News Feeds

Donde los sueños de nuestres ancestres se encuentran con las memorias de nuestres descendientes: reflexiones sobre la construcción de lo común, el abolicionismo y las reparaciones Por Alison Chopel Introducción Hay dos corrientes del movimiento por la justicia racial en Estados Unidos con las que estoy comprometida y que, a primera vista, parecen dirigir su atención hacia distintas direcciones temporales: las reparaciones o justicia reparativa y el abolicionismo. Les activistas y académicue…

La forma básica que debe adoptar una sociedad alternativa sostenible y justa Por Ted Trainer Introducción Actualmente existe un amplio reconocimiento de que los sistemas actuales no solo no funcionan bien para nosotres, sino que también están generando una policrisis global que pronto deberá desembocar en un colapso mundial catastrófico. Existen numerosas propuestas sobre la naturaleza de un sistema más sostenible y justo. Quiero argumentar que, cuando se comprende adecuadamente la naturale…

Kelsey McCune wanted to study smart birds, so naturally, she turned to corvids. While working on a Ph.D. in behavioral ecology at the University of Washington, she made a puzzle box out of a log...

In North Carolina, large data centers are expected to start using massive amounts of energy over the next several decades — a shift that could lead to $50 billion in energy costs by 2050, according to a new report from Gov. Josh Stein’s office.

And without any major policy changes, customers could see their electricity bills increase by 70% over the next 15 years, the report estimates.

The report, released by Stein’s Energy Policy Task Force, estimates how much Duke Energy would need to spend on new power plants, power lines and other infrastructure in the next 25 years. Energy demand is expected to skyrocket over that period, and about 80% of new demand will come from large energy users like data centers.

“If nothing changes, families will have to foot data centers’ bill. That’s unacceptable. We need to bring real rate relief for North Carolinians,” Stein said at a Tuesday news conference.

…

Currently, Duke does not have a clean transition tariff, which would allow data centers to build their own energy sources and incentivize them to use renewable energy. The large load tariff it proposed earlier this month also didn’t include any incentives for data centers to build their own energy.

However, the utility told The N&O on Wednesday that it is “open to a clean transition tariff … if it can be designed in a manner that encourages investment in needed new resources while also offsetting costs for all customers.”

“We will seek to engage stakeholders in early 2027 to explore gaps in the current offerings and potential new features and options,” Duke spokesperson Bill Norton said.

Stein and Jackson have both pushed Duke Energy to include clean energy incentives in its current large load tariff proposal.

Yet in recent years, the utility has taken money from the Trump administration to keep its coal plants open longer and end its offshore wind projects. Duke also said in 2024 that it would look into a clean transition tariff — with support from data center developers — only for it to never materialize.

In response to Tuesday’s report, several environmental groups publicly praised the governor and attorney general for trying to push for more clean energy requirements.

“We now know the only affordable path to any data centers in our state is in tandem with clean energy,” said Dan Crawford, senior director of the N.C. League of Conservation Voters. “We should be weaning ourselves off expensive fossil fuels, not doubling down on these volatile fuel sources.”

Jim Warren, executive director of the advocacy group NC WARN, said his group wants to see more “assertive intervention” from Stein to require data centers to use clean energy. Stein’s press release advocates