News Feeds

New study: Neonic pesticides found in semen and urine, linked to lower sperm concentration Anthony Lacey November 4, 2026

• A study of 179 men at a fertility clinic tested urine and semen for neonicotinoids, or neonics, and linked higher neonic exposure in semen to lower sperm concentration.
• Eleven neonics or their breakdown products were found in more than 75% of urine samples, and four were found in more than 75% of semen samples.
• A proposed settlement would give the Environmental Protection Agency until April 30, 2027, to decide on revoking legal limits for residues of five neonics on food.

Neonicotinoid insecticides, notorious for their role in the collapse of bee populations, are turning up in human semen and may be linked to lower sperm count, a new peer-reviewed study finds.

Researchers found these pesticides, also known as neonics, and their breakdown products – the compounds the chemicals become in the body – in nearly every study participant. 

In urine, 11 neonics or their breakdown products were found in more than 75% of samples, and acetamiprid, one of the most widely used neonics, was found in every one. In semen, four were found in more than 75% of samples, and one, a breakdown product of the neonic dinotefuran, was detected in more than 99%. 

It’s just one study of 179 men in China, and the findings are preliminary. The men were partners in couples seeking fertility treatment and they provided samples once. A stronger study would include a comparison group from the general population. But the finding of an association between neonic exposure and semen quality adds to a growing set of studies showing wide human exposure to neonics. 

Beyond this study, concerns have also emerged about how that exposure may harm human reproduction and development.

Delay on deciding neonics petition

The prevalence of neonics in humans, combined with the building case for potential health concerns linked to exposure, comes as the Environmental Protection Agency may face a legal deadline for deciding whether to keep allowing five neonics’ residue on food.

In August 2026, the EPA agreed to a proposed settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council that would set a binding April 30, 2027, deadline to respond to the group’s neonics petition. 

That petition asked the agency to revoke tolerances – the maximum allowable amount of a pesticide on food – for five neonics: acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. 

The study’s findings point to issues the NRDC flagged in its petition: The EPA ignored evidence that harm may occur at low exposure levels, the compounds neonics become can be more toxic than the original chemicals, and people are exposed to several neonics at once.

What did the new study find?

Published in the journal Frontiers in Endocrinology in September 2026, the study was led by researchers at a Chinese fertility clinic and a medical university.

The authors collected urine from 179 men and semen from 173, with 146 men providing both. After testing for 18 neonics and their breakdown products, the researchers detected at least one neonic in almost every sample, though how often each compound turned up varied by neonic and sample type.

Some compounds were found at higher levels in semen than in urine. And levels in urine were a poor predictor of levels in semen, suggesting urine tests alone may miss what’s in semen.

Most previous pesticide exposure studies rely on testing urine. The study’s authors suggest semen may be “a potentially informative matrix for reproductive risk assessment” – meaning it could give a clearer picture of how neonic exposure affects reproductive health.

Two breakdown products in semen were linked to lower sperm concentration, a key measure of sperm quality and male fertility. Looking at the combined effect of all the neonics in semen, higher overall exposure was also associated with lower sperm concentration but not to lower total sperm count, movement or shape. 

Why are neonics a concern?

Some human health studies suggest exposure to neonics may harm children and the developing fetus. Biomonitoring studies show that exposure is widespread in children and pregnant people around the world. 

In federal biomonitoring from 2015-2016, a neonic breakdown product was detected in the urine of half of kids ages 3 to 5, and their diet may be a primary route of exposure. 

The EPA continues to allow the use of these insecticides. But some states are taking action to limit their use, in an effort to protect pollinators. 

California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation moved to limit outdoor uses of imidacloprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran and thiamethoxam on most food and feed crops that are attractive to bees and other pollinators. Several other states, including Maine and New Jersey, regulate the use of neonics. 

But the U.S. has lagged far behind these states in taking action on neonics, even though bee colony collapse has caused severe economic losses for American beekeepers. 

It has also harmed others who rely on bees and other pollinators. For instance, they’re essential for U.S. farmers who grow squash, melon, cantaloupe, apples, almonds and many other crops that need pollination to bear fruit. 

Other studies show the extensive use of neonics may not be necessary. 

Research published in the journal PNAS in 2021 found that on farms growing corn and watermelon together, integrated pest management – treatment of crops only when pests reach damaging levels – cut insecticide use by 95% while maintaining corn yields and increasing watermelon yields.

EWG and more than 120,000 of our supporters have written to the EPA urging it to ban all unnecessary uses of neonic insecticides in the U.S. 

How can I reduce my exposure to neonics?

Because neonics are absorbed into plants, washing produce can’t get rid of their residue on produce entirely. But EWG still recommends washing your produce to potentially reduce the amount of pesticide residue on it.

Other steps you can take to reduce your exposure to these chemicals:

• Check EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. The guide identifies the Dirty Dozen™ list of non-organic fruit and vegetables with the most pesticide residues. Neonics can be found on some U.S. produce, including blackberries. 
• Choose organic when you can, especially for the produce on the Dirty Dozen. Synthetic neonics aren’t permitted in organic farming. 
• Keep eating fruits and vegetables. The health benefits of a diet rich in produce outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. If organic isn’t available or affordable, non-organic produce is still far better than none. 
• Skip neonics at home. Many lawn, garden and pet flea products contain imidacloprid and other neonics. Check labels before you buy, and skip products with neonics. 

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Pesticides Authors Anthony Lacey November 5, 2026

Nana Antwi-Boasiako Amoah is chair of the African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change. Charles Wanguhu is director of the Enzi Ijayo Africa Initiative and Africa Futures Policy Hub.

A COP held in Africa does not automatically deliver for Africa. That matters now, with COP31 in Antalya ahead and COP32 in Addis Ababa on the horizon. What counts is not where the world gathers, or what it pledges, but whether climate finance reaches African countries on terms they can use.

Without real progress on finance and implementation at Antalya, an African-hosted COP will simply inherit the same unmet promises.

Africa accounts for about 4% of global emissions, yet carries a wildly disproportionate share of the cost, losing an estimated 2%-5% of GDP each year to climate extremes, money pulled from classrooms and clinics into disaster response.

The finance meant to help it adapt arrives in a trickle. Developing countries will need an estimated $305 billion a year for adaptation alone by 2035, according to the latest UN Adaptation Gap Report. In 2024, international public adaptation finance stood at $28 billion-$32 billion, just a $1 billion increase over the previous year. That gap is the difference between plans on paper and protection on the ground.

Predictable, grant-based funding

The problem is not only how much, but on what terms. Too much arrives as loans rather than grants, deepening a debt burden that already crowds out spending on essentials in health, education and multipliers of development like affordable and accessible energy. The cost of capital has become the real tax on African ambition. A fairer financial system is not charity. It is the precondition for delivery.

• Oct 28, 2026 News Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash Read more
• Oct 28, 2026 Sponsored Why COP31 needs to start talking about just transition finance Funding that helps workers and communities navigate the clean energy switch remains overlooked, splintered and poorly tracked – a blindspot that could undermine climate goals Read more
• Oct 21, 2026 Investigations Turkish giant sponsoring COP31 cut climate goals then cashed in on oil boom COP31 sponsors should be screened for “climate integrity”. Yet Koç Holding has become a top partner while its oil refiner runs flat out and its climate targets slip Read more

So, Africa comes to Antalya with a collective strong proposition. This is no longer a slogan: across the continent, states are building shared positions and common pavilions, learning to bargain as a bloc. We will press for finance that is predictable and grant-based, and for adaptation finance to be at least tripled, to around $120 billion a year by 2035. Even that would fall short of what the continent actually needs.

The goal this forms part of, which was agreed at the Baku COP – $300 billion a year – is a floor, not a ceiling; the real benchmark is the $1.3 trillion from all sources sketched out in the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap. And we will ask for direct access, so resources reach the institutions and communities that must use them, and for mechanisms that track whether commitments are met.

Powering green industrialisation

Finance is not an end in itself. Pledges become results when finance builds economies, creates jobs and strengthens productive capacity – the grids, the processing and the skills that let African economies add value to what they produce rather than exporting it raw.

Here we should be honest with ourselves. Value addition is an energy story before it is a minerals story. There is little point in curbing raw exports if there is no reliable power to run the smelter. Credibility means pairing the call to process at home with a plan to power it.

Other enablers of a just transition become crucial. Trade, for instance, can be an enabler of a low-carbon transition by facilitating the exchange of low-carbon goods. However, it has increasingly become a hindrance, particularly for African countries.

• Oct 28, 2026 News Tensions set to flare over trade at COP31 as China makes it a priority After difficult talks in Belém last year, trade is likely to remain a sticking point at COP31 despite Brazil’s efforts to contain the issue to a series of dialogues Read more
• Oct 26, 2026 Energy African governments strengthen waste rules as solar and battery use surges With solar panels, batteries and inverters spreading, officials want to bolster weak recycling systems to protect the environment and reuse key materials Read more

The use of unilateral trade measures has disproportionate impacts on market access and industrial capabilities, consigning African countries to the export of raw materials. The poor sequencing of these measures and lack of flexibilities, exemptions and targeted support are likely to cause harm.

At COP31, we will push for an agenda item on trade to create a specific space as an enabler of systematic discussion on the impact of trade‑related climate measures.

