older.

It will also enable researchers to paint a more detailed picture of Earth’s past climates.

In turn, this could inform scientists’ understanding of how large swings in temperature in the past have affected various parts of the Earth climate system, including its ice sheets and ecosystems.

Ultimately, this could help researchers to make more informed projections about the likely impacts of human-caused climate change, Thomas explained:

“As climate scientists, it’s our job to provide as much information as we can. What we’re relying on to understand the next steps is climate models. They are fantastic, but they’re only as good as the information we put into them. That really is the justification for looking back in time.” 

Watch, read, listen

COP30 LOOMS: A long-read in the Brazilian culture magazine Piauí examined the fraught road that the nation faces to host the next UN climate summit in November.

ARCTIC ‘MELTING POINT’: In Nature Communications, researchers recounted how the Arctic island of Svalbard is facing a “dramatic shift” to high air temperatures and rainfall in the depths of winter.

STUDENT VICTORY: The Guardian spoke to a group of students from the Pacific islands who started the campaign for the world’s top court, the ICJ, to take on the issue of climate change.

Coming up

• 23-31 July: COP15 of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe
• 30 July: International Energy Agency electricity mid-year update
• 30 July: Advancing the implementation of the Chilean framework Law on Climate Change, Santiago, Chile 

Pick of the jobs

• Boston Globe, climate science and environment reporter | Salary: Unknown. Location: Boston, US
• Science Museum London, curator of climate and earth sciences | Salary: £41,770. Location: London
• Netflix, manager, sustainability standards and partnerships | Salary: Unknown. Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

DeBriefed 1 August 2025: Trump targets ‘endangerment finding’; Floods and heatwaves; ‘Thirst’ exhibition

DeBriefed

|

01.08.25

DeBriefed 18 July 2025: India’s clean-energy milestone; Climate reaches UK parliament; Conserving trees and culture in Kenya

DeBriefed

|

18.07.25

DeBriefed 11 July 2025: Texas floods; Global warming ‘tripled’ Europe heat deaths; Ireland exits coal

DeBriefed

|

11.07.25

DeBriefed 4 July 2025: Trump ‘megabill’ guts clean energy; Europe’s record heat; Scientists discuss ‘most worrying’ tipping points

DeBriefed

|

04.07.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_bf43d9d5605c7d5c9492bf2133576319 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post DeBriefed 25 July 2025: World court delivers climate ‘turning point’; Renewables ‘unstoppable’; Antarctica’s oldest ice examined appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Knowledge Is Power: How Does Climate Change Affect You?   Climate change is real and it affects our lives in […]

Peasants, artisanal fishers, traditional peoples, and rural workers in Brazil face structural challenges that threaten their livelihoods and fundamental rights. Land concentration and agrarian conflicts are exacerbated by the lack of agrarian reform and the privatisation of common lands, leading to violence and impunity.

The post Challenges facing the Brazilian Peasantry: The UNDROP as a Tool for Struggle appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

U.N. Food Systems Summit Stocktake Kicks Off in a Few Days

From July 27–29, the second U.N. Food Systems Summit Stocktake will convene in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Four years after the inaugural summit launched a global push to transform how food is produced, distributed, and consumed, more than 3,000 delegates from around the world will assess whether those efforts are translating into meaningful change.

Co-hosted by Ethiopia and Italy, the meeting—referred to as UNFSS+4—will examine national progress on food systems transformation in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 2: ending hunger, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture.

While over 120 countries have now developed national pathways, advocates express concerns about the  slow pace of implementation. Food and agriculture systems “are finally on the global agenda,” Ambassador Ertharin Cousin, CEO and Managing Director of Food Systems for the Future, tells Food Tank. But heading into this year’s Stocktake, she says, “progress remains too slow.”

The summit arrives amid growing criticism. Civil society groups are boycotting the event, citing concerns over corporate influence and a lack of focus on urgent humanitarian crises. But FAO’s Corinna Hawkes hopes the Stocktake offers a crucial opportunity for solidarity, learning, and renewed commitment and hopes UNFSS+4 will create a greater sense of solidarity between countries.

Indigenous Vegetables See Greater Demand in Kenya

Kenya is experiencing a resurgence in demand for indigenous vegetables. Long marginalized and once dismissed as weeds, these nutrient-rich crops are now gaining recognition for their health benefits, climate resilience, and cultural importance.

A resurgence began in the early 2000s, as rising food prices, malnutrition, and concerns over chemical inputs led researchers and activists to investigate the nutritional and ecological benefits of indigenous crops. Studies highlighted their nutritional value, pest-resistance, low input needs, and climate resilience. Kenya also launched national initiatives to inventory traditional foods and document indigenous knowledge and practices.

Demand grew, farmers responded, and efforts to preserve traditional foodways took root. In 2021, the country was acknowledged by UNESCO for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage.

Today, indigenous greens are more popular than imported varieties, despite higher costs, a restaurant near Nairobi tells BBC . Horticulture professor Mary Abukutsa-Onyango says production of these vegetables has doubled in the past decade, reaching 300,000 tons last year.

But efforts to scale up indigenous vegetable production in Kenya face legal hurdles. A law—introduced in 2012 to protect farmers from poor quality and counterfeit seeds—criminalizes the sale or exchange of uncertified seeds, carrying penalties of up to two years in prison or a US$7,700 fine, or both. Wambui Wakahiu, who trains farmers on seed conservation, tells the BBC that such policies do not support efforts to save indigenous crop varieties, as their seeds are not available in farm-supply shops.

But farmers are taking action. 15 smallholder farmers petitioned the High Court to challenge the law, arguing it makes seed access unaffordable. Meanwhile, chefs, farmers, researchers, and vegetable vendors see the demand and the benefits and they are committed to helping more eaters enjoy these once-overlooked crops.

Tanzania Launches a Digital Agricultural Extension System

Tanzania’s Ministry of Agriculture has launched e-Kilimo, a digital platform designed to help farmers—particularly in rural and remote areas—connect with certified extension officers for real-time, location-specific technical advice.

Accessible via a mobile app, the platform aims to improve productivity and enhance public sector responsiveness by bridging gaps in farm-level support. The system also includes a registry of agricultural input suppliers, enabling the government to trace product distribution and crack down on counterfeit seeds and agrochemicals.

To improve service delivery, e-Kilimo incorporates a performance evaluation system for extension agents, including mandatory feedback forms and annual reviews. “This is about protecting the farmer and safeguarding our national food security,” the Minister of Agriculture says.

Despite its promise, national adoption may face challenges. According to the International Telecommunication Union, only one-third of Tanzanians are online, and 75 percent live in rural areas where internet and smartphone access remains limited. Still, the government says it is optimistic and working toward wider platform uptake.

EPA Plans to Close its Scientific Research Arm

The U.N. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will close the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the arm of the agency that is responsible for providing scientific expertise for environmental policies and regulations.

The Office analyzes dangers posed by hazards including toxic chemicals, the climate crisis, water pollution, soil pollution, smog, wildfires, indoor air contaminants, watershed destruction, and drinking water pollutants. The Associated Press reports that as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists could be laid off.

The news has been expected since March, when the New York Times first reported on a leaked document calling for the closure of ORD. And in May, EPA said it would shift its scientific expertise and research efforts to program offices that focus on major issues like air and water.

Former EPA and ORD scientists argue that dismantling ORD will “jeopardize human and environmental health” and “weaken American science and global competitiveness.” They write that the Office “provides the scientific backbone for response and recovery—safeguarding human health, the environment, and the economy.”

And U.S. Members of Congress Chellie Pingree and Jeff Merkley writes that eliminating ORD will “have devastating consequences.” The decision, they say, “will weaken scientific oversight, eliminate critical regulatory safeguards, and give polluting industries unchecked influence over environmental policy and ultimately human health.”

In ORD’s place, the agency is creating a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. Officials say that once fully implemented, it will save the EPA nearly US$750 million.

New Report Reveals Insufficient Progress to Reach Global Nutrition Targets

A new report from the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the World Bank reveals that there has been significant progress made in the last decade, but we are “still far from a world without malnutrition.”

The Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates (JME), released annually, track global trends in child stunting, overweight, underweight, wasting, and severe wasting. The latest edition of the JME show that wasting—the most life-threatening form of acute malnutrition—has declined from 50.9 million cases in 2012 to 42.8 million in 2023.

But rates of stunting, a condition where a child’s height is significantly below average for their age, remain high. There are 150.2 million children affected and just over a quarter of countries are on track to halve the number of children affected by stunting in 2030. And child overweight continues to affect nearly every region, with 35.5 million children under five classified as overweight—an increase of 2.2 million since 2000.

The agencies cite challenges in data collection and monitoring due to the COVID-19 pandemic, armed conflict, and declining development aid. In 20 percent of countries, there is insufficient data to assess progress. Without reliable data and sustained investment, the report stresses, countries risk reversing gains in child health and nutrition.

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 Annie Spratt, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: A New Platform for Farmers in Tanzania, the Future of the EPA, and New Data on Global Malnutrition appeared first on Food Tank.

How to cash in on clean energy tax credits before they disappear rcoleman July 25, 2025

Several consumer tax credits for renewable energy upgrades are suddenly poised for complete phaseouts over the next year, some in just a few months.

The recently enacted “Big Beautiful Bill” eliminates many tax incentives designed to bring down the costs of cleaner ways to power your life, such as rooftop solar and electric vehicles.

But there’s still time to take advantage of the federal tax incentives that help make it financially possible for many households to go green.

Here’s what you need to know about clean energy tax credits before they’re gone.

Rooftop solar

Rooftop solar has become increasingly popular in recent years as an energy option that’s better for the planet – and often less expensive than other electricity sources.

California has been a leader on rooftop solar, with roughly 2 million households using it. More than 60% of those users are low- or middle-income. Along with over 300,000 renters, they’ve seen reduced monthly utility bills, thanks to the clean energy source. 

Currently, consumers who install rooftop solar panels can have 30% of their installation costs reimbursed through the federal Residential Clean Energy Credit. The credit also applies to solar water heaters, wind turbines, geothermal heat pumps, fuel cells and battery storage technology.

But under the new law, that credit for customer-owned clean energy systems will disappear after December 31. Residents hoping to use it will either have to have paid for their system by then or already have it fully installed – the law isn’t clear.

The safest bet is to try to finish installation before the year ends. This is often defined as getting “permission to operate” from your local utility, the final step in the process.

Residential solar systems take about a week to install, according to the Solar Power Authority. But when you factor in contractor selection, site visits, permitting, utility interconnection procedures and other administrative requirements, the total process can take between one and five months, sometimes even longer.