Communities at the table

This is where the design of co-operation matters as much as its scale. The proposed Just Transition Mechanism should be country-led and grant-based, so it adds capacity rather than debt. It should fund the things that make diversification real – reliable power (smarter grids and delivery networks), local processing, and the skills to run them – and it should put workers and affected communities at the table, not merely in the communiqué. Get that design right, and diversification builds new industries and jobs rather than leaving communities behind.

Antalya opens into a vacuum in global climate leadership. Africa can help fill it, not with grievance but with a credible voice on delivery and finance. An implementation COP must be judged by implementation.

The question is plain. Does the finance follow the ambition, and does it reach the economies and the people who need it? Africa will be watching the answer.

The post COP31 must deliver finance for Africa or there will be no implementation appeared first on Climate Home News.

Print article Share Article Contents Expand menu

• What is a deforestation ‘roadmap’?
• What does the roadmap say about reducing deforestation?
• Why did some countries not sign onto the roadmap at COP30?
• What are the barriers to implementing a deforestation roadmap? 

On 3 November, the Brazilian presidency of the COP30 climate talks released its long-awaited “roadmap” on ending deforestation. 

Ahead of the Belém summit, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made a call for a “roadmap” to halt and reverse deforestation.

Although this voluntary roadmap was outside the COP’s official agenda, it snowballed into a rallying point at the “Amazon” COP.

Some 93 countries called for a reference to a new roadmap for ending deforestation to be part of COP30’s formal negotiated outcome.

However, at the end of the summit, the COP30 presidency announced that there was not the consensus needed for the deforestation roadmap to be part of the final text – but that Brazil would work to create a voluntary roadmap outside of the UN climate process.

This call was answered by 18 countries and four negotiating blocs that offered their inputs on the roadmap, along with scores of NGOs, research centres and other groups.

Now that the roadmap has been published, Carbon Brief explains where it came from, what it entails, why some did not sign on – and what’s next.

What is a deforestation ‘roadmap’?

The “deforestation roadmap” was one of the signature announcements of the Brazilian presidency of the COP30 climate summit in Belém – albeit one that fell outside the official, negotiated outcomes.

Brazilian president Lula first proposed the deforestation and forest degradation roadmap, alongside one on the fossil fuel transition, at the leaders’ summit in Belém a few days before COP30 began.

By the end of COP30, nearly 100 countries had expressed their support for such a roadmap. This includes the EU, with its 27 member states, as well as the 56-member Coalition for Rainforest Nations. 

Map of countries that supported the call for a deforestation roadmap by the end of COP30. Source: Carbon Brief

However, this was still short of the 196 parties needed for consensus at a COP, meaning that, ultimately, the roadmap was not a formal outcome. 

Instead, COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago announced during the closing plenary session that the presidency would work towards creating both deforestation and fossil-fuel phaseout roadmaps outside of the COP process. 

The deforestation roadmap is the latest in a series of international pledges to put an end to forest loss.

In 2014, 39 countries pledged to end natural forest loss by 2030 at UN Climate Week, as part of the New York Declaration on Forests.

Seven years later, at COP26, more than 140 countries signed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. The declaration stated that countries “commit to working collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030” – although conflict subsequently arose over what, exactly, countries had agreed to.

The objective of halting and reversing deforestation by 2030 was ultimately agreed in a negotiated text for the first time two years later, at COP28 in Dubai, where it was part of the global stocktake. 

Paragraph 33 of the first global stocktake, which references halting deforestation by 2030. Source: UNFCCC

Unlike these previous pledges, the roadmap does not make any new commitments. It also does not “seek to reopen agreed decisions”. 

Instead, the roadmap’s stated objective is to “translate forest-related outcomes into coordinated, country-led action while respecting different national circumstances, priorities and implementation challenges”.

Following the conclusion of COP30, the presidency – along with the Climate Policy Initiative thinktank – began soliciting inputs from countries, civil society organisations, Indigenous peoples, academic researchers, the private sector and other groups. 

(The Climate Policy Initiative was chosen to serve as the secretariat and technical partner to the roadmap process.)

The secretariat notes that it received more than 200 contributions following this invitation.  However, just 18 of these came from countries, and four from blocs – the EU, the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) blocs – themselves.

What does the roadmap say about reducing deforestation?

The roadmap was released less than a week before the COP31 climate summit is due to begin, at an event hosted by the UN Development Programme in Brasilia.

During the launch event, Do Lago highlighted recent figures showing that Brazil’s deforestation rate had fallen to its lowest level on record – dropping by more than 70% since 2022. 

“Even the optimists wouldn’t believe that we were able to decrease deforestation” by as much as the country has managed in recent years, he said.

Corrêa Do Lago said that he hoped the roadmap would be a “living document” and that it could provide countries with a “practical pathway for climate action”.

The roadmap divides forest action into three complementary parts: national action, international action and financial mechanisms. 

For each of the three, the document highlights current actions or instruments and the enabling conditions required to promote action. Then, it offers “COP30 presidency proposals on the way forward” on each pillar.

Under “national efforts”, the roadmap addresses the challenge of halting and reversing deforestation across five “forest dimensions”:

• Maintaining existing forests.
• Using forests sustainably while generating value for communities.
• Combatting forest degradation. 
• Combatting deforestation.
• Restoration, reforestation and afforestation.

The roadmap identifies 18 policies or “implementation approaches” that countries can use to address forest loss and degradation, although it notes that the list is not intended to serve as an “exhaustive or prescriptive classification”. 

This includes a wide range of approaches, including establishing or maintaining protected areas, recognising the territorial rights of Indigenous peoples, managing the spread of pests and plant diseases and restricting permits for activities associated with forest conversion.

Forests in the Siang valley in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Credit: Cyrille REDOR / Alamy Stock Photo

For each of these policies, the roadmap explains the approach and gives an overview of the evidence of its effectiveness. It also gives examples of how countries are implementing that policy.

Then, the roadmap discusses the enabling conditions that need to be ensured for action to occur at the national level, such as supporting land governance and promoting environmental education.

Finally, for national action, the roadmap proposes a five-step process for countries to follow. It provides “guiding questions” that countries may consider in their work to support each step. 

On “international architecture for forest action”, the roadmap discusses how various international environmental and human-rights instruments address the problem of deforestation in different ways. It says:

“Climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, Indigenous peoples and local communities’ rights, ecosystem conservation and species protection are addressed through distinct international regimes, but their objectives and implementation intersect in important ways in relation to forests.”

The roadmap highlights some of the global forest-monitoring initiatives that can support national efforts, while noting that countries’ capacity for accessing and using such information “remains uneven”. It calls for improving technical cooperation between countries and increasing capacity-building. 

Finally, the roadmap discusses two cross-border issues: crime and trade. On the latter, it notes that trade measures that reward compliance are generally more effective than those that impose “additional economic and administrative burdens on exporters”.

Membership

Support award-winning climate journalism Join CB+

The roadmap’s final proposals for international action include strengthening national capacity for investigating environmental crime and prioritising trade policies that reward sustainable, deforestation-free production.

The roadmap notes that countries need an estimated $300bn per year by 2030 to halt and reverse deforestation, yet current finance reaches less than one-third of that figure. 

Of this, nearly 90% comes from domestic public finance, as forest countries already dedicate “substantial effort” to protecting their domestic policies and budgets, the roadmap notes. 

The roadmap offers 10 proposals for action on forest finance, including aligning domestic finance flows to support forest action, enacting effective benefits-sharing measures and strengthening the position of forests in carbon markets.

It concludes with an appeal to countries to “keep the collective dialogue going” through the conclusion of the second global stocktake in 2028.

In a statement, Kelly Stone, coordinator of the civil society network Climate Land Ambition and Rights Alliance, said: 

“The forest commitments in the first global stocktake and this roadmap process are important steps, but these commitments need to translate into actual urgent action on the ground.

“This roadmap needs to be taken forward in a process where countries are working together for rapid, ambitious action on the ground to address deforestation and degradation and protect food security. We cannot afford to wait.”

Why did some countries not sign onto the roadmap at COP30?

In Belém, discussions around the deforestation roadmap were highly charged and several countries did not sign on.

Historically, India has opposed and raised concerns about top-down commitments around mitigation and land-use change. For example, the country did not sign the original Glasgow pledge on forests and land-use at COP26, objecting to “trade” being linked to forests and climate action. 

In Belém, India – as part of the Like Minded Developing Countries bloc – objected to the inclusion of voluntary roadmaps outside of the COP agenda in the formal COP30 outcome. 

However, in an interview after the talks concluded, the country’s minister for environment, forests and climate, Bhupender Yadav, told the Times of India that India “welcomes” the forest roadmap. He added that it additionally “endorses” Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility fund. 

Russia was an early objector to the deforestation roadmap, laying out its position as early as April last year. While the country reiterated its commitment to the Glasgow forest declaration and the first global stocktake, it “does not support the development of a universal roadmap”, arguing that:

“…such initiatives are not mandated under the agreed international climate architecture and go beyond adopted decisions under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.”

A satellite image of a large wildfire burning in northern Russia’s Yakutia region in 2024. Credit: NASA Earth Observatory

Russia hosts the world’s largest boreal forests, which are seeing more intense wildfires. In its submission on the deforestation roadmap, Russia “underscored” that there is no “universally agreed, legally binding definition” of forest degradation, although it adds subsequently that wildfires are a “key driver” of degradation. 