That means consumers hoping to take advantage of federal tax credits for their solar projects should get started as soon as possible. But even with the tight timeline, seek bids for multiple contractors, check their licenses and read contracts carefully before signing them.

The commercial version of this credit will stick around a little longer. Developers can still get 30% back for solar systems that either begin construction by July 4, 2026, or are fully installed by December 31, 2027.

This means homeowners wanting to go solar can still choose a third-party-owned system, also known as a Power Purchase Agreement, which describes a commercial entity’s ownership of the rooftop solar panels and sale to you of the solar energy through a long-term contract. 

Electric vehicles

Tax credits for electric vehicles, or EVs, will be the first to go under the law.

These cars are becoming increasingly popular as low-carbon alternatives to traditional gas guzzlers, helping to reduce emissions from one of the country’s most carbon-intensive industries. They’re also attractive because they’re more efficient.

But in the U.S., EVs are sometimes more expensive than their gas-powered counterparts.

The Biden administration implemented a federal tax incentive program in 2022 to encourage Americans to drive electric. Anyone buying an EV – with certain limitations – can get $7,500 back on their annual taxes if the car is new, and up to $4,000 back for a used EV. The credit doesn’t apply in all taxpayer situations.

The new law moves up the end date of these incentives, from the end of 2032 to Sept. 30 of this year – just two months away.

Buyers must purchase and take delivery before then if they want to take advantage of the savings federal credits can supply.

Energy efficiency upgrades

Several home efficiency improvements, such as installation of electric heat pumps and replacement of insulation, were subsidized under the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit.

These changes can reduce the energy demand of your home, in turn lowering the electricity bill. But the credit will end after December 31.

Before then, consumers can claim up to $2,000 on new heat pumps or water heaters that meet or exceed certain standards. You can get up to another $1,200 back for upgrades to windows, doors or insulation or for conducting a home energy audit.

Some limitations apply. Credits don’t roll over to future years. They also don’t apply to businesses or new homes.

There’s a separate, similar credit for builders investing in energy-efficient technology in new homes, but it disappears as of June 30, 2026.

Other federal programs that encourage home efficiency upgrades will remain in place, unaffected by the new law. Some states and local governments have their own programs, too.

But homeowners hoping to take advantage of this tax incentive must act before the year is out.

Areas of Focus Energy Federal & State Energy Policy Renewable Energy Guest Authors Zoe Kolenovsky, Communications Fellow July 25, 2025

The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) is seeking a qualified consultant or research team to carry out a desk-based study on the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) financing of agriculture between 2019 and 2025. The study will analyze AfDB investment flows, project types, governance structures, and alignment with agroecology and food sovereignty principles. The work will […]

The post Call for Proposals: Tracking the African Development Bank’s Role in Reshaping African Agriculture first appeared on AFSA.

The US government has launched a new effort to extract valuable critical minerals, including rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and uranium, from mine waste and abandoned sites, aiming to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers and strengthen domestic production.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has ordered a series of regulatory changes to streamline federal oversight and fast-track projects recovering minerals from coal refuse, tailings, and shuttered uranium mines. 

The directive includes updated guidance to make these recovery projects eligible for federal funding and requires faster review timelines for new proposals. It also directs the US Geological Survey to map and inventory mine waste on federal lands to identify sites rich in critical minerals. 

Research by the USGS and state geological agencies has already revealed promising sources, including tellurium in tailings at Utah’s Bingham Canyon copper mine and zinc and germanium in waste from the long-abandoned Tar Creek mines in Oklahoma.

Rare earth elements have also been found in clay associated with coal seams in the Appalachian and Illinois basins.

“This initiative reflects our unwavering commitment to achieving mineral independence and ensuring that America leads the way in advanced technologies that power our future,” Burgum said in a release. His department controls large swathes of federal land some of it home to abandoned mines and the initiative could turn environmental liabilities into economic assets.

Mine waste could be transformed into a ‘net-zero, multi-billion dollar opportunity’ – study

Acting Assistant Secretary of Lands and Minerals Adam Suess added that streamlining recovery efforts will help “unleash the full potential of America’s mineral resources to bolster national security and economic growth.”

The move builds on Trump’s broader strategy to revitalize the US mineral sector, which has lagged behind global leaders like China in both production and processing. In March, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to ramp up domestic processing of several key minerals.

The highest court of the UN has issued a landmark “advisory opinion” stating that nations can be held legally accountable for their greenhouse-gas emissions.

Recognising the “urgent and existential threat” facing the world, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded that those harmed by human-caused climate change may be entitled to “reparations”.

Their opinion largely rests on the application of existing international law, clarifying that climate “harms” can be clearly linked to major emitters and fossil-fuel producers.

The case, which was triggered by a group of Pacific island students and championed by the government of Vanuatu, saw unprecedented levels of input from nations.

In a unanimous decision issued on 23 July, the 15 judges on the ICJ concluded that the production and consumption of fossil fuels “may constitute an internationally wrongful act attributable to that state”.

The opinion also says that limiting global warming to 1.5C should be considered the “primary temperature goal” for nations and, to achieve it, they are obliged to make “adequate contributions”.

While the ICJ opinion is not binding for governments, it could have significant influence as vulnerable groups and nations push for stronger climate action or seek compensation in court.

Below, Carbon Brief explains the most important aspects of the ICJ’s 133-page advisory opinion and speaks to legal experts about its implications.

• How did this case come about?
• How has the case been decided?
• What does the ICJ say about climate science?
• What does the ICJ say about countries’ climate obligations?
• What does it say about the legal consequences of breaches?
• What does it say about historical responsibility and reparations?
• What does it say about the Paris Agreement and 1.5C?
• What does it say about fossil fuels?
• What does it say about countries lost to sea level rise?
• What will it mean for other climate litigation?
• How are people reacting to the court’s opinion?

How did this case come about?

The case stems from a campaign led by 27 students from the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.

In 2019, they established a youth-led grassroots organisation – dubbed the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) – and began efforts to persuade the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum to take the issue of climate change to the world’s top court. 

PISFCC joined forces with other youth organisations from around the world in 2020, lobbying state representatives to take action. 

In 2021, the government of Vanuatu announced that it would lead efforts to gain an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ. It worked to engage with the Pacific island community first, to build a “coalition of like-minded vulnerable countries”, reported Climate Home News.

Following on from this work, Vanuatu received a unanimous endorsement for its efforts from the 18 members of the Pacific Island Forum. It continued to work diplomatically, engaging in discussions across Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America to encourage other countries to join the effort.

After three rounds of consultations with other states, the resolution was put before the UN general assembly with the backing of 105 sponsor countries.

Finally, on 29 March 2023, the assembly unanimously adopted the resolution formally requesting an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ. 

The resolution posed two questions for the ICJ. In answering these questions, it asked the court to have “particular regard” to a range of laws and principles, including the UN climate regime and the universal declaration on human rights.

Questions asked by the UN general assembly the ICJ. Source: ICJ.

First, the resolution asked what are the legal obligations of states under international law to “ensure the protection of the climate system”.

Second, it asked what are the legal consequences flowing from these obligations if states, by their “acts or omissions”, have caused “significant harm to the climate”.

The resolution asked for the court to consider, in particular, states that are “specially affected” or are “particularly vulnerable” to the impacts of climate change.

It also pointed to “peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change”.

Therefore, the advisory opinion issued this week by the ICJ, in response to these questions, is the culmination of a years-long process.

Although the opinion is not binding on states, it is binding on UN bodies and is likely to have far-reaching legal and political consequences at a national level.

How has the case been decided?

The ICJ was tasked with interpreting international law and arriving at an advisory opinion. While its legal advice will, therefore, not be binding for nations, it will be binding for other UN bodies.

This two-year process involved the judges defining the scope and meaning of the broad questions put to them by the UN general assembly. (See: How did the case come about?)

They then considered which international laws and principles were relevant for these questions. 

Among the relevant laws identified were the three UN climate change treaties – the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

They also considered various other treaties covering biodiversity, ozone depletion, desertification and the oceans, as well as legal principles such as the principle of “prevention of significant harm to the environment”.

The ICJ’s process has also seen nations and international groups, such as the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), offer their views on the case.

These groups had the opportunity to feed into the judges’ deliberations over several stages, including two sets of written submissions, followed by oral statements to the court.

In total, the court received 91 written statements, a further 107 oral statements – delivered at the Hague in December 2024 – and 65 responses to follow-up questions by the judges.

This is the “highest level of participation in a proceeding” in the court’s history, according to the ICJ. Some nations, including island states such as Barbados and Micronesia, appeared before the court for the first time ever.

These contributions demonstrated broad agreement among nations that climate change is a threat and that emissions should be cut in order to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

But there were major divergences on the breadth and nature of obligations under international law to act to limit global warming, as well as on the consequences of any breaches, as specifically being addressed by the ICJ.

Overall, the main divisions were between high-emitting nations trying to limit their climate obligations and low-emitting, climate-vulnerable nations, who were pushing for broader legal obligations and stricter accountability for any breaches.

Specifically, “emerging” economies such as China and Saudi Arabia, along with historical high-emitters such as the UK and EU, argued that climate obligations under international law should be defined solely by reference to the UN climate regime.

In contrast, vulnerable nations said that wider international law should also apply, bringing additional obligations to act – and the potential for legal consequences, including reparations.

This is a departure from UN climate talks, where the main divide tends to be between “developed” and “developing” countries – with the latter encompassing both high- and low-emitting nations.

In an unusual move, the ICJ judges also organised a private meeting in November 2024 with scientists representing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Among those present were IPCC chair Prof Jim Skea and eight other climate scientists from various countries and with different areas of expertise.

A statement issued by the ICJ said this was an effort to “enhance the court’s understanding of the key scientific findings which the IPCC has delivered”.

Presiding ICJ judge Yuji Iwasawa, second from right, speaks at a hearing to deliver the advisory opinion. Credit: Associated Press / Alamy Stock Photo

On 23 July 2025, after some seven months of deliberation, the ICJ issued a unanimous opinion in response to the UN general assembly’s request.

This is only the fifth time the court has delivered a unanimous result, according to the ICJ, after nearly 88 years in operation and 29 opinions.

(In addition to the unanimous opinion of the full court, several of the ICJ judges also issued their own declarations and opinions, individually or in small groups.)

What does the ICJ say about climate science?

When considering the “context” for the issuing of the advisory opinion on climate change, the court provides information on the “relevant scientific background”.

This was drawn from reports by the IPCC, which the court says “constitute the best available science on the causes, nature and consequences of climate change”.

It comes after ICJ judges held a private meeting with IPCC scientists in 2024. (See: How has the case been decided?)

The advisory opinion states that it is “scientifically established that the climate system has undergone widespread and rapid changes”, continuing:

“While certain greenhouse gases [GHGs] occur naturally, it is scientifically established that the increase in concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is primarily due to human activities, whether as a result of GHG emissions, including by the burning of fossil fuels, or as a result of the weakening or destruction of carbon reservoirs and sinks, such as forests and the ocean, which store or remove GHGs from the atmosphere.” 

It continues that the “consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching”, listing impacts including the “melting of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to sea level rise”, “more frequent and intense” extreme weather events and the “irreversible loss of biodiversity”. The document adds:

“These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change.” 

The advisory opinion further adds that the “IPCC notes that adaptation measures are still insufficient” and that “limits to adaptation have been reached in some ecosystems and regions”.

On the need to address rising emissions, the document quotes the IPCC directly, saying:

“According to the panel, climate change is a threat to ‘human well-being and planetary health’ and there is a ‘rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all’ (very high confidence). It adds that the choices and actions implemented between 2020 and 2030 ‘will have impacts now and for thousands of years’.”

It adds that the “IPCC has also concluded with ‘very high confidence’ that risks and projected adverse impacts and related loss and damage from climate change will escalate with every increment of global warming”.

In regards to how states should consider climate science when implementing climate policies and measures, the court says that countries should exercise the “precautionary principle”, adding:

“The court observes that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

What does the ICJ say about countries’ climate obligations?

In response to the first question on legal obligations, the ICJ says that countries have “binding obligations to ensure protection of the climate system” under the UN climate treaties.

However, the court’s unanimous opinion flatly rejects the argument, put forward by high emitters, such as the US, UK and China, that these treaties are the end of the matter.

These nations had argued that the climate treaties formed a “lex specialis”, a specific area of law that precludes the application of broader general international law principles.

On the contrary, the ICJ says countries do have legal obligations under general international law, including a duty to prevent “significant harm to the environment”, with further obligations arising under human rights law and from other treaties.

As such, the court, “essentially sided with the global south and small island developing states”, says Prof Jorge Viñuales, Harold Samuel professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge.

Moreover, the court finds that countries’ obligations extend not only to greenhouse gas emissions, but also to fossil-fuel production and subsidies, says Viñuales, who acted for Vanuatu in the case.

Speaking to Carbon Brief in a personal capacity, he says: “That is important because major producers are not necessarily major emitters and vice-versa.”

Vanuatu climate minister Ralph Regenvanu responds to the ICJ’s advisory opinion at a press conference. Credit: ZUMA Press Wire / Alamy Stock Photo

In terms of the UN climate treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, the court affirms that these give countries binding obligations including adopting measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. 

Developed countries – parties listed under Annex I of the UNFCCC – have “additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change”, the ICJ notes.

States also have a “duty” to cooperate with each other in order to achieve the objectives of the UNFCCC, acting in “good faith” to prevent harm, it adds.

Beyond the climate treaties, it says that “states have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment”. Therefore, they must act with “due diligence” and use “all means at their disposal” to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing “significant harm” to the climate system. 

The court sets out the “appropriate measures” that would demonstrate due diligence, including “regulatory mechanisms…designed to achieve deep, rapid and sustained reductions” in emissions. This repeats language from the IPCC, but attaches it to countries’ legal obligations.

As with action under the climate treaties, countries’ obligations under broader international law should be taken in accordance with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” it adds, a point reaffirmed throughout the advisory opinion. 

Furthermore, countries have obligations to act on climate under a raft of other international agreements, covering the ozone layer, biological diversity, desertification and the UN convention on the law of the sea, the ICJ notes. 

The court affirms that states that are not party to UN climate treaties must still meet their equivalent obligations under customary international law. This “addresses the unique situation of the US, but without naming it”, notes Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, on Bluesky.

Following his re-election last year, US president Donald Trump signed an order to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement again. As such, there is a question around how the ICJ’s opinion might apply to the US – the country that has contributed more to human-caused climate change than any other nation. 

Additionally, states have obligations under international human rights law to “respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by taking necessary measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment”, according to the ICJ. 

This follows a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2024 that found that the Swiss government’s climate policies violated human rights, as governments are obliged to protect citizens from the “serious adverse effects” of climate change.

Announcing the opinion to the Hague, judge Iwasawa Yuji, president of the court, said: 

“The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.”

What does it say about the legal consequences of breaches?

The second part of the advisory opinion deals with the “legal consequences” of countries causing “significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment”.

This refers to nations breaching their “obligations”, as defined in the first part of the opinion. (See: What does the ICJ say about countries’ climate obligations?)

Crucially, the court says that countries can, in principle, face liability for climate harms, opening the door to potential “reparations” for loss and damage. Prof Viñuales tells Carbon Brief:

“Perhaps the main take away from the opinion is that the court recognised the principle of liability for climate harm, as actionable under the existing rules.”

Prof Viñuales notes that the court says “climate justice is governed by the general international law of state responsibility, which provides solutions for the recurrent arguments levelled to escape liability for climate harm”. 

Essentially, the ICJ rejects the notion that it is too difficult to hold countries accountable for climate damages.

Examples of breached obligations given by the court include failing to set out or implement climate pledges – known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – under the Paris Agreement, or to sufficiently “regulate emissions of greenhouse gases”.

The ICJ stresses that it is not responsible for pointing fingers at particular countries, only for issuing a “general legal framework” that countries can follow.

As part of this process, it lays out a justification for why states can be held responsible for climate change.

During the ICJ process, some countries argued that greenhouse gas emissions are not like other environmental damage, such as localised chemical pollution. They said that emissions arise from all sorts of regular activities and it is difficult to tie climate damage to specific sources.

Others argued that it is perfectly possible to attribute such damage to states that, for example, have laws to “promote fossil-fuel production and consumption”.

This is important, as the ICJ points out that attribution is necessary if an activity is to be defined as an “internationally wrongful act”. Ultimately, the court agrees that it is feasible to attribute climate damage to specific states, on a “case-by-case” basis.

Paragraph 432 of the ICJ’s advisory opinion, from the section on “questions relating to attribution”. Credit: ICJ.

The court also finds that it is possible, at least in principle, to link climate disasters to countries’ emissions, though it notes that the causal links may be “more tenuous” than for localised pollution. It cites IPCC findings that climate change has amplified heatwaves, flooding and drought, stating: 

“While the causal link between the wrongful actions or omissions of a state and the harm arising from climate change is more tenuous than in the case of local sources of pollution, this does not mean that the identification of a causal link is impossible.”

With this established, the court sets out what the consequences could be for countries that are deemed to have carried out “wrongful acts”.

First, the ICJ stresses that nations must meet their existing climate obligations. This means that if, for example, a government publishes an “inadequate” NDC, a “competent court or tribunal” could order it to supply one that is consistent with its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

Second, it also says that if a state is found responsible for climate damage, it must stop and ensure that it does not happen again. 

States may be required to “employ all means at their disposal” to carry out this duty, according to the ICJ. In practice, the court says that this could mean governments revoking administrative or legislative acts in order to cut emissions.

In theory, this could lead to more stringent climate policies. For example, Dr Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate change litigation at the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law, tells Carbon Brief:

“The ICJ made clear that the standard of due diligence is stringent and that each state must do its utmost to submit NDCs reflecting its highest possible ambition. That may strengthen pressure – political, legal and public – on states to raise their climate targets, especially before the next global stocktake.”

Finally, the ICJ opens the door for countries to seek “reparations” for climate harms from other countries. 

It says these reparations could be expressed in different ways – including paying compensation or issuing formal apologies for wrongdoing.

This outcome was widely celebrated by climate justice activists and vulnerable nations, who see it as ushering in a “new era” in the fight to obtain financial compensation for climate disasters. 

Harj Narulla, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and legal counsel for the Solomon Islands, tells Carbon Brief:

“The ICJ’s ruling has provided a legal pathway for developing states to seek climate reparations from developed States…States can bring claims for compensation or restitution for all climate-related damage. This includes claims for loss and damage, but importantly extends to any harm suffered as a result of climate change.”

What does it say about historical responsibility and reparations?

One of the most significant parts of the ICJ opinion is the assertion that nations and “injured individuals” can seek “reparations” for climate damage.

This ties in with a long and contentious history of climate-vulnerable nations in the global south seeking compensation from high-emitting nations.

The notion of “climate reparations” has often been linked to developing countries pushing for so-called “loss and damage” finance in UN climate negotiations, including the – ultimately successful – fight for a “loss-and-damage fund”.

However, the US and other big historical emitters have ensured that any progress on loss-and-damage funding has not left them legally accountable for their past emissions.

The Paris Agreement states explicitly that its inclusion of loss and damage “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation”. 

Crucially, the ICJ opinion makes it clear that such language does not override international law and states’ responsibilities to provide “restitution”, “compensation” and “satisfaction” to those harmed by climate change.

Danilo Garrido Alves, a legal counsel for Greenpeace International, tells Carbon Brief that this means loss-and-damage finance is not a replacement for reparations:

“If a state contributes to the loss and damage fund and at the same time breaches obligations…that does not mean they are off the hook.”

Legal experts, including Prof Viñuales, tell Carbon Brief that this outcome is not surprising, given its grounding in international law. He says:

“It is the correct understanding of international law, but, in law, progress often takes the form of moving from the implicit to the explicit and that’s what the court did.”

Paragraph 420 of the ICJ’s advisory opinion, from the section on “applicable law”. Credit: ICJ.

Nevertheless, the outcome could have major implications for climate politics and lead to a wave of new climate litigation. Dr Tigre, at the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law, tells Carbon Brief:

“[It] could shift the conversation from voluntary climate finance to legal obligations to repair harm, particularly for vulnerable communities and states already suffering loss and damage.”

Notably, the court says that while some states are “particularly vulnerable” to climate change, international law “does not differ” depending on such status. This means that, in principle, all nations are “entitled to the same remedies”.

As for individuals or groups taking legal action for both “present and future generations”, the ICJ notes that their ability to do so does not depend on rules around “state responsibility”. Instead, they would depend on obligations being breached under “specific treaties and other legal instruments”.

The ICJ says that reparations would be determined on a case-by-case basis, noting that the “appropriate nature and quantum of reparations…depends on the circumstances”. It also notes that:

“In the climate change context, reparations in the form of compensation may be difficult to calculate, as there is usually a degree of uncertainty.”