Like India, it also opposed the roadmap on trade grounds. 

Other countries were wary of signing on to new non-negotiated mitigation commitments outside of the official COP agenda, at the expense of other agenda items, such as adaptation finance.

At the recently concluded Yerevan COP17 nature talks, the deforestation roadmap’s coordinator Marco Túlio Scarpelli Cabral told Carbon Brief it does not make sense to talk about more countries signing up to the non-negotiated roadmap, when countries have agreed by consensus to tackle deforestation within the global stocktake and biodiversity COPs. He added: 

“All countries have already taken this [deforestation] commitment, both in the Kunming-Montreal [Global Biodiversity Framework] with some converging targets, but also in the global stocktake…

“We have all accepted [it]. So we don’t need any country to subscribe to the roadmap.”

The first global stocktake was undertaken at COP28 in Dubai. As mentioned above, within the mitigation section of this document – which was adopted by consensus – the importance of “halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation” is emphasised.

The newly published roadmap therefore is not designed to convince countries to agree to tackle deforestation; instead it seeks to build on this assumed consensus by drawing on previous agreements such as the global stocktake. 

Speaking at a press conference attended by Carbon Brief on 3 November, COP30 president Corrêa do Lago said they took into account the agreement in Dubai and then began looking for “instruments and ways to go ahead and take next steps”. She added: 

“The climate change agenda is advancing faster than the negotiations [themselves], so we restructured the agenda.” 

What are the barriers to implementing a deforestation roadmap? 

In February 2026, the Brazilian COP presidency asked countries to describe specific barriers to implementing a forest roadmap and the tangible support they need.

From political strife to wildfires and reliance on firewood during an energy crisis, countries listed a number of overlapping challenges to halting and reversing deforestation in their submissions. 

Gold mining in Guyana. Credit: Nature Picture Library / Alamy Stock Photo

For example, Guyana and Suriname have both highlighted that keeping existing “forests intact” is undervalued compared to “pressures from extractive industries”, such as mining or agriculture. 

Meanwhile, the EU, Switzerland and Mexico point to the role of agricultural expansion in the loss of forest and pasture land. Norway and Mexico highlighted illegal loggers offering higher rewards than conservation. 

Both Canada and Russia pointed to an “inconsistent definition” of forest degradation.

Biodiverse countries with significant forest cover, such as Suriname and Azerbaijan, meanwhile called for more “predictable” and “affordable” access to climate finance to keep forests standing.  

The Coalition of Rainforest Nations called for “a clear financial assessment of the total funding required to halt forest loss” in its submission. 

However, many donor countries emphasised domestic, private and innovative finance in their solutions. The UK, for instance, called for more “blended finance to de-risk private investment at scale” for forest conservation and high-integrity carbon markets.

While Norway spoke of the need to “repurpos[e]” harmful subsidies, Australia highlighted the role of its controversial biodiversity credit and nature markets in “restor[ing] and protect[ing] land and biodiversity and reduc[ing] emissions at the same time”. 

Monitoring deforestation and restoration progress was another common challenge across countries. AOSIS, Armenia and Azerbaijan all raised this challenge and called for technical support for monitoring forest restoration, including satellite monitoring.

At the same time, Canada, Indonesia, Russia, Azerbaijan and Australia all cited the increasing risk of intensifying wildfires as threats to forests, with countries calling for early detection systems and support for monitoring fires in remote areas. 

AOSIS called for coastal mangroves and inland terrestrial forests to be included in the definition of forests, adding that climate-driven impacts are already degrading mangrove forests. 

Dead zone in mangrove forests destroyed by Hurricane Irma. Credit: Francisco Blanco / Alamy Stock Photo

Many barriers are deeply specific to the geographical and socioeconomic contexts of individual countries. Small island states such as Mauritius, for instance, point to pressures arising from a “limited availability” of land. Sudan, meanwhile, draws attention to 70% of its population relying on firewood as an energy source amid conflict. 

Interactive: Tracking negotiating texts at the COP31 climate summit 05.11.2026 COP31 Antalya Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit 02.11.2026 COP31 Antalya Experts: What China wants from the COP31 climate talks 29.10.2026 China policy Interview: COP31 president says electrification is ‘surest way to protect citizens’ 10.07.2026 COP31 Antalya

The post Q&A: What is the Brazil-led ‘deforestation roadmap’? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Print article Share Article Contents Expand menu

• Why has Brazil produced a fossil-fuel ‘roadmap’?
• What does the fossil-fuel roadmap say?
• How will the fossil-fuel roadmap be discussed at COP31?

Transitioning away from fossil fuels is “urgent, inevitable and, yet, possible”, according to a first-of-its-kind global “roadmap” produced by Brazil.

The host of last year’s climate summit, COP30, has set out a voluntary plan for how countries can move away from coal, oil and gas.

The roadmap says there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to transitioning away from fossil fuels and asks countries to “diagnose” their own “readiness” to start the process.

After mapping out their specific circumstances, countries should then pursue “tailored levers” to take action, according to the roadmap.

These efforts should culminate by 2033, it says – 10 years on from when the COP28 climate summit in Dubai called on all countries to contribute to a global transition away from fossil fuels.

Below, Carbon Brief examines what the roadmap says and how it could influence debates about fossil fuels at the upcoming COP31 climate summit, which begins next week in Turkey.

• Why has Brazil produced a fossil-fuel ‘roadmap’?
• What does the fossil-fuel roadmap say?
• How will the fossil-fuel roadmap be discussed at COP31?

Why has Brazil produced a fossil-fuel ‘roadmap’?

Calls for a global “roadmap” away from fossil fuels dominated debates at COP30, which was held in the Amazonian city of Belém.

A group of 85 countries called for a reference to a new roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels to be part of COP30’s formal negotiated outcome.

This call came the first “global stocktake” of action towards the world’s climate goals at COP28 in 2023 called on all countries to contribute to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

However, another group of countries opposed such an inclusion.

It was claimed that this group included 84 countries. However, Carbon Brief’s analysis of the “informal list” revealed inconsistencies and errors, meaning the total number of countries opposing the roadmap was likely smaller.

After two weeks of fierce debate, Brazil announced that the fossil-fuel roadmap would not be part of COP30’s negotiated outcome – but that the presidency would work to create a roadmap outside of the UN climate process.

This roadmap is voluntary and countries are not obligated to respond to its findings.

Membership

Support award-winning climate journalism Join CB+

At COP30, the presidency also announced that the roadmap would be informed by a first-of-its-kind conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels taking place in Santa Marta, Colombia. 

These talks, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands in April, saw ministers and climate envoys take part in informal discussions about the barriers they face in transitioning away from fossil fuels. (See Carbon Brief’s full coverage of the talks.)

As well as the fossil-fuel roadmap, Brazil has also produced a new roadmap for ending deforestation. (See Carbon Brief’s in-depth breakdown of the deforestation roadmap).

What does the fossil-fuel roadmap say?

The roadmap acknowledges that, after decades of delayed action on fossil fuels, the world is no longer able to meet its ambition to limit global warming to 1.5C without first “overshooting” the target.

It also notes that the global transition to clean energy is already underway – and that the policies needed for transitioning away from fossil fuels already exist and are readily deployable.

It continues, however, by saying that transitioning away from fossil fuels is “as much a development question as a climate one, especially for emerging markets and developing economies”.

In this context, it sets out plans for what it calls a “Belém readiness index”. This is a “voluntary self-assessment tool” that countries can use to calculate their dependency on fossil fuels and their capacity for transitioning away.

At a press briefing announcing the roadmaps, COP30 CEO Ana Toni described this as the “diagnosis” stage of the roadmap, “instead of imagining there is a one-size-fits-all answer”.

#gform_wrapper_7[data-form-index="0"].gform-theme,[data-parent-form="7_0"]{--gf-color-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-secondary: #fff;--gf-color-secondary-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-secondary-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-secondary-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-secondary-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-secondary-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-color-in-ctrl: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-radius: 3px;--gf-font-size-secondary: 14px;--gf-font-size-tertiary: 13px;--gf-icon-ctrl-number: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='8' height='14' viewBox='0 0 8 14' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M4 0C4.26522 5.96046e-08 4.51957 0.105357 4.70711 0.292893L7.70711 3.29289C8.09763 3.68342 8.09763 4.31658 7.70711 4.70711C7.31658 5.09763 6.68342 5.09763 6.29289 4.70711L4 2.41421L1.70711 4.70711C1.31658 5.09763 0.683417 5.09763 0.292893 4.70711C-0.0976311 4.31658 -0.097631 3.68342 0.292893 3.29289L3.29289 0.292893C3.48043 0.105357 3.73478 0 4 0ZM0.292893 9.29289C0.683417 8.90237 1.31658 8.90237 1.70711 9.29289L4 11.5858L6.29289 9.29289C6.68342 8.90237 7.31658 8.90237 7.70711 9.29289C8.09763 9.68342 8.09763 10.3166 7.70711 10.7071L4.70711 13.7071C4.31658 14.0976 3.68342 14.0976 3.29289 13.7071L0.292893 10.7071C-0.0976311 10.3166 -0.0976311 9.68342 0.292893 9.29289Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-select: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='10' height='6' viewBox='0 0 10 6' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M0.292893 0.292893C0.683417 -0.097631 1.31658 -0.097631 1.70711 0.292893L5 3.58579L8.29289 0.292893C8.68342 -0.0976311 9.31658 -0.0976311 9.70711 0.292893C10.0976 0.683417 10.0976 1.31658 9.70711 1.70711L5.70711 5.70711C5.31658 6.09763 4.68342 6.09763 4.29289 5.70711L0.292893 1.70711C-0.0976311 1.31658 -0.0976311 0.683418 0.292893 0.292893Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-search: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='640' height='640' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='M256 128c-70.692 0-128 57.308-128 128 0 70.691 57.308 128 128 128 70.691 0 128-57.309 128-128 0-70.692-57.309-128-128-128zM64 256c0-106.039 85.961-192 192-192s192 85.961 192 192c0 41.466-13.146 79.863-35.498 111.248l154.125 154.125c12.496 12.496 12.496 32.758 0 45.254s-32.758 12.496-45.254 0L367.248 412.502C335.862 434.854 297.467 448 256 448c-106.039 0-192-85.962-192-192z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-label-space-y-secondary: var(--gf-label-space-y-md-secondary);--gf-ctrl-border-color: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-size: var(--gf-ctrl-size-md);--gf-ctrl-label-color-primary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-label-color-secondary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-choice-size: var(--gf-ctrl-choice-size-md);--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-border-color-secondary: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-file-btn-bg-color-hover: #EBEBEB;--gf-field-img-choice-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-card-space: var(--gf-field-img-choice-card-space-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size-md);--gf-field-pg-steps-number-color: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.8);}

LinkedInThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Free weekly newsletter

.preheader p{ margin-top: 0; font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; font-weight: var(--type--3--font-weight--bold); color: var(--button--color); font-size: var(--button--font-size, inherit); } .newsletter-inline{ display: flex; border: solid 1px #333333; padding: 1em; background: #ffffff; } .inline-email{ display:inline-block; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0 !important; margin-bottom:0.5em; } #field_submit{ display:inline-block; margin-top:0 !important; } .gform_wrapper .gfield+.gfield{ margin-top:0 } Email gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 7, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery('#gform_ajax_frame_7').on('load',function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find('*').html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf('GF_AJAX_POSTBACK') >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_7');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_7').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_7').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_7').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_7').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gform_wrapper_7').offset().top - mt); }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_7').val();gformInitSpinner( 7, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [7, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_7'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery('#gform_wrapper_7').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gf_7').offset().top - mt);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [7]);window['gf_submitting_7'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_7').text());}else{jQuery('#gform_7').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_pre_post_render", [{ formId: "7", currentPage: "current_page", abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_wrapper_7" ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( "span" ); visibilitySpan.id = "gform_visibility_test_7"; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( "afterend", visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_visibility_test_7" ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 7, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === 'attributes' && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ 'style', 'class' ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );

After identifying their “readiness” for transition, countries will be sorted into four “archetypes”, says the roadmap, leading to the identification of specific policy “levers” for taking action.

The roadmap calls for action in three distinct “phases”.

The first phase should be from now until 2028, when the second global stocktake of progress towards the Paris Agreement is due to conclude at COP33.

In this phase, “efforts focus on institutions and long-term signals”, says the roadmap.

The second phase is from 2028-2030, when the next round of UN climate pledges, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), are due. 

This phase should focus on the “physical transformation of energy systems”, says the roadmap.

The final phase is 2031-2033 – 10 years after the call for all countries to help with “transitioning away from fossil fuels” in “this critical decade” at COP28.

This phase should focus on the scaling up of the transition, according to the roadmap.

All of these elements are summarised in the graphic below, which was presented to journalists and civil society during a press briefing. 

Credit: COP30 presidency

At the press briefing, Toni added that each stage of the roadmap was designed to be “extremely pragmatic and easy for countries to take a look at it”.

The approach has broadly been welcomed by civil society and experts. 

Dr Natalie Jones, a senior policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), tells Carbon Brief that the roadmap sends an “important political signal that the transition away from fossil fuels remains firmly on the international agenda”. She adds:

“It also gives governments practical guidance to plan that transition in ways that reflect their national circumstances, strengthen energy security and protect livelihoods.”

Avantika Goswami, a climate policy expert at the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, India, tells Carbon Brief that the roadmap is a “unique and consultative method of multilateralism”. She says:

“[The roadmap] is one that is put forth by a developing country, via a consultative process that invited submissions from all parties and civil society.

“The analytical framework proposed captures the complexity of the fossil-fuel transition. Countries must now use it to chart out pathways in line with their historical responsibility and current capacity.”

Ploy Achakulwisut, a former UN adviser on fossil fuels, wrote on LinkedIn that she was “deeply impressed” with Brazil’s approach, including its use of a “readiness index”. She added:

“[The index] provides a method for identifying countries that face similar transition conditions and for understanding how different exposure-capacity ‘archetypes’ can generate distinct implementation needs and opportunities.

“The latter can ‘support more targeted international cooperation’, helping the international community to align finance, technology, capacity-building, and technical assistance with country-specific needs and existing capabilities.”

How will the fossil-fuel roadmap be discussed at COP31?

Brazil’s fossil-fuel roadmap comes just a week before the next round of UN climate talks, COP31, kicks off in Antalya, Turkey.

COP31 co-presidents Turkey and Australia have set out a wide range of priorities for the summit, including a target to increase the share of global final energy consumption met by electricity from almost 24% in 2023 to 35% by 2035.

Speaking at the press briefing, COP30 president André Aranha Corrêa do Lago said that this electrification goal was “complementary” to the aims of the fossil-fuel roadmap.

Carbon Brief understands that some parties feel that Turkey and Australia’s focus on electrification over fossil fuels is an attempt to avoid a re-hashing of the lengthy debates at COP30.

Both Corrêa do Lago and Toni were reluctant to speculate on how the fossil-fuel roadmap might be taken up and discussed during COP31, with Toni telling journalists that they were “hoping for the best”.

When asked about how Brazil hoped the roadmap would be received by those that specifically opposed its inclusion at COP30, Corrêa do Lago declined to address other countries directly, but said:

“Let’s remind ourselves we already have a consensus [on transitioning away from fossil fuels, agreed at COP28] and we already have the instruments.”

Jones tells Carbon Brief that, following on from the roadmap, the “task now is to build on that signal with action”, adding:

“At COP31, more governments should announce national fossil-fuel transition roadmaps and explain how these will inform their national climate plans. The conference should also [formally] recognise the global roadmap and establish a route for its findings to inform the second global stocktake.

“For vulnerable countries dependent on fossil-fuel revenues, credible plans must be matched by international finance and support to diversify their economies and sustain public services. This roadmap can help turn a shared commitment into practical progress.”

Related Interactive: Tracking negotiating texts at the COP31 climate summit 05.11.2026 COP31 Antalya Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit 02.11.2026 COP31 Antalya Experts: What China wants from the COP31 climate talks 29.10.2026 China policy Interview: COP31 president says electrification is ‘surest way to protect citizens’ 10.07.2026 COP31 Antalya

The post Q&A: What is in the global ‘roadmap’ for transitioning away from fossil fuels? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Asamblea n.º 21 - 25 de noviembre de 2026 Fecha, hora y enlace a la reunión * Fecha: 25 de noviembre de 2026 * Hora: 1:00 p. m. GMT * Duración: 2 horas Orden del día * Introducción (10 minutos) * Entretejido (50 minutos) * Gobernanza (40 minutos)GTA

In Central Kenya, the Kandara Residents Association has sustained decades long struggle for land restitution with little success.

The post Kenya: Kandara Community fights for land restitution and an end to corporate impunity appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The re-election of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva brings a sigh of relief for Brazil’s democracy, forests, Indigenous peoples, and the millions of Brazilians who have struggled with hunger. Beyond Brazil, it also offers hope for people in countries where democracy is under threat. His victory offers an opportunity to build on major achievements in tackling hunger and deforestation, and promoting a more sustainable food system.

But despite defeating the far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, powerful agribusiness interests remain firmly entrenched in Brazil’s political institutions, wielding enormous influence over agricultural and environmental policies.

Since returning to office in 2023, Lula has, again, made ending hunger a national priority. In just two years, Brazil lifted over 40 million people out of moderate or severe food insecurity, and was officially removed from the U.N. Hunger Map in 2025.

This was achieved not through technological fixes or further industrializing food production, but through political choices: expanding cash transfers to vulnerable families, raising the minimum wage, investing in school meals, purchasing food from family farmers, and supporting agroecological production.

As president of Brazil’s National Food and Nutrition Security Council (Consea), I have seen how coordinated government action and civil society participation can transform people’s access to food. By putting family farmers, Indigenous and traditional communities, and those most affected by hunger at the center of policymaking, Brazil has demonstrated that tackling hunger, inequality, and climate change can go hand in hand.

Brazil has also made significant gains in protecting its forests, Indigenous territories, and biodiversity. Between 2025 and 2026, Amazon deforestation fell by 41.8 percent, reaching its lowest level since monitoring began in 1988. In the Cerrado, deforestation declined by 23.8 percent, while progress continued on demarcating Indigenous lands.

Brazil has also established national agroecology and organic production policies, supporting family farmers through financing, technical assistance, and targeted programs for women and young farmers.

Yet these gains remain vulnerable. Brazil’s environmental legislation has been progressively weakened since 2016, particularly under former President Jair Bolsonaro. Efforts to strengthen environmental protections have continued to face resistance in Congress under Lula, with lawmakers overturning presidential vetoes, relaxing environmental licensing requirements, and weakening the role of environmental oversight.

This political influence has deep historical roots in Brazil’s colonial economy, built on extractive industries, export commodities, concentrated land ownership, and enslaved labor. This gave rise to a powerful rural oligarchy with enormous influence over government decisions—a concentration of power that persists today.

Brazil’s Agricultural Parliamentary Front (FPA), or ruralist caucus, is one of the largest and most powerful cross-party groupings in Congress—following October’s elections, it will continue to count majorities in both houses. It is supported by the powerful Instituto Pensar Agro (IPA) think tank, which helps shape its political strategies. Officially, its stated priorities include modernizing agriculture and protecting rural producers—but in practice, its agenda has been associated with deregulating pesticides, expanding agricultural activities into Indigenous lands and traditional territories, and weakening environmental regulations.

Faced with this political reality, Lula has pursued a policy of accommodation with big agribusiness interests since his first presidency—and this is set to continue.

On the one hand, ministers of agriculture and livestock have consistently been figures drawn from the sector or aligned with its interests. On the other, his governments have supported a separate Ministry of Agrarian Development and Family Farming, advancing agroecology, rural development, agrarian reform, financing schemes, and support for women farmers.

But the two parallel ministries operate with vastly unequal resources. Public funding overwhelmingly favors agribusiness, which also benefits from tax breaks, export incentives, and debt forgiveness.

Despite government support, family farming and agroecology remain constrained by the economic and political dominance of export-oriented big agribusiness.

Lula’s re-election will not diminish Brazil’s powerful sugar, biofuel, soybean, and beef industries. Their political influence means government support is likely to continue. Though their future evolution will depend heavily on global markets, including China’s efforts to increase soybean self-sufficiency.

The threat of agricultural expansion remains significant—including in MATOPIBA, a major agricultural frontier spanning Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí, and Bahia, where expanding soybean and cattle production endangers ecosystems, Indigenous territories, and family farmers.

Brazil has shown that progress on hunger, inequality, and environmental protection is a matter of political choices. Lula’s re-election offers an opportunity to build on these achievements. But this will require challenging entrenched agribusiness power and investing more in family farming, agroecology, and access to nutritious food. Brazil’s greatest contribution to global food systems could be demonstrating that another model is not only possible but already delivering results.

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 Fernando Rebêlo, Wikimedia Commons

The post Op-Ed | Lula Won, But the Battle for Brazil’s Food System Continues appeared first on Food Tank.

RAFI is currently hiring a Farmer Services Coordinator to support the RAFI’s Farm Services team by playing a supporting role in various program activities.

The post Job Opening: Farmer Services Coordinator appeared first on RAFI.

At India’s ocean technology institute in Chennai, scientists have been developing a range of hi-tech mining equipment that can operate 5 or 6 kilometres underwater – from a remote-control submarine to a seabed soil tester and slurry pump. 

Their task: to ensure that India is ready if deep-sea mining takes off by building the technology and knowledge about how – and where – critical minerals can be extracted from the depths of the ocean, even as dozens of nations call for a moratorium on this activity.

After a series of successful deep-water equipment tests in recent years, government officials say big strides have been made. 

“(India) has made significant progress in building the scientific and technological foundations for deep-sea mining,” a spokesperson for the Ministry of Earth Sciences, which oversees the institute, told Climate Home News. 

Deep-sea ambitions

Highlighting the country’s ambitions, it signed a second contract last year with the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the UN body that regulates the deep ocean floor, to explore polymetallic sulphides, which contain minerals such as copper and zinc – key ingredients in clean energy technologies such as wind turbines and storage batteries. 

Besides the two polymetallic sulphide contracts, it holds an ISA exploration contract for polymetallic nodules in the Central Indian Ocean Basin. China and South Korea are the only other countries with three ISA exploration contracts directly under government control. 

Greenpeace activists hold a protest demanding an end to deep-sea mining, in Prague, Czech Republic, June 1, 2023. REUTERS/David W Cerny Greenpeace activists hold a protest demanding an end to deep-sea mining, in Prague, Czech Republic, June 1, 2023. REUTERS/David W Cerny

Yet deep-sea mining is controversial for its potential impacts on the ocean floor, a little-studied, undisturbed ecosystem that should be protected by a precautionary pause on the activity, marine scientists say. 

A coalition of 46 countries is pushing for a moratorium on deep-sea mining, until enough scientific evidence shows the ecosystem impacts can be reduced. 

Despite this push, ISA contract-holders are still racing to develop the technical capabilities to mine the ocean floor, betting that commercial-scale operations will eventually be permitted and prove economically viable. India, an emerging clean-tech powerhouse, does not want to fall behind competitors, government officials told Climate Home News. 

• Oct 6, 2026 News Race to host High Seas Treaty HQ heats up as Chile reaffirms bid Chile’s ocean protection record and concerns over a rival Chinese bid keep it in play, despite questions over the Kast government’s environmental policies Read more
• Aug 20, 2026 News As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31 Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans Read more
• Aug 4, 2026 News Governments weigh response to US going alone on deep-sea mining At annual talks in Kingston, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) launched legal processes to challenge a unilateral US push for deep-sea mining Read more

Since India obtained its first ISA exploration contract more than two decades ago, extensive survey work has been undertaken in the 75,000-square-km contract area in the Central Indian Ocean Basin, which is estimated to hold hundreds of millions of tonnes of polymetallic nodule resources, according to the Indian government. 

More recently, survey work has identified several potential locations in the polymetallic sulphide areas. 

The seabed survey work and the deep-sea mining tools being developed in Chennai put India among only a small group of countries to have made such progress. China is another leader in mapping the ocean floor for potential mineral resources that could one day be extracted.  

At a meeting in Jamaica in July, the ISA continued negotiations on rules for commercial deep-sea mining but failed to adopt the Mining Code. Delegates agreed that further work had to be carried out to resolve outstanding issues, with the ISA tasked with devising a roadmap towards hopeful adoption.

A view shows an active venting chimney at the Jan Mayen Vent Fields on the Arctic Mid-Oceanic Ridge and a lot of white microbial mats cover the chimney, at a depth of around 500 metres, in this undated handout picture. University of Bergen, Centre for Deep Sea Research/Handout via REUTERS A view shows an active venting chimney at the Jan Mayen Vent Fields on the Arctic Mid-Oceanic Ridge and a lot of white microbial mats cover the chimney, at a depth of around 500 metres, in this undated handout picture. University of Bergen, Centre for Deep Sea Research/Handout via REUTERS Technical and regulatory hurdles

Even if a regulatory framework is established, commercial development remains a distant prospect in the exploration contract areas awarded to India by the ISA, government officials and experts say. 

“There is still quite a distance to be covered to convert the resource to reserves,” the ministry spokesperson said. 

Pradeep Singh, an ocean governance expert at the Oceano Azul Foundation, a Portugal-based international nonprofit, described India’s deep-sea mining programme as being firmly in “an exploratory phase”. 

“There is still a lot more work left to be done in order to achieve sustained extraction technology, address operational hurdles (such as shipboard processing and trans-shipment), and develop onshore refining,” Singh told Climate Home News. 

“It would also appear, from publicly available information, that none of the programmes will be ready to move into the exploitation phase anytime soon,” Singh added. 

Deep-sea real estate

Instead, the government’s longer-term vision for India’s ISA contracts is centred on “a combination of mineral/resource security, indigenous technology development, scientific capability and eventual industrial readiness”, the ministry spokesperson said. 

London talks raise hopes for green shipping deal

But for as long as deep-sea mining remains commercially unviable, Singh said securing exploratory licences may be more about “real estate and as a projection of dominance”.  

“The competition at the moment – if any – is more about investing in deep-sea operational capabilities rather than mineral resource extraction itself (which is currently not competitive),” Singh said.

Threat to ocean biodiversity

In tandem with India’s deep-sea mineral survey work, years of research by government environmental scientist Dr. Rengaiyan Periasamy on Indian Ocean ridges highlight the risks that future deep-sea mining poses to ocean biodiversity.

“Our studies have led to the discovery of more than 10 new species,” Periasamy told Climate Home News from the Kochi-based Centre for Marine Living Resources & Ecology, which also operates under the Ministry of Earth Sciences. 

They warn that deep-sea mining could cause habitat destruction, persistent sediment plumes and disruption of ecosystem processes throughout the water column, with potentially irreversible impacts occurring before many species and ecosystems are fully understood. 

Iridogorgia and bamboo coral pictured around the Johnston Atoll Unit of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (Photo: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research) Iridogorgia and bamboo coral pictured around the Johnston Atoll Unit of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (Photo: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research)

Major fisheries could also be severely impacted, according to campaigners. 

“No country has conducted enough scientific research to capture the full scope of environmental impacts of deep-sea mining,” said a spokesperson for the Deep-Sea Conservation Coalition, an international environmental advocacy group focused on protecting deep-ocean ecosystems. 

“We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about any deep-sea environment,” the spokesperson added. 

The post India builds deep-sea capacity in bet on critical minerals future appeared first on Climate Home News.

EDMONTON – On Friday last week, nine Albertan organizations representing environmental, sustainable energy, and landowner interests filed an application for judicial review with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, challenging certain amendments to...