The question of precisely which nations will be liable for paying climate reparations is also predictably complex. Much of this discussion centres around responsibility for emissions, both currently and in the past. 

Under the Paris Agreement, “developed” countries – a handful of nations in the global north – are obliged to provide climate finance to “developing” countries, which includes major emitters such as China.

In ICJ submissions, major emitters and fossil-fuel producers categorised as “developing” under the UN system stressed their low historical emissions. Some developing countries blamed climate change on a small group of “developed states of the global north”.

For their part, some countries with high historical emissions argued that it is difficult to assign responsibility for climate change. 

However, the ICJ concludes that this is not the case. It says it is “scientifically possible” to determine each state’s contribution, accounting for “both historical and current emissions”.

Paragraph 429 of the ICJ’s advisory opinion, from the section on “questions relating to attribution”. Credit: ICJ.

Therefore, while the court explicitly avoids identifying the countries responsible for paying reparations, it makes clear that historical responsibility should be accounted for when considering whether states have met their climate obligations.

Finally, the court also says that “the status of a state as developed or developing is not static” and that it depends on the “current circumstances of the state concerned”. 

This is notable, given that the current definitions of these terms – which determine who gives and receives climate finance – are based on definitions from the early 1990s.

What does it say about the Paris Agreement and 1.5C?

The advisory opinion offers clear guidance on the Paris Agreement and its aim to limit global temperature rise to “well-below” 2C by 2100, with an aspiration to keep warming below 1.5C.

It says that limiting temperature increase to 1.5C should be considered countries’ “primary temperature goal”, based on the court’s interpretation of the Paris Agreement.

Excerpt from ICJ’s advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. Credit: ICJ.

The court adds that this interpretation is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s stipulation that efforts to tackle climate change should be based on the “best available science”.

(In 2018, four years after the Paris Agreement, a special report from the IPCC spelled out how limiting global warming to 1.5C rather than 2C could, among other things, save coral reefs from total devastation, stem rapid glacier loss and keep an extra 420 million people from being exposed to extreme heatwaves.)

Following this, the advisory opinion also makes it clear that countries are not just encouraged – but “obliged” – to put forward climate plans that “reflect the[ir] highest possible ambition” to make an “adequate contribution” to limiting global warming to 1.5C.

(The climate plans that countries submit to the UN under the Paris Agreement are known as “nationally determined contributions” or “NDCs”.)

Moreover, contrary to the arguments of some countries, the advisory opinion states:

“The court considers that the discretion of parties in the preparation of their NDCs is limited.

“As such, in the exercise of their discretion, parties are obliged to exercise due diligence and ensure that their NDCs fulfil their obligations under the Paris Agreement and, thus, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C.” 

Dr Bill Hare, a veteran climate scientist and CEO of research group Climate Analytics, noted that the court’s stipulations on the 1.5C and NDCs represent a “fundamental set of findings”. In a statement, he said:

“The ICJ finds that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit is the primary goal because of the urgent and existential threat of climate change and that this requires all countries to work together towards the highest possible ambition to limit warming to this level.

“All countries have an obligation to put forward the highest possible ambition in their NDCs that represent a progression over previous NDCs; it is not acceptable to put forward a weak NDC that does not align with 1.5C.

“The ICJ points to potential for serious legal consequences under customary international law if countries do not put forward targets aligned to 1.5C.”

The court also notes that the concept of equity is essential to the Paris Agreement and other climate legal frameworks, commonly referred to by text noting that countries have “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.

Significantly, it adds that the Paris Agreement differs from other climate frameworks by also stating that these responsibilities and capabilities should be considered “in the light of different national circumstances”.

The advisory opinion continues:

“In the view of the court, the additional phrase does not change the core of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; rather, it adds nuance to the principle by recognising that the status of a state as developed or developing is not static. It depends on an assessment of the current circumstances of the state concerned.”

The verdict comes after debate – considered highly controversial by many – about whether “emerging” economies, such as China and India, should be considered “developing countries” at climate summits.

What does it say about fossil fuels?

One of the most eye-catching paragraphs of the advisory opinion relates to its verdict on fossil fuels.

In a section labelled “determination of state responsibility in the climate change context”, the court specifically addresses countries’ obligations when it comes to producing, using and economically supporting fossil fuels. (See below).

Excerpt from ICJ’s advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. Credit: ICJ.

The court says that fossil-fuel production, consumption, the granting of exploration licences or the provision of subsidies “may constitute an internationally wrongful act” attributable to the state or states involved.

It comes after multiple analyses have concluded that any new oil and gas projects globally would be “incompatible” with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

Speaking to Carbon Brief, climate law expert Prof Jorge Viñuales notes that the clear mention of fossil fuels comes despite not being featured in the questions posed to the court:

“The request characterised the conduct to be assessed by reference to emissions, so the court could have stayed there. Yet, the relevant conduct was expanded to production and consumption of fossil fuels, including subsidies.”

Though the advisory opinion is not legally binding on countries, it could influence domestic decision-making around granting permissions to new fossil fuel projects going forward, adds Joy Reyes, a policy officer at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. She tells Carbon Brief: 

“Litigants can cite the advisory opinion in future climate litigation, which includes the language around fossil fuels. While not legally binding, the advisory opinion carries moral weight and authority, and can influence domestic decision-making around new fossil-fuel projects. If states and corporations fail to transition away from fossil fuels, their risk for liability increases.”

What does it say about countries lost to sea level rise?

The ICJ’s advisory opinion concludes that nations’ existing maritime zones or statehood would “not necessarily” be compromised by sea-level rise resulting from climate change.

This has long been an important issue for island nations, including the Pacific states that pushed for the court’s advisory opinion (See: How did this case come about?). 

Some of these nations are very low-lying and are already making preparations for a time when much of their territory is underwater. 

They have been seeking assurances that they will retain territorial rights as the impacts of climate change worsen.

In its assessment of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the ICJ says that nations are “under no obligation to update charts or lists of geographical co-ordinates” due to sea-level rise.

This means the legal rights of states over their maritime zones – including any resources, such as minerals and fish, that are present there – would be protected.

The ICJ also states that, in its view:

“Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”

Prof Viñuales, who acted for the island nation of Vanuatu in the case, tells Carbon Brief this outcome is a “key aspect” of the opinion, adding that it is “remarkable”.

What will it mean for other climate litigation?

Following the landmark advisory opinion, one of the biggest questions moving forward is what it could mean for other climate lawsuits, both domestic and international.

Advisory opinions from the ICJ are not legally binding, but the court’s summarisation of existing law carries “moral weight and authority”, according to Joy Reyes, a policy officer at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

This is particularly relevant for states that “accept the persuasive authority of international law”, explains Dr Joana Setzer, an environmental lawyer and an associate professorial research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Grantham Institute.

Courts in some states, such as the UK, Australia and Canada, will consult international law when interpreting domestic laws or dealing with international treaties.

Setzer explains to Carbon Brief:

“The ICJ confirms that failures to act – such as maintaining inadequate national targets, licensing new fossil fuel projects or failing to support adaptation in vulnerable countries – can engage state responsibility under international law. The court also dismissed a common defence – that a state’s emissions are ‘too small to matter’. Even small contributors can be held responsible for their share of the harm.

“Domestic climate litigation may seek to use this argument and the court’s opinion to establish greater obligation on states to address climate change at the domestic level. Courts in jurisdictions that accept the persuasive authority of international law, such as the Netherlands, could now cite this ruling in support of decisions compelling stronger climate action from governments or corporations.”

She adds that the court’s conclusion that “states are not only responsible for reducing their own emissions”, but “also have a due diligence duty to regulate private actors under their jurisdiction” could have implications. Stezer continues:

“That includes fossil-fuel companies. This has far-reaching implications: it signals that states could be in breach if they fail to control emissions from companies they license, subsidise or oversee. This will place greater pressure on states to halt any new fossil fuel projects and introduce stricter regulations on the sector.”

Climate law expert Prof Jorge Viñuales says that the opinion makes it clear that the Paris Agreement is a “serious legal instrument imposing genuine and justiciable obligations”, which is likely to have an impact on domestic lawsuits. He tells Carbon Brief:

“We can expect that to be widely litigated around the world.”

In addition, he says that the court’s opinion that countries’ legal obligations extend beyond the UN climate treaties creates a “much wider chessboard for climate litigation”. He adds:

“Last, but absolutely not least, it was important, from a climate justice perspective, to hear from the court that one cannot simply game the climate change regime without legal consequences. Those consequences may take time to materialise, but they very likely will.”

How are people reacting to the court’s opinion?

The ICJ’s advisory opinion was welcomed by many governments, NGOs and legal experts as a “groundbreaking” legal milestone and a “moral reckoning”.

However, the European Commission and France were among those responding to the court’s opinion more cautiously, while opposition politicians in the UK were hostile to the ICJ’s findings.

A Chinese government spokesperson, meanwhile, said the opinion was in line with China’s views, while the White House said the US would put itself and its interests first.

One particularly positive response came from Ralph Regenvanu, minister of climate change adaptation, meteorology and geo-hazards, energy, environment and disaster management for the Republic of Vanuatu, who commended the opinion. In a statement, he said: 

“The ICJ ruling marks an important milestone in the fight for climate justice. We now have a common foundation based on the rule of law, releasing us from the limitations of individual nations’ political interests that have dominated climate action. This moment will drive stronger action and accountability to protect our planet and peoples. 

Vishal Prashad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, welcomed the ICJ’s statements on what he said was the need to “urgently phase out fossil fuels…because they are no longer tenable”. He continued: 

“For small island states, communities in the Pacific, young people and future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect what we hold dear and love. I am convinced now that there is hope and that we can return to our communities saying the same. Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this.”

The reaction from developed countries was more muted, with France stating that the “landmark opinion will be studied very closely”. It reaffirmed its “unwavering commitment to the ICJ”. 

A spokesperson for the European Commission, Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, told the media that the opinion “confirms the magnitude of the challenge we face and the importance of climate action”. She added that the commission would examine what the opinion “precisely implies” and noted that the EU’s emissions are behind those of China, the US and India. 

A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said in a regular press conference that the ICJ opinion was “of positive significance to maintaining and advancing international climate cooperation”.

They added that, in their view, the court reinforced the “long-standing stance” of China, whereby developed countries should “take the lead” in tackling climate change:

“We noted that the ICJ’s advisory opinion pointed out that the UNFCCC system is the principal legal instruments regulating the international response to the global problem of climate change and confirmed that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, the principle of sustainable development and the principle of equity are applicable as guiding principles for the interpretation and application of relevant international law.”