Print article Share

Following this year’s UN COP17 biodiversity conference, Carbon Brief’s journalists hosted a livestream to explain what happened at the summit.

Carbon Brief’s Orla Dwyer and Aruna Chandrasekhar have been on the ground in Yerevan, Armenia, over the past two weeks, covering the negotiations.

They were joined on the livestream by associate editors Dr Giuliana Viglione and Daisy Dunne, who were following the talks from Washington DC and London, respectively.

Carbon Brief has also published its 10,000-word explainer of COP17, which lays out the key outcomes in detail.

Membership

Support award-winning climate journalism Join CB+

Orla and Aruna kicked off the livestream by explaining the biggest issues at the event, including biodiversity finance and the first “global review” of progress towards reversing nature loss.

The four journalists then took live questions from the audience in an “ask me anything” format, covering issues such as “nature-harming subsidies”, marine biodiversity and the status of the Cali fund, which is meant to raise private-sector finance.

A recording of the webinar (below) is now available to watch on YouTube.

COP17: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan 31.10.2026 COP17 Yerevan COP17: Which countries have released new pledges to tackle nature loss? 16.10.2026 COP17 Yerevan COP17: Tracking progress towards the UN’s 2030 nature targets 15.10.2026 COP17 Yerevan COP17: Developed countries ‘fall far short’ of UN targets for nature finance  15.10.2026 COP17 Yerevan

The post CB Live: Carbon Brief’s team at COP17 on the nature talks’ key outcomes appeared first on Carbon Brief.

In 2021, across much of the country, Winter Storm Uri caused utilities to scramble for power as the use of electricity and natural gas increased. In addition to facing transmission constraints, utilities couldn’t generate enough power due to issues with fuel supply and equipment malfunctions. In Nebraska, in an effort to preserve the grid and prevent a system-wide failure, the Omaha Public Power District, or OPPD, conducted rolling blackouts. Afterward, the Southwest Power Pool, which manages the region’s grid reliability, required its members to keep more power capacity in reserve in case of future emergency situations. 

In the following years, the data center boom, electrification, and growth from other industries have brought utilities around the country the promise of new customers and the challenge of a huge spike in demand. As a result, OPPD, which serves about 419,000 customers across eastern Nebraska, is running low on the amount of energy capacity it can promise to new and expanding economic development projects. The shortage is threatening the region’s ability to develop economically, attract companies, add jobs, and grow. 

What’s more, OPPD is facing the same challenges that are plaguing utilities and electric grids across the country: Power plants and other electric grid infrastructure are aging. Demand for energy is still growing. Climate change is straining the grid in real time. All the while, communities in Nebraska oppose the renewable energy developments that could solve some of these issues.

OPPD currently projects it has less than 100 megawatts of available power capacity for new or expanding large customers for the next few years. (For reference, a large data center could require as much as 1,000 megawatts of capacity, and manufacturing facilities can range from a few megawatts to over 100 megawatts.) That figure could vary depending on customer commitments and new energy generation coming online, and OPPD asserted that the utility has enough power capacity to support typical residential and commercial growth. But essentially, OPPD president and CEO Javier Fernandez said, any new or expanding development requiring 2 megawatts or more might have to wait to receive service. Fernandez will be leaving the utility at the end of the year, according to a recent internal announcement.

Economic development leaders are concerned that if power capacity in Nebraska’s largest metropolitan area remains limited, the Omaha area and the state as a whole will be put at a competitive disadvantage for growth opportunities like new businesses, jobs, and increased tax revenue. This comes as the state is projected to face a $208 million deficit next year. Compared to 2022, state income tax revenues this past year were $703 million lower.

“We are bending over backwards. We’re trying to figure out creative solutions,” Fernandez told Grist. “How do we bridge this? Can we buy capacity from other utilities? Literally, no one has excess capacity. Everyone is in the same boat as we are, so now the pinch, so to speak, it’s, well, growth has to slow down, maybe?” 

At the same time, OPPD is doing long-term planning to determine what its energy and system needs will be over the next 10 years. To meet the demand, the utility and its board face a decision about how much to expand OPPD’s energy portfolio. On the low end, the utility could add about 1,000 megawatts, but, according to OPPD’s initial planning results, the utility might more than double its portfolio. For context, OPPD’s portfolio currently contains 4,583 megawatts of energy capacity.

And while more generation capacity is coming online over the next few years, the projections for energy demand remain high. Companies with nearly 2,000 megawatts of economic development projects are planning to come to the area and are actively in OPPD’s queue through 2031, according to a September presentation. There are about 5,000 megawatts worth of other potential projects on the radar that are considering the area.

Fernandez said the utility knows that not all of the projects will actually come to fruition.  Nevertheless, if the utility builds too small, the Omaha metro could end up back in the same shortage for economic development. If the utility builds too big and the usage from big customers doesn’t materialize, OPPD’s ratepayers will likely have to eat the costs. 

Read Next Exclusive: Most voters believe climate change threatens the American Dream Kate Yoder

Nailing the projections and actually building new generation — such as renewable energy and natural gas sources — will be a big challenge. Two OPPD board members said it would be helpful if state and local leaders were on the same page with clear economic development plans to guide priorities for how much energy the region will need.

OPPD declined to comment on what portion of its queue is made up of data centers, manufacturers, or other types of customers. According to a presentation in March, a chart of the utility’s current peak demand shows industrial customers represent 32 percent, residential customers make up 41 percent, and commercial customers are 27 percent. By 2035, industrial customers are expected to make up 52 percent.

“Clearly, data centers have been a very, very big force on that increase,” Fernandez said.

“The biggest question my board is likely going to have to answer is going to be how big of a plan we approve,” Fernandez said. “And that is going to be informed by … state, counties, cities, chambers: How much do you want us to grow?” 

In September, Heath Mello, the Greater Omaha Chamber’s president and CEO, sent a letter to OPPD’s board calling for the utility to plan further out than 2036 and strongly consider building for more growth. Paul West, chair of the chamber’s board, said that the chamber hopes to recruit and expand industries like manufacturing.

Economic development could help solve big problems — the state’s budget shortfall, high property taxes, and brain drain. But energy is one of the top two reasons that the chamber loses deals to other locations. And any new manufacturing will have to compete for power with potential data center customers considering the region. This matches a trend being seen across the U.S., said Larry Gigerich, chair of the Site Selectors Guild. 

Utilities like OPPD have an obligation to serve all customers, but state and local governments can incentivize and disincentivize for the kind of growth they want to see, Fernandez said. The competition for electricity with data centers is “causing manufacturing companies now to be more proactive and to use their voice more directly with utilities versus the way they have done it for decades,” Gigerich said. “Now it’s a true competition, and we can’t generate enough new power fast enough to meet everybody’s needs.”

Projecting demand is one thing. Getting electricity-generating projects built is quite another. To meet the growing demand and to keep costs low, OPPD is looking at building more natural gas and renewables. Both of these options come with their own challenges. 

The current popularity of natural gas has constrained the equipment supply chain, which means it could take the utility much longer to build. And while renewables face some upfront cost increases, they remain the lowest cost energy source to operate. However, OPPD has struggled to bring these projects online, because some communities in the state have turned them away. The tension has been building for years as misinformation has spread and projects were kept secret by developers. Residents across the state have rejected clean energy proposals over concerns about fire risks and potential damages to prime agricultural land and local infrastructure. 

Fernandez said that some community leaders have rejected renewable generation only to ask for more power capacity to attract new economic development. “Everyone is saying no, and then we end up in a really bad place,” he said.

With the demand for power growing, something has to give, otherwise OPPD might not be able to generate the power it needs to help Nebraska grow.

“If Omaha doesn’t grow, if Omaha doesn’t prosper, the rest of the state very likely won’t,” Fernandez said. “What the state wants versus what the city wants versus what the chambers want — well, they all want different things. But the one common denominator that I keep hearing is jobs and income.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline As Nebraska seeks to grow, Omaha’s energy capacity is a major hurdle on Nov 4, 2026.

In this year’s election’s there was very little discussion about fossil fuels or the climate crisis, even amongst the so-called “leftist insurgents” of the Democratic Party. Influencers like writer Bill…

The Democratic Party won a commanding victory in Tuesday’s midterm elections. As of Wednesday morning, the party had secured control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as several state governments. The party’s strong performance, driven in part by voters’ anger over inflation and the war in Iran, reached into traditional Republican strongholds like Ohio and South Carolina. The sweep will have profound consequences for climate action in the United States, even with President Donald Trump still in the White House.

Flipping control of Congress will allow the Democrats to hinder Trump’s numerous attempts to roll back federal climate policy. In the first two years of Trump’s term, party leaders could do little more than write strongly worded statements to administration officials. They were powerless to stop the suspension of clean energy funding, the elimination of climate rules for power plants and motor vehicles, and the hollowing out of agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Now, the party will have a lot more leverage. Democratic senators and members of Congress can issue subpoenas to force administration officials to testify before Congress, and could even impeach Trump administration figures over funding clawbacks and staff reductions that Democrats have called unlawful. Democrats will also have control over must-pass funding bills, and Trump will have to negotiate with them in order to avoid a government shutdown. This could lead to the restoration of some funding for energy and climate resilience programs that Republicans have been trying to whittle down. With majorities in the Senate and the House, the party could even seek to reimpose some of the clean energy tax credits that Republicans rescinded last year.