In response to the opinion, a spokesperson for the White House told Reuters:

“As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans.”

Many within the wider international community also welcomed the advisory opinion. For example, Mary Robinson, a member of the Elders and the first woman president of Ireland and former UN high commissioner for human rights, called the opinion a “powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis – and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused”.

António Guterres, secretary-general of the UN said in a statement that the ICJ had issued a “historic” opinion. He added: 

“They made clear that all States are obligated under international law to protect the global climate system. This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference. Young Pacific Islanders initiated this call for humanity to the world. And the world must respond.”

Charities such as Amnesty International, Earthjustice and Greenpeace hailed the “landmark moment for climate justice and accountability”. 

Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network International, said that “the era of impunity is over”, adding that the ruling “could not have come at a better time” ahead of the upcoming COP30 summit. 

Within the media, a lot of coverage focused on the potential that nations might have to pay reparations for breaching their climate obligations.

In the Guardian, Harj Narulla, barrister and leading global expert on climate litigation at Doughty Street Chambers and the University of Oxford, discusses what the ICJ’s advisory opinion could mean for Australia and other major polluters in a “new era of climate reparations”. 
In its news coverage, the Daily Telegraph says that the UN “has opened the door to Britain being sued over its historic contribution to climate change”. It adds that the opposition Conservative and Reform parties “both rejected the ruling”.

Third of ‘slum residents’ in global south are exposed to ‘disastrous’ flood risks

International policy

|

24.07.25

UN: Five reasons why switching to renewables is ‘smart economics’

International policy

|

22.07.25

Australia election 2025: Where parties stand on climate change, energy and nature

International policy

|

24.04.25

Analysis: Conservative election win could add 800m tonnes to Canada’s emissions by 2035

International policy

|

23.04.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_9849cf6e368a2aee7d8fa611deb6e991 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post ICJ: What the world court’s landmark opinion means for climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Three workers who were trapped at Newmont’s  (NYSE, ASX: NEM)(TSX: NGT) Red Chris mine in northwest British Columbia, Canada, have been safely rescued after more than 60 hours underground.

Newmont said that Kevin Coumbs, Darien Maduke and Jesse Chubaty — contractors for B.C.-based Hy-Tech Drilling — were in “good health and spirits” after being brought to the surface late Thursday night. The rescue followed two significant rockfalls that occurred early Tuesday morning, blocking their exit and later cutting off communication.

“This was a carefully planned and meticulously executed rescue plan,” the company said in a statement.

Newmont said that, before losing contact on Wednesday, the men had confirmed they were in one of the mine’s refuge chambers with steady access to food, water, and air. They were rescued at approximately 10:40 PM local time Thursday (1:40 AM ET Friday), following the complex operation.

Newmont halted all operations at Red Chris during the rescue efforts. The team used drones and a remote-controlled scoop, brought from the company’s Brucejack mine, also in B.C., to clear the massive debris—estimated at 20 to 30 metres long and up to eight metres high.

Newmont credited the successful outcome to “tireless collaboration, technical expertise, and above all, safety and care.”

B.C.’s Mining and Critical Minerals Minister Jagrup Brar said in a post on X he  could not describe “the relief we all feel knowing that these three workers are going to be able to go home to their families.”

Red Chris, located about 80 km south of Dease Lake and 1,050 kilometres (652 miles) north of Vancouver, is a joint venture operated by Newmont (70%) and Imperial Metals (30%). The gold-copper mine has been in production since 2015.

A full investigation into the incident is underway.

The motley crew of scientists, conservationists, and agricultural producers set out to begin in earnest. Spring was well underway in Hood Canal, Washington, when the team assembled on the shores of Baywater Shellfish Farm, armed with buckets. Before them, floating mats of seaweed were strewn about, bright green clumps suffocating clams, geoducks, and other intertidal creatures while swallowing the gear laid out to harvest them. 

Excess seaweed is a seasonal nuisance along the bays and inlets that twine throughout Puget Sound. But the issue has magnified as excess nutrient runoff has fueled sprawling blooms. It has become a bona fide threat to the business of Washington shellfish farmers like Joth Davis.

In the past, Davis has attempted to harvest the seaweed by hand to reduce the surging number of macroalgae menacing his catch. Alas, there is the “age-old problem of scale,” he said. “It is difficult work, and time available during low tides to tackle the problem is limited, with everything else we need to accomplish when the tide is out.” 

A couple years before the team got to work last May, researchers at the University of Washington, or UW, approached Davis to see if he’d be interested in partnering with them to develop a new supply chain. The plan was simple: Harvest the seaweed from Davis’s farm, give it to small and mid-sized crop farmers in the area as a soil-building replacement for chemical fertilizer, and along the way study the effects — reduced emissions from a shortened supply chain, steady yields from shellfish and terrestrial farms, changes in soil chemistry, and possibly a way to sequester the carbon stored in the seaweed itself. They were also aiming to investigate the impacts of seaweed removal on shellfish survival and growth. 

A Department of Agriculture program established by the Biden administration, and funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, offered exactly the federal support they needed to make the vision happen. In February 2022, the USDA launched the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative, or PCSC, which former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said at the time would “provide targeted funding to meet national and global demand and expand market opportunities for climate-smart commodities to increase the competitive advantage of American producers.”

Davis, who has a background in marine science, seized the chance. 

The aptly named “Blue Carbon, Green Fields” project was selected by the USDA in 2023 to receive roughly $5 million of the climate-smart commodities money in a five-year agreement. In addition to Davis’s team at Baywater and the scientists from UW, the partnership consisted of researchers from Washington State University and Washington Sea Grant, conservationists from the nonprofit Puget Sound Restoration Fund, and the local farm incubator Viva Farms. In their first year in the field, the team harvested a little over 15,000 pounds of wet seaweed, which was stockpiled and distributed to four crop farms throughout the region. By laying the groundwork for the agricultural supply chain, the team was on track for the unthinkable — a quadruple win of sorts, where everyone involved benefited, including the planet. 

Instead, not even halfway through a federal contract, their drying racks and other seaweed harvesting equipment are at risk of just gathering cobwebs on Davis’s farm; each unused tool a daily reminder of the progress they lost at the behest of President Donald Trump’s cultural politics. The supply chain, fragile in its novelty, is splintering apart.

Excess seaweed overtaking shellfish gear on Baywater Shellfish Farm in Hood Canal, Washington. Sarah Collier

Almost a year after the team began their field work harvesting seaweed in Puget Sound, the USDA announced that it would cancel the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative. In a press release issued on April 14, the agency called the $3.1 billion funding pot a “climate slush fund” and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins decried it as “largely built to advance the green new scam at the benefit of NGOs, not American farmers.” The USDA said that it axed the initiative due to the “sky-high administration fees which in many instances provided less than half of the federal funding directly to farmers.” 

Robert Bonnie, the former under secretary for farm production and conservation at the USDA under the Biden administration, rejects this claim. He contends that the reason some projects reported higher administrative fees than others is because roughly half the awards were intended to boost markets for smaller projects. “You would expect those projects to have higher administrative costs because those farmers are harder to reach,” he argued. “Take the Iowa Soybean Association, or Archer Daniels Midland, where they’ve got established relationships with farmers, where they’ve got high demand amongst many of their farmers, you’re going to expect those projects to have lower administrative costs as a percentage because they’ve already got an extensive network. So we wanted to provide flexibility across projects to make sure that the door was open to everyone,” added Bonnie. 

In any case, USDA’s use of the term “cancel” was something of a misnomer. In the same announcement, the agency shared its plan to review existing projects under a new set of scoring criteria, to ensure that they align with the new administration’s priorities. The release noted that the program would be “reformed and overhauled” into a Trump-era effort to redistribute the pool of IRA money. So as the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program sunsetted, the Advancing Markets for Producers initiative was born. 

The Trump program’s criteria required grant awardees to ensure that a minimum of 65 percent of their funds go directly to farmers, that they enrolled at least one farmer in their program by December 31, 2024, and that they have made a payment to at least one farmer by that same date. According to a former senior USDA official, who spoke to Grist on the condition of anonymity, the USDA grouped the 135 PCSC grantees into three buckets: Fifteen projects were told they could keep going, as they met the new thresholds; five recipients were told they could continue on the condition that they modified their projects to meet the new priorities; and 115 were informed that their projects were terminated as they did not meet the new policy priorities and were invited to resubmit. A few weeks later, the official said that projects that initially received cancellation letters were told something different – that the termination would be rescinded and they could just modify their proposals to meet administration priorities.

The group behind Blue Carbon, Green Fields was among the 115. 

In the USDA’s official termination notice to the University of Washington, shared with Grist, the team was told that their project “failed to meet the first of three Farmer First policy priorities identified by USDA” — that at least 65 percent of the funds must go to producers. A second notice stated that because of that, “the award is inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, department priorities.”

Sarah Collier, the UW assistant professor leading the initiative, remembers how the news of the termination hit her. When she got the letter, “everything had to come to a screeching halt.” She jumped into crisis mode, notifying the 25 or so people working on the project, including students whom Collier said saw their “dissertation research derailed.” She then reached out to notify the farmers who had been receiving the seaweed fertilizer. The timing couldn’t have been worse: The team had just completed a round of farmer recruitment, and were in the middle of signing contracts with five more small and mid-sized farmers.  

“I have days where I am like, I can’t,” said Collier. “I can’t handle one more conversation where all I can say is, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t know what to do about this, because this isn’t the way that things are supposed to go. This isn’t the way that federal grants are supposed to work.’” 

In May, the USDA sent a letter to grantees who had received cancellation notices informing them of how to submit revised applications. According to the letter, which was also shared with Grist, grantees would need to arrange one-on-one meetings with Natural Resources Conservation Service representatives and submit a new budget narrative and statement of work incorporating Trump’s policy priorities. They had until June 20. 

When they first learned that their funding had been culled, Collier’s UW team, as the main grantee, wasn’t sure they were going to resubmit — or whether they even could. At the time, nothing further had been disclosed about what it would entail, so Collier decided to wait to talk with the NRCS to find out more. After that meeting, they moved forward with resubmission, in a bid to salvage what funding they were able to. That required Collier to create “a very revised” narrative and restructure the budget, in addition to regular meetings with the NRCS. 

The former USDA official noted that specific details of the resubmission process have since largely been kept quiet, since the vast majority of former PCSC grantees are fearful of speaking out about their experiences in case of retaliation by the administration. The closed-door nature of it all, with a lack of clear communication from the Trump administration and changes in guidance leading up to the submission deadline, the official said, has sown confusion and distress among former grantees. 

Although no official verdict timeline has been communicated — Collier has heard everything from 60 days to sometime in September — she expects to be waiting on the final funding decision for at least two more months. Hannah Smith-Brubaker, executive director at the nonprofit Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, or Pasa, has been told something similar about her pending resubmission. Another PCSC grantee, Pasa also reapplied to the new USDA program after being informed they didn’t meet one of the Trump administration’s priorities. Doing so required a total revamp of what their old project had been structured to do. 

“In the end, we decided to completely rewrite our proposal rather than just alter our original proposal. We had already said goodbye to the old program and knew it wouldn’t be able to fit the new reality,” said Smith-Brubaker. She says she “lies awake at night” concerned over the outcome, including whether the USDA may choose to deny their resubmission because of Pasa’s involvement in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year challenging the Trump administration’s funding freeze. 

“It’s hard to say right now which decisions and actions might unintentionally result in things going awry,” said Smith-Brubaker. “Even though we still feel it was not in farmer’s best interest to have this degree of disruption, and fear for what a new reality could mean where every change in administration could involve a complete dismantling of stability and promises, we are extremely grateful for the opportunity to still leverage these funds for what our farmers need most.”

In a series of separate recent actions, the USDA provided a peek into how leaders at the nation’s highest food and farming agency have taken strides to comply with the president’s executive orders targeting climate action, environmental justice, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. In mid-June, the agency announced the termination of more than 145 awards totaling $148.6 million of “woke DEI funding.” Then, on July 10, the USDA posted a final rule in the Federal Register revoking a longstanding provision that ensured “disadvantaged” producers have equitable access to federal support, by allowing for carve-outs designed specifically for groups, such as Black and Indigenous farmers, that have historically faced discrimination. Shortly thereafter, the agency also revoked guidelines implemented during the Biden administration that mandated schools administering federal meal programs to ban discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. 

Some observers say that in the USDA’s rushed campaign to gut federal funding while erasing footprints of the Biden administration, the termination of the climate-smart project happened much too fast, and much too soon. For one, Bonnie, who helped design and implement the PCSC initiative, believes that the USDA’s invitation for grantees to resubmit their applications signals the administration’s initial lack of understanding about the bipartisan backlash to the decision. 

“The Trump administration was surprised at the amount of support for not only this program, but for climate-smart agriculture more broadly,” said Bonnie. Leadership at USDA were, he added, “under pressure to satisfy the far right, to be anti-climate and anti-woke.”

“They try to paint with a broad brush about this being the Green New Deal,” Bonnie continued. “Most people that knew this program knew that they were blowing smoke.” 

Read Next USDA abruptly cancels rural energy grant application window Kari Lydersen

While the Blue Carbon, Green Fields team is hopeful that, in time, an iteration of the project may continue, work on the ground has stalled. If they do receive a new round of funding from the USDA, Collier said, one change to their budget proposal will have considerable impacts on how the project will be carried out. To satisfy the requirements for resubmission, nearly two-thirds of the funds for the award will have to go directly to participating producers — rather than to the partners like the UW team, which is how it was originally structured.

“That does mean that, pending what we learn as we engage with USDA on this, that if we’re able to go forward, participants will have to seek out their own services to support the practices that they’re implementing, rather than having those services provided by the project partners, as part of the grant,” said Collier. “Instead, they will receive funds to seek out the services that they need, like technical assistance, or like harvesting and transporting seaweed.”

That modification, though seemingly minor, is rather significant, particularly for small farmers who already struggle with limited time and resources to allocate to anything beyond their day-to-day operations, some of whom say it presents an unjust burden. According to fellow PCSC grantee Smith-Brubaker, such a structural change will make things harder for them. “It’s really too bad to have to make it even more complicated for farmers to get the services they want and need,” she said.

Ellen Scheffer, who co-operates a 20-acre organic vegetable and grain farm in Fall City, Washington, is a small farmer involved with the Blue Carbon, Green Fields project. The funds “being yanked away” makes Scheffer “feel really defeated about the future.” A downside of USDA’s resubmission process, she noted, is that “any positive benefit that might help the future of our environment is going to have to be a side benefit, rather than the direct goal of the research. It feels very, very frustrating, especially as someone who is living every day trying to grow food in a way that is good for our planet.” 

Others, like project partner Viva Farms, the nonprofit farm incubator that connected producers in their network with the seaweed researchers, feels as if the group’s chapter together has already come to a close. “It did feel like the momentum was really a sheer drop-off,” said Viva Farms’ Elma Burnham. “We were about to prepare to onboard all sorts of new farms, to have seaweed drying here, to sort of get them more action of the program, instead of more of this, like, planning. And, yeah, it was challenging to see it sort of come to a halt,” she said. 

The likelihood of revival, according to Burnham, feels low. “Of course, we would love to see more organic, small-scale farmers pursue this research, we would love to see more innovation and collaboration happening in the Puget Sound region. But it feels over,” said Burnham. “This particular project feels over.” 

Davis, the shellfish grower, says he struggled to come to terms with the time and workload that would be demanded of him in the revised program — and what the restructuring of the proposal to align with the Trump administration’s policy priorities altogether represents. “I just thought it was kind of backwards, to be honest. It just didn’t seem like the right way to do it,” he said. For instance, directing most of the grant money to the farmers rather than project leads, he added, “didn’t make sense.”   

Instead, he’s going his own way. Davis has begun planning out an even shorter seaweed supply chain in tandem with his daughter, Hannah, and Emily Buckner, one of her colleagues at the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, just two of the six original partners. They’ve been busy identifying producers in the Chimacum Valley to collaborate with, all within a 20-mile radius of his farm. By narrowing the geographic range and foregoing much of the soil chemistry research, the scope of Davis’s new venture is limited compared to Blue Carbon, Green Fields, but, he said, “At the end of the day, I was, and I am, too invested in the parts that [the USDA] didn’t want.”

Still, not all the equipment that the USDA funds bought is laying idle around the farm, at risk of catching cobwebs: Davis is currently testing out a raft-based suction system to vacuum up the excess seaweed clustered around sensitive geoducks.

“We’ve got the equipment, and we’re going to harvest it and dry some and see where this can go,” he said. “We want to move forward with that, just to see if it works.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Seaweed brought fishers, farmers, and scientists together. Trump tore them apart. on Jul 25, 2025.

It’s less than an hour before the Dave Matthews Band takes the stage on a sunny Thursday evening on the coast of Long Island — but the biggest crowds at the Northwell at Jones Beach Theater aren’t at the tequila bar. They’re in the “eco-village” operated by Reverb, a nonprofit focused on greening live music by inspiring fans to take action around climate change. 

As I wander through tents emblazoned with the logos of organizations like the Nature Conservancy and Generation180, volunteers explain how fans can reduce their carbon footprints and join the clean energy transition. The longest line emanates from Reverb’s flagship tent, where batches of limited-edition blue-and-yellow Nalgene bottles hang from tent poles like so many coconuts from a grove of palm trees. 

Fans acquire the bottles by making a $20 donation, which enters them into a raffle to win a guitar signed by Matthews; they can fill their bottles at a nearby filtered water station. It’s all part of “RockNRefill,” a partnership between Reverb and Nalgene. The program has raised $5 million for climate and conservation nonprofits and eliminated an estimated 4 million single-use plastic bottles. 

“It’s cutting down on single-use plastics, so we hope everybody takes a bottle home or brings it back to another show,” says Dan Hutnik, Reverb’s onsite coordinator. “We’re trying to help save the planet — I like to say, one water bottle at a time.” (I bought one of the Nalgenes, but didn’t win a signed guitar.)

Concertgoers wander around the Reverb eco-village at Dave Matthews’ show at the Northwell at Jones Beach Theater. Zack O’Malley Greenburg

With this year’s summer touring season in full swing, the Dave Matthews Band’s efforts are just one example of the increased focus on sustainability in live music over the past several years. Decades after trailblazers like Bonnie Raitt began to prioritize climate, more and more artists are embracing sustainability and pushing for change — both inside and outside the industry — with the help of organizations like Reverb. 

Founded in 2004 by environmentalist Lauren Sullivan and her husband Adam Gardner, a guitarist and vocalist of the alt-rock group Guster, Reverb has become a leading force in greening live music. The nonprofit sends staffers like Hutnik out on the road with acts from Matthews to Billie Eilish, setting up eco-villages and organizing volunteers. Reverb staffers serve as the bands’ de facto sustainability coordinators, allowing initiatives like RockNRefill to be scaled up, rather than every artist having to build something similar from scratch.

Reverb also coordinates with concert promoters and venues, which have their own sustainability teams and programs. As part of the recent renovation of Jones Beach, for example, Live Nation added a sorting facility out back where employees handpick recyclables and compostables out of the garbage. The company’s Road To Zero campaign, a partnership with Matthews, diverted 90 percent of landfill-bound waste at the majority of the band’s shows last summer.

Live music has grown immensely since the pandemic — the top 100 tours grossed roughly $10 billion last year, nearly double what they reached in 2019. (For various reasons unrelated to climate, the 2025 number will likely be lower.) 

If abandoning climate projects is the new normal in our current political moment, the music business hasn’t gotten the memo. According to a recent Reverb study, 9 out of 10 concertgoers are concerned about climate change and are prepared to take action — and artists are ready to lead the way.

“As more and more artists are asking for the same things, it makes sense for these venues to make it a permanent change and not something where they just say, ‘OK, put away all the Styrofoam and all that crap, we’ll save it for the next band,’” said Gardner. “And that’s where the power really starts coming into play.”

Five days after Donald Trump’s second inauguration, Coldplay played the biggest — and almost certainly the most overtly eco-friendly — stadium show of the 21st Century. A crowd of 111,000 streamed into Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad, India, to see the latest stop on the band’s Music of the Spheres Tour. Coldplay has grossed nearly $1.3 billion in the first three years of the tour, making it the second-most lucrative of all time behind Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour. 

Coldplay has notched quite a few firsts on the climate front. After the group’s 2016-2017 tour, front man Chris Martin and his bandmates were so concerned about their carbon footprint that they took a break from the road until they could forge a more sustainable path. They eventually began planning the Music of the Spheres Tour with a pledge to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent compared to their last tour, and to hold themselves accountable with transparent reporting.