Turnover at the state level, where officials are still counting votes, may be even more significant. Democrats gained full control of the state government in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, according to election analysts, ending in some cases decades of Republican or divided government. This could allow the passage of meaningful climate policy in much of the country for the first time. In Pennsylvania, for instance, state House Democrats have said they intend to pass bills making it easier to build community solar, warehouse solar, and battery energy storage, as well as preventing local governments from banning renewables. In Georgia, Democrats flipped both the governor’s mansion and control of the Public Service Commission, which regulates electric utilities.

While Trump’s approval ratings are underwater on almost every major issue, energy prices were among the most salient issues in many races. The gasoline price hike caused by Trump’s invasion of Iran was perhaps the most consequential, but voters in many places were also concerned about their heating bills (Maine) and homeowner’s insurance premiums (Florida). In state races in Texas and Ohio, and in bellwether House districts like one in central Pennsylvania, skepticism over the AI boom may also have driven voters to oust incumbents who supported data centers. 

Here are some of the most consequential outcomes for climate change and the environment. We’ll continue to update this post as more results and analysis come in.

Supporters of Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico at the Long Center on November 3 in Austin.
Brandon Bell / Getty Images House Democrats could make the Trump administration spend money on the climate

Upon taking office, the Trump administration attempted to withhold billions of dollars in climate money, much of it from the landmark Inflation Reduction Act signed into law by Joe Biden in 2022. These freezes threw a number of major climate projects into limbo — the Department of Energy halted experimental projects for hydrogen production in Pennsylvania and decarbonized cement in California, while the Environmental Protection Agency froze a $7 billion community solar program. 

Those days may soon be over. Chellie Pingree, the lead Democrat who oversees funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, says that she has prepared a long list of investigations and subpoenas for Trump administration officials, including EPA chief Lee Zeldin. She also intends to use the power of the purse to force the administration to spend climate money. Funding bills could include provisions that would deny agencies core operational funds or restrict travel money for leading officials unless they doled out solar and energy funding as Congress previously instructed them to.

“We can put a lot more teeth into the next appropriations bill,” she said. “We can say, ‘OK, fine, if you’re not going to spend the money, we have the power to withhold other funding.’”

— Jake Bittle

Texas elects a Democratic senator for the first time in nearly 40 years

Texas joined other Southern states in flipping blue for the first time in decades. Senator-elect James Talarico, a Democrat, supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which includes protecting oil and gas jobs while also growing renewable energy. This moderate approach proved important in a state that provides over 40 percent of the nation’s oil and gas. 

As a state representative, Talarico authored and introduced the Texas Climate Action Act in 2021. While the bill did not advance, it aimed to establish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and set energy efficiency standards, with an emphasis on local resiliency. 

Talarico beat out Republican Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, who is widely considered friendly to the oil and gas industry. He’s been embroiled in scandal for years and was impeached in 2023 by the Texas House. Paxton’s track record likely helped Democrats obtain this victory. 

— Celeste Guajardo

A wildland firefighter endorsed by AOC wins a House seat in Montana

Montana is on track to send a Democrat to the House of Representatives for the first time in over 30 years. Sam Forstag, a former wildland firefighter and union leader, claimed victory in the state’s competitive western district seat over Republican Aaron Flint, who conceded the race early Wednesday morning. The Associated Press estimates that 13 percent of ballots remain uncounted as of midday Wednesday.

Forstag ran his campaign on the affordability issues facing many Montanans and emphasized rising power bills, the need for data center regulation, and protecting public lands from attacks. The 31-year-old decided to run for office after experiencing Trump’s massive cuts to federal land management agencies, including wildland firefighting. Forstag received early endorsements from Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 

In an interview with Montana Free Press in October, Forstag said he wanted to “invest in transmission” and ensure “next-generation energy projects, wind and solar, have the actual resources that they need to get off the ground.” 

— Ellis Juhlin

Democratic Representative Kathy Castor of Florida holds a committee hearing in the House of Representatives. Castor, a leading climate hawk, survived a tough reelection challenge in a district drawn to eliminate her.
Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Two climate hawks survive Republican redistricting

Their districts were redrawn to eliminate them, but voters in Florida’s 14th and Ohio’s 9th districts respectively reelected Kathy Castor and Marcy Kaptur anyway.

Castor — referred to as a “climate hawk” by Politico — has spent much of her long career in Congress raising the alarm about climate change. Between 2019 and 2022 she chaired the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, and has otherwise made reducing carbon pollution and preparing communities for climate impacts central to her legislative agenda. In March, she backed the Energy Bills Relief Act, which proposed restoring energy upgrade tax credits and connecting more clean energy to the grid. She has also strongly opposed data centers in the Tampa area that she serves, warning that the facilities could drive up her constituents’ utility costs while straining local water supplies.

Kaptur is the longest-serving woman in the House. She has been a leading opponent of the Department of Energy’s efforts to redirect Inflation Reduction Act money away from clean energy and toward fossil fuels. She has alleged that these redirections violate federal law, and would likely lead investigations into the Energy Department’s actions in a Democratic-controlled Congress. The Ohio state Legislature redrew her district to encompass more conservative areas along Lake Erie, but she held on to her seat comfortably.

— Jake Bittle and Sachi Kitajima Mulkey

A Democrat will become a Texas oil and gas regulator

Stunning results are still coming in from the Lone Star State. For the first time in over 30 years, a Democrat has won a seat on the Texas Railroad Commission, the regulatory agency that oversees the state’s oil and gas industry. Jon Rosenthal defeated Republican candidate Bo French, who made a racist social media post about South Asian students celebrating at a University of Texas football game that drew national bipartisan backlash.

“To the dude that posted the online poll last summer, asking who’s a bigger threat to America and the only two choices were Muslims and Jews — tonight this Jewish engineer sent that motherf*cker home,” said Rosenthal in his victory speech, referring to another racist post by French.

Rosenthal asserts that good jobs and clean air can — and must — coexist. He supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy and capturing natural gas. He also wants to “turbocharge” the plugging of inactive oil and gas wells, which leak methane. The Railroad Commission is currently considering rules on that, spurred by state legislation passed last year. 

Rosenthal will join two Republican commissioners, meaning it’s likely he will be outvoted on many issues.

— Celeste Guajardo

Democrats flip control of Georgia utility commission for the first time in decades

Democrats secured both Public Service Commission seats on the Georgia ballot, giving the party majority control of the powerful utility regulation board for the first time in 30 years.

Democrat Peter Hubbard successfully defended his District 3 seat against a challenge from former commissioner Fitz Johnson, while Democrat Shelia Edwards defeated Republican Josh Tolbert to take the District 5 seat.

The commission regulates utilities, including the behemoth Georgia Power, meaning commissioners have final say over how the state’s largest utility makes energy and how much customers pay for it. The board has drawn increased scrutiny in recent years because of a series of rate hikes and the scramble to produce enough energy for the massive spike in demand that Georgia Power predicts will result from the data center boom. The utility’s plans to meet that demand rely heavily on fossil fuels.

Georgia is one of 10 states where utility regulators are elected rather than appointed.

— Emily Jones

Read Next In Savannah, Georgia’s utility regulators faced public wrath over data centers Emily Jones Public transit wins in multiple states

After years of financial woes and operating deficits, some residents of the California Bay Area were concerned that this year’s midterms might signal the downfall of public rail options in the region, leaving them stuck in its infamous traffic. But the Regional Transit Measure, which sought to enact a sales tax to fund local transit agencies for another 14 years, easily won a majority vote. It is expected to raise $1 billion each year to keep trains up and running.

Colorado rail supporters have also claimed victory for Measure 7A, which will establish a permanent sales tax to extend Colorado Connector passenger trains between Pueblo and Fort Collins. The coalition that campaigned for the measure argued that the expanded railway would reduce emissions equivalent to 29,000 cars in the area.

Other states had transit wins, too: More than 70 percent of voters said yes to Seattle’s Proposition 1, which would double the dedicated transit tax and support more frequent bus service. And Lawrence, Kansas, increased its transit sale tax to fund service for another 10 years. 

— Sachi Kitajima Mulkey

Voters reject adding a ‘right to natural gas’ to the Colorado Constitution

Colorado voters roundly rejected an effort to enshrine a right to natural gas in the state Constitution, which would have been a first in the country. Amendment 82 proposed giving homes and businesses a right to use gas stoves for cooking and heating, as well as giving distributors and utilities a right to sell the fossil fuel. Since the Constitution trumps all else, the ballot measure’s approval could have jeopardized local and state efforts to shift away from fossil fuels and electrify buildings, prompting court challenges to climate policies. The measure also raised concerns that it could protect access to natural gas for power-hungry data centers. 

Only 46 percent of voters supported Amendment 82 as of late Wednesday morning, far beneath the 55 percent a constitutional amendment needs to pass. That protects the Colorado Public Utilities Commission’s Clean Heat Plan, which requires utilities to cut natural gas emissions by 41 percent by 2035.

— Kate Yoder

A flip in an area devastated by Helene

In western North Carolina, where Hurricane Helene caused billions of dollars of damage two years ago, Democrat Jamie Ager defeated Republican Jennifer Balkcom for an open seat in the House of Representatives. Ager, a longtime farmer, made the area’s slow hurricane recovery a centerpiece of his campaign. He criticized Representative Chuck Edwards, who dropped out of the race after a sexual harassment scandal, for doing too little to deliver aid for Asheville and its surrounding counties. Grist reported last month that at least some voters blamed Republicans for the slow recovery. In a rally held on the eve of the election, President Trump promised to deliver more hurricane aid money, but only if North Carolina elected Republicans. The district around Asheville did not take the bait — not only did Ager win the state’s 11th House District, but Democrat Roy Cooper, the state’s former governor, easily won a Senate race, flipping a seat that had been held by Republicans. 

— Jake Bittle

North Carolina Democratic congressional candidate Jamie Ager greets a supporter at a “Trunk or Treat” Halloween campaign event. Ager prevailed in a race for a seat in an area devastated by Hurricane Helene. Allison Joyce / Getty Images An ex-Sunrise activist wins in Michigan

William Lawrence, a co-founder of the climate activism group Sunrise Movement, has prevailed in a razor’s-edge House of Representatives race in central Michigan. Lawrence, a 36-year-old progressive, ousted freshman Republican Tom Barrett in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, a bellwether area encompassing Lansing and its suburbs. He made opposition to data centers a focal point of his campaign, calling for a national moratorium on data center development. He also aligned himself with activists and residents who have opposed large-scale renewable energy projects in the Lansing area. In an interview with Grist last month, Lawrence said that many utility-scale solar projects don’t benefit the communities around them.

— Jake Bittle

Read Next The Michigan climate candidate courting opponents of Big Solar Jake Bittle Democrats win after attacking Republicans on data centers

In one of the night’s biggest upsets, Texas state Representative Gina Hinojosa ousted incumbent Governor Greg Abbott after campaigning on a data center moratorium and accusing Abbott of selling out to the tech industry. 

And at least three legislative seats flipped blue after Democrats aggressively criticized Republican incumbents for being too friendly to data centers. Democrat Sherrod Brown defeated Republican Jon Husted in Ohio’s special Senate election after state Democrats put up billboards stating: “See that data center? Jon Husted did that.” Likewise, Democrat Paige Cognetti beat Republican Rob Bresnahan in Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District after she ran television ads associating Bresnahan with data centers and comparing tech companies to polluting mining corporations. (Bresnahan has owned stock in data center companies.) And in South Carolina’s Senate race, voters pushed Annie Andrews to a surprise win over incumbent Darline Graham after Andrews highlighted that a new pro-data center super PAC spent $1.5 million dollars on ads for her opponent, whom she nicknamed “Data Center Darline.”

Both Husted and Bresnahan had previously welcomed data centers to their regions, but later attempted unsuccessfully to pass regulations constraining them once the facilities became a hot-button issue. Data centers are massively unpopular with voters across the political spectrum, polls have shown. The facilities have become a growing source of demand for electricity from fossil fuels.

— Austin Corona, Sachi Kitajima Mulkey, and Jake Bittle

Data centers upend municipal politics

Further down the ballot, it’s hard to find a place where data centers didn’t lose. In addition to the marquee congressional and governor’s races where voter sentiment about the AI boom may have helped oust Republican incumbents, dozens of towns and cities passed pauses or bans on data center development, according to The Washington Post. In many cases, these restrictions passed by enormous margins — in Sunbury, Ohio, where Amazon proposed a $2 billion project, voters rejected the facilities by an almost 60-point margin. 

The AI issue also upended local elections, and perhaps the best example is in Pine Island, Minnesota. Google has proposed building a large new data center there, one that would be powered exclusively by clean energy and would include big subsidies for electric ratepayers. But voter outrage over the project caused a previous mayor to resign and led a first-time politician to mount a campaign against the interim replacement. That challenger, Mark Lang, won with well over 60 percent of the vote.

— Jake Bittle

A FEMA defender sails to victory in Florida

Representative Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat, easily hung onto his seat in Congress, surviving a challenge from Scott Singer, a Trump-backed Republican, in Florida’s redrawn 25th Congressional District. His third-term victory defies the right-wing effort to make his district significantly redder with new boundaries and keeps one of America’s most vocal FEMA reformers in Congress. 

Moskowitz, once appointed Florida’s emergency management director by Governor Ron DeSantis, championed bipartisan legislation to pull FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security and make it an independent, Cabinet-level agency — just as the Trump administration seeks to cut its funding and shift more responsibility onto states. He has also introduced bills that would let states voluntarily administer federal disaster housing and public assistance, and proposed a reinsurance backstop that would help cover catastrophic losses after disasters like hurricanes. 

— Sachi Kitajima Mulkey

Protesters in Detroit demonstrate against DTE Energy’s request to hike electricity rates to pay for more fossil fuel plants. Voters in Michigan passed an amendment that would restrict political campaign contributions by utilities.
Jim West/ UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images Michigan gets utility money out of politics 

Voters in Michigan passed a measure to limit corporate spending in elections, and in a nationwide first, successfully went after the state’s electric and gas utilities. Supporters of Proposal 2 leveraged ratepayers’ growing dissatisfaction with utilities around power bills, unreliable service, and data centers. The measure is one of the most ambitious attempts in the country to limit corporate influence in politics, which it aims to do by preventing utility-funded political action groups and utility executives from contributing to state political campaigns. Groups that oppose the measure have contended that Prop 2 will stifle corporations’ speech protections under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. Shortly before midnight on Tuesday, a conservative policy group sued the state in federal court, saying that everyone from journalists to nonprofit organizations could lose speech and privacy rights under the new measure. And while experts said the measure likely won’t get all utility money out of politics, Prop 2 advocates maintain it’s a step toward accountability.

— Vivian La

Read Next High power bills, blackouts land Michigan utilities on the ballot Austin Corona & Vivian La A governor who at least acknowledges climate change in Florida

Republican Byron Donalds has defeated Democrat David Jolly for occupancy of Florida’s governor’s mansion. Donalds, who currently represents Florida’s 19th Congressional District, will be the state’s first Black governor. He doesn’t believe humans play any role in global warming, but he’s more willing to discuss the issue than the current governor, Ron DeSantis, who signed the state’s infamous “don’t say climate change” law.

That matters in a state especially battered by sea level rise, coastal erosion, and storms. The skyrocketing costs of home insurance were a central issue in this race, and Donalds promised to bring them down by increasing competition in the state’s private market. In 2025, Donalds notably co-introduced bipartisan legislation with Democrat Jared Moskowitz to reform federal disaster aid by making FEMA an independent Cabinet-level agency. In the weeks before voters went to the polls, he also pledged investment in restoring coastal habitats. Donalds seems likely to carry on DeSantis’ other environmental policies, such as supporting data center development and attacking wind and solar projects.

— Sachi Kitajima Mulkey

A campaign sign for Florida Republican Senate candidate Ashley Moody seen outside a polling station on November 3 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Saul Martinez / Getty Images A MAGA loyalist who says no to drilling in Florida

Republican Senator Ashley Moody defeated the progressive Democrat Angie Nixon to retain her seat, which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appointed her to last year. Moody’s brief stint in Washington hints at what’s to come: She introduced a resolution to overturn Biden-era efficiency standards and supported the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which ended federal tax credits for clean energy installations like rooftop solar and batteries. Previously, as Florida’s attorney general, she joined a lawsuit challenging emissions reduction targets on highways.

But in Florida, a state grappling with coastal erosion and rising sea levels, some environmental protections are popular across party lines: Last year, even as Trump pushed to open offshore drilling in other states, Moody introduced the American Shores Protection Act to ban the practice off Florida’s coast through 2032.

— Sachi Kitajima Mulkey

This story has been updated with analysis of additional races and trends.

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What a historic ‘blue wave’ midterm means for climate action on Nov 4, 2026.

As you may be aware, POWERTECH, (USA) INC. submitted two applications for water rights permits (Appl. No. 2915-2 and Appl. No. 2914-2), which the state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) received on June 24, 2026. The state didn’t make the applications public until October 27, at which time the public was given only … Continue reading Urgent Action Alert!  Help Protect two Aquifers in the Black Hills from Uranium Mining.  Comment period ends on November 9.

More than 65 gasfield residents and health and environmental experts have passed a resolution calling for the Queensland government to conduct a comprehensive, independent investigation into the health impacts of the gas industry. 

Recursos relacionados: explorando las economías solidarias Introducción Esta selección de recursos reúne artículos, publicaciones, redes, iniciativas y herramientas de aprendizaje que exploran las economías solidarias y sus vínculos con la cooperación, los cuidados colectivos, la sostenibilidad ecológica y la transformación social. Al reunir diversas perspectivas y experiencias, estos materiales invitan a les lectores a profundizar en su comprensión de las alternativas existentes, conocer inic…

La aritmética del fuego Por la Dra. Lebohang Liepollo Pheko Nos dijeron que enfriáramos las llamas mientras seguían incendiando el mundo. Llamaron amor a nuestro trabajo, deber a nuestro agotamiento, nuestra desolación y nuestro despojo se convirtieron en «desarrollo».

¿Quién cuida el fuego? Enfriar las llamas sin extinguir el fuego Por la Dra. Lebohang Liepollo Pheko I. Las economías que nos consumen Nos dijeron que enfriáramos las llamas mientras seguían incendiando el mundo. Llamaron amor a nuestro trabajo,

Who Tends the Fire? Cooling the Flames Without Extinguishing the Fire By Dr Lebohang Liepollo Pheko I. The economies that consume us They told us to cool the flames while they were still setting the world alight. They called our labour love, our exhaustion duty,