Coldplay committed to offsetting unavoidable emissions as responsibly as possible, drawing on the Oxford Principles for Net-Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting, a guide that aims to ensure the integrity of carbon credits. The group has also used a portion of its tour proceeds to support new green technologies and environmental causes. Above all, the band wanted to push the envelope industry-wide with a sustainability rider — a set of requests that artists make as a condition for performing — covering everything from venues’ power connections to free water for fans.

Coldplay performs at a Music of the Spheres tour stop in Las Vegas in June. The tour and album name references planets and outer space.
Ethan Miller / Getty Images

Concert promoters are accustomed to accommodating all manner of demands on big acts’ riders (ranging from peppermint soap to actual kittens) and have proven open to doing the same for climate initiatives.

“Any artist could add sustainability considerations to their rider and try to influence promoters and venues to do things in a lower-impact way,” said Luke Howell, the band’s head of sustainability. “While not all artists can change how a venue operates at the macro scale, they can all ask for no single-use plastics, more veggie options on menus, or make sure the kit they are using is efficient and specced correctly to minimize energy use. And they can all engage their fans.”

To that end, while operating at a scale that few other acts can approach, Coldplay has introduced a bevy of novel green touring concepts. The band partnered with BMW to develop the first mobile show battery, which can power 100 percent of a concert with renewable energy. These clean sources include solar panels that come along for the ride, as well as power-generating bicycles and kinetic floors that quite literally draw energy from dancing fans.

Coldplay, of course, isn’t the first group to care about its impact on the planet, or try to reduce it. Environmental activism in the modern pop music world dates back more than half a century to conservation-focused songs like Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi” and Marvin Gaye’s “Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology).” 

Similarly, early benefit concerts — many organized by late folk singer Tom Campbell — focused on causes like protecting forests in the Pacific Northwest. After Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne played one such show in Oregon, their crews needed a police escort out of town to stave off a convoy of chainsaw-wielding loggers.

As the science around global warming went mainstream at the turn of the millennium, artists turned their focus toward climate change. Raitt’s 2002 summer tour launched Green Highway, a traveling eco-village where fans could learn about environmental issues and check out the newest hybrid vehicles from Honda. She and her manager, Kathy Kane, convinced tour bus companies to let them power their vehicles with biodiesel, booking the tour well in advance so as to route buses efficiently instead of wasting fuel hopscotching the country. 

At every venue, Raitt’s rider called for replacing disposable silverware with real cutlery, and she began bringing her own water bottle refill stations to reduce backstage plastic use. If there wasn’t a proper recycling system on-site, the crew would bring paper scraps on the bus and dispose of them properly in the next town. And Raitt inspired a new generation of artists who were concerned about live music’s environmental footprint.

“All I had to do was look at the ground when the lights came up at the end of the show to see all the plastic,” said Guster’s Gardner. “I just didn’t feel good about it.”

His wife, Lauren Sullivan, was working for the Rainforest Action Network when a venue refused to let them set up a table at a Dave Matthews show. Apparently, the nonprofit had been rallying against old growth woodcutting practices of one of the venue’s major sponsors. When Matthews threatened to skip the gig, the venue relented. 

The episode inspired Sullivan to team up with her husband to channel the power of live music into climate action. Sullivan reached out to Raitt, who was on the Rainforest Action Network’s board, and learned that the touring gear from Green Highway was in storage. Raitt offered it up — and pledged to incubate Sullivan’s project via her own nonprofit, until Reverb was officially launched in 2004.

Sullivan and Gardner wanted their new nonprofit to be an organization that all acts could use to make their tours greener. In their vision, fans walking into any venue would be greeted by a Reverb volunteer wearing a band-branded T-shirt, ready to engage on environmental issues. Concertgoers would be incentivized to take action — like reducing their own carbon footprint or pushing elected officials to enact eco-friendly legislation — with chances to win goodies like ticket upgrades and signed instruments. 

On the artists’ side, Reverb helped institutionalize practices that not only reduced waste, but saved dollars — like replacing single-use batteries with rechargeable battery packs for performers’ in-ear monitors. Over time, due to artist demand, these rechargeable packs became the norm.

It turned out that, when big acts demanded a certain standard of sustainability, the live music industry was willing to make meaningful changes. Adam Met, from the alt-pop band AJR, remembers realizing this while planning a tour five years ago and asking venues to eliminate single-use plastics.

“Every place we went, the venue [employees] said, ‘Oh, like Jack Johnson,’” recalled Met, who now serves on Reverb’s advisory board. “That was the artist bringing the requests to the table, and an organization like Reverb.”

As the nonprofit grew, one challenge was broadening its reach beyond alt-rock, whose artists and audiences skew heavily white, male, and middle-aged. To that end, Reverb worked increasingly with emerging artists to help them weave sustainability into their touring process from day one.  

Perhaps the best example is Billie Eilish, who started teaming up with Reverb six years ago when she rose to stardom with her 2019 album “When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?” On her 2022 Happier Than Ever Tour, Reverb helped her eliminate 117,000 single-use plastic bottles, save 8.8 million gallons of water, and push venues to offer plant-based meals — for the same prices as meat-based meals. She also introduced the pricier Changemaker Ticket, with proceeds supporting climate projects. Eilish even fueled her 2023 Lollapalooza set with solar-backed batteries.

Billie Eilish performs onstage at Lollapalooza in 2023 in Chicago.
Michael Hickey / Getty Images for ABA

Other young artists have also joined the movement. Last year, for the first time, solar panels fueled the batteries behind festivals in the world of country music (Tyler Childers’ Healing Appalachia) and hip-hop (Tyler, the Creator’s Camp Flog Gnaw). And concert promoters continue to step up to meet artist and fan demand. In 2022, Live Nation invested in Turn Systems, purveyor of a leading reusable cup setup; earlier this month, AEG hosted its first solar-backed battery-powered festival.

“As touring infrastructure becomes normalized where we don’t have to go out of our way to bring along our reusables and compostables, it’s just part of what’s happening at those venues,” said Gardner. “If that becomes the new normal, then there’s massive savings there, both with carbon and with dollars.”

On a bright Monday morning, I was walking through Central Park with AJR’s Met — discussing the future of green touring — when, appropriately, we happened upon the seasonal amphitheater at Rumsey Playfield. Perched on a hill overlooking Bethesda Fountain, it has hosted acts ranging from Pitbull to the Barenaked Ladies. The venue is largely constructed with repurposed shipping containers.

“So the infrastructure itself is already reused, which is great,” said Met, who then wondered aloud how this sort of space could be used during the venue’s downtime — perhaps as a seasonal solar farm. “There are all of these different ways to think about how to use the venue itself as a producer for sustainability initiatives.”

For Met, though, what’s even more powerful is the collective ability of fans to mobilize around the causes championed by their favorite artists. That’s the focus of his new book, Amplify: How to Use the Power of Connectivity to Engage, Take Action, and Build a Better World. 

He believes that, with a little encouragement, audiences can be particularly potent around local causes. For example, during last summer’s AJR tour stop in Phoenix — where temperatures reached 109 degrees — thousands of fans signed petitions to FEMA asking the agency to designate extreme heat as a type of emergency, thereby unlocking additional funds for response. In Salt Lake City, concertgoers phone-banked around increasing the Great Salt Lake’s water levels because of the economic benefits it provides to seven different states; Met noted that each state later voted for progressive climate policies, even the ones that went for Trump.

This sort of activity might strike some as preachy, but it turns out most fans don’t mind. According to a survey of 350,000 concertgoers organized by Met’s nonprofit, Planet Reimagined, most fans encourage it. A full 70 percent of respondents said they had no problem with musicians publicly addressing climate change; 53 percent believed artists had an obligation to do so.

Perhaps the most important thing an artist can do on the climate front is spotlight the collective carbon footprint of concertgoers — a facet that has more to do with advocating for a greener society than a greener music industry. As part of its Music Decarbonization Project, Reverb recently released its Concert Travel Study, which found the average amount of CO2 emissions generated by the thousands of fans getting to a given show is 38 times larger than that of the typical act — including artist and crew travel, hotel stays, and gear transportation. 

That makes sense: 80 percent of fans at the average show arrive in a personal vehicle, usually gasoline-powered. Yet the study also found that fans are hungry for greener ways to attend concerts — 33 percent would prefer to use public transit, but only 9 percent say they can and do.

Rock stars can’t make cities build more subways. But they can work with municipalities to run more routes on show nights, and keep trains and buses open later than usual. They can also team up with businesses like Rally and Uber that can offer deals on group shuttles. That’s something Raitt and her peers never had back in the day.

“I mean, what were you going to do, send postcards to people in the ’90s: ‘Let’s meet up at 8 o’clock and catch a ride to the show?’” said Raitt’s manager, Kane. “The development of technology has been able to allow fans to connect into a community, and artists to connect to their fans, in more real time.”

Music — and the special energy and sense of community that forms around a concert — has a unique power, whether that’s starting fashion trends or catalyzing social change. It shouldn’t be a stretch for acts to inspire fans to choose more sustainable options, especially if artists and venues do the work to make those options more accessible. 

At its best, live music can be a launching pad for all sorts of climate-friendly ideas — from the plant-based concessions championed by Eilish to the kinetic dance floors pushed by Coldplay — making them not only available, but desirable to the broader public.

In the meantime, back at Jones Beach, as Dave Matthews winds down his set, thousands of cars sit in the parking lot beyond the grandstand, dimly illuminated by a strawberry moon rising over the ocean. While many fans will be leaving with new reusable water bottles, they’ll still have to burn dinosaur bones to get home. But the singer offers a message of hope.

“The world is a little bit crazy at the moment,” Matthews tells the crowd. “We should take care of each other a little bit more.”

One Nalgene at a time.

Correction: This story originally misstated the partners involved in the RockNRefill program.

toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How musicians and concert venues are upping the tempo on climate action on Jul 25, 2025.

The massive budget bill that President Trump signed into law earlier this month took aim at a robust system of tax credits that have aided the explosion of U.S. wind and solar energy in recent years. While the move was primarily intended to help enable the law’s extension of tax breaks for high-earning Americans, some Republicans felt the law did not go far enough in discouraging the growth of wind and solar power. Those holdouts, however, voted for the bill after saying they’d received assurances from President Trump that he’d use his executive authority to further stymie the energy sources. 

“We believe we’re going to get 90-plus percent of all future projects terminated,” U.S. Representative Chip Roy of Texas told Politico after the bill passed. “And we talked to lawyers in the administration.”

Last week, Trump’s Department of the Interior announced what appeared to be a fulfillment of the president’s promise to his party’s right wing. The department’s new guidelines for wind and solar developers now require all federal approvals for clean energy projects to undergo “elevated review” by Interior Secretary Doug Bergum, who was appointed by President Trump in January.

The new guidelines include a granular outline of steps that will now require personal approval from Bergum’s office, rather than being delegated to department bureaucrats as had previously been customary. Experts who spoke to Grist say that this could create an unmanageable slowdown for developers and allow the administration to quietly kill wind and solar projects on public land. Some are even worried that the effect of the updated regulations will spill over into private projects, which sometimes have to consult with the Interior Department when their work bleeds into federal lands or a habitat for endangered species.

Since only 4 percent of existing renewable energy projects are on public land, clean industry insiders who have interpreted the new policy narrowly are not yet panicking. But those with a broader interpretation of the text — or those who suspect that the administration will take a broad interpretation — wonder if the new rules will amount to a de facto gag order on the industry. For now, only time will tell just how many of their fears come to pass.  

Much of the memo’s power to wreak havoc for renewables depends on how strictly it’s enforced. The Interior Department maintains a website called Information for Planning and Consultation, or IPaC, which developers often use to plan large-scale projects. You type in the name of a locale, draw a border around the general area of your proposed project, and IPaC will tell you what kind of federal permitting you might need to move forward. (For example, it would flag if there are any protected wetlands or endangered species that would be affected by your development.) As of last week, the website now displays a pop-up warning users that “solar and wind projects are currently not eligible to utilize the Information for Planning and Consultation website.” This kind of opacity could make it especially hard for developers to plan for an endless bureaucratic battle with Interior. 

“It’s one thing to take away our [tax] credits, but it’s another to basically just put impediments so projects can’t get built,” a source who works for a renewables developer told E&E News. (He was granted anonymity due to his ongoing professional engagement with the federal government.) “The level of review here is so ridiculous.”

Others say that, while the outlook for wind and solar has become much dimmer, the new Interior rules aren’t necessarily a kill shot. “I was personally very worried when I saw it come out,” said Jason Kaminsky, CEO of kWh Analytics, a solar risk management firm. “But after doing more reading, it does seem like it affects, hopefully, a minority of assets.” 

An internal report from the investment bank and research firm Roth Capital Partners, which was obtained by Grist, estimated that only 5 percent of projects on private land — specifically, those that require an easement or need to cross public land to connect a transmission line to the main electrical grid — would be affected by the new regulations. 

“If [projects are on] a private piece of land, that’s a totally different story that would not be impacted by this,” said Doug Vine, director of energy analysis at the nonprofit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “There’s plenty of projects that are going to go ahead.” 

Others warn that it will be hard to know anything for certain until the dust clears and the permitting process begins to play out. “Just how broad and wide-scoped the activities listed in the memo were, points towards an attempt to quash [private] projects, not just the ones on federal land,” said Dan O’Brien, a senior modeling analyst at the clean energy think tank Energy Innovations, noting that developers often end up consulting the Interior Department on issues like wildlife protection.

Regardless of the scope of the memo, any move with the potential to slow the deployment of renewables is almost certainly bad news for American energy, since most other sources of new electricity simply aren’t being built: 93 percent of new energy that came online in 2024 was renewable. But upon taking office, President Trump warned that the United States was reliant on a “precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply” and immediately set about revoking previously approved federal funding from green energy projects, trying to cancel offshore wind leases, and rescinding clean energy tax credits that had been expanded by his predecessor. How this will lead the nation toward the current administration’s promise of “energy dominance” is unclear. 

“You don’t have enough [electricity] supply to meet new demand,” said O’Brien. “Instead of new capacity coming online — cheap renewables — you have existing gas plants running longer, and so gas demand goes up and prices go up, both for power plants and for household consumers. … All signs point toward this being a bad, bad scenario.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Will new Interior Department rules shackle wind and solar? Insiders are divided. on Jul 25, 2025.

GAIA Africa Hosts Media Briefing to Mobilise African Journalists in Support of an Ambitious Global Plastics Treaty

GAIA Africa hosted an online media briefing for African journalists ahead of the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) on the Global Plastics Treaty. Held on July 24, the session emphasised the critical role of journalists in amplifying the key priorities of African civil society, urging governments to adopt an ambitious position against plastic pollution, and unpacking the treaty’s regional implications.

Africa has played a leading role in the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, beginning with the adoption of AMCEN Decision 19/2—a landmark mandate by African ministers that firmly established the continent’s priorities. This decision solidified the African Group of Negotiators’ (AGN) common position, committing the region to advocate for a legally binding global treaty that addresses plastic pollution across its entire lifecycle—from production to disposal—while safeguarding human health and the environment.

Since then, Africa has consistently demonstrated unity, leadership, and moral authority on the international stage, gaining global recognition and respect. As the negotiations advance, this momentum must not waver. Leaders must now carry this spirit forward into INC-5.2 with renewed determination, upholding their commitments and acting with the courage, integrity, and ambition this moment demands.

Merrisa Naidoo, GAIA Africa’s Plastics Program Manager and a leading coordinator of the region’s engagement in the Global Plastics Treaty process since INC-1, delivered a timely briefing on the treaty’s progress and the continent’s priorities ahead of INC-5.2 this August. She underscored that while the science is clear and global support for a bold, binding treaty to end plastic pollution is stronger than ever, the process is being held back by a lack of good faith and political will. “Now, more than ever, we need courageous leadership,” Naidoo stressed. “We have the evidence. We have the momentum. What we’re missing is the commitment to act.”

Civil society members from across Africa, who actively advocate for a strong Global Plastics Treaty, shared their expectations ahead of the upcoming negotiations. Drawing on diverse backgrounds and lived experiences, these speakers highlighted critical issues, including the elimination of toxic chemicals in plastics, the establishment of a robust and equitable financial mechanism, and, most urgently, the need to reduce plastic production at the source. Their powerful interventions represented voices from South Africa, Ethiopia, Ghana, Egypt, Nigeria, and Kenya, demonstrating a united continental call for an ambitious treaty that puts people and the planet before profit. When it comes to the African people, unity can be seen from south to north, from east to west.

Eskedar Awgichew of EcoJustice Ethiopia shared his perspective, stating, “in my country, Ethiopia, we are witnessing a growing surge in petrochemical infrastructure linked to plastic production. Yet local communities face a serious gap in environmental oversight and public health protection. This is where harm begins, and where justice must be rooted”. 

Mohamed Kamal of the Greenish Foundation, Egypt, emphasised “we need African negotiators to connect with the pollution we face on the ground and recognise that waste management alone is not enough to solve the problem and we have to tackle it at the source, at production.”

Rico Euripidou of groundWork in South Africa stated, “there are an alarming 16000 chemicals found in plastics, and we need a Plastics Treaty that eliminates the most harmful toxic chemicals in plastics.”

This was further emphasised by Dorothy Otieno of CEJAD Kenya, citing that “research conducted in Africa has revealed the presence of toxic chemicals in children’s toys and the food chain.” She underscored that this treaty is fundamentally an African treaty, and as a net importer of plastics, the continent stands to benefit significantly from the elimination of toxic chemicals in plastics.

Nadine Wahab of Sustainable Network Egypt powerfully called out that we are at a stage of the negotiations where we must prioritise effective, inclusive, and transparent decision-making. “We need to restore trust in multilateralism. The INC must not fall into the traps we’ve seen in other environmental processes, particularly the climate negotiations, where procedural ambiguity and politicisation have hindered ambition.”  

“Many African countries are burdened by substantial debt, and there is an urgent need for the Plastics Treaty to establish a dedicated Multilateral Fund (MLF) to support effective implementation across the continent,” said Jacob Johnson Attakpah from GAYO Ghana. 

Finally, Sarah Onuoha of SRADeV Nigeria highlighted the critical importance of the human rights impacts that plastic pollution has, stating that, “We must recognise that plastic pollution directly impacts livelihoods. In the Nigerian context, journalists have a key role to play in advocating for environmental justice and promoting solutions that alleviate poverty while supporting national development efforts.”

With INC-5.2 on the horizon, speakers urged the Global South to stand united and approach the negotiations with determination and urgency. The road ahead may be challenging, but Africa’s message is resolute: we will not back down, nor will we settle for anything less than a treaty that delivers real solutions to end plastic pollution.

ENDS

Press contact:

Carissa Marnce, GAIA Africa Communications:  carissa@no-burn.org | +27 76 934 6156

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

The post [Media Release] African CSOs Unite to Share Global South Priorities Ahead of INC-5.2 first appeared on GAIA.

As Canada works to protect its economic future, diversify trade and stand strong against rising U.S. protectionism, it’s disappointing to see the federal government considering walking back national electric vehicle sales targets — a policy clearly...

The apocalypse will be televised Channel Comment brendan 25th July 2025 Teaser Media

As the federal government escalates its assault on unhoused communities, President Trump issues an inhumane executive order pressuring local governments to forcibly remove people experiencing homelessness from the streets. This order doesn’t offer care–it criminalizes survival.

We unequivocally reject this cruel approach and affirm that housing justice and climate justice are inseparable.

Housing insecurity exacerbates the harms of the climate crisis. Low-income communities–especially Indigenous, Black, Latinx, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, and poor white neighborhoods—are hit first and worst by climate impacts and frequently face housing instability, displacement, and unsafe living conditions. The reality is that housing is a frontline defense against climate chaos, and secure, healthy homes are essential for building community resilience.

Rather than investing in permanent, supportive housing and robust public health solutions, this executive order aims to remove people from public view through coercion and criminalization. That will do nothing to address the housing insecurity crisis that nearly 40 million people in the U.S. face–many of whom are rent- or mortgage-burdened, living paycheck to paycheck, or enduring unsafe housing riddled with mold, lead, and decay.

Meanwhile, land speculation, gentrification, and extractive development continue to displace communities across the country, especially on Indigenous lands and in climate-vulnerable areas. Housing must not be commodified–it is a human right. Everyone deserves a safe, affordable, climate-resilient place to call home.

We call on local and federal leaders to reject these dehumanizing tactics and instead embrace real, just, and long-term solutions—from rent stabilization and housing retrofits to climate-resilient infrastructure and land-back policies.

Artwork by Nina Yagual, a NYC born, Florida raised, self taught artist. With ancestral roots spreading deep across native lands. I’m heavily influenced by children because of their proximity to nature- both are playful, innocent and unapologetically honest. The poster is part of the Regenerative Economy Poster Portfolio.

The post Housing Justice Is Climate Justice: Trump’s Executive Order Criminalizes the Unhoused and Ignores the Root Causes appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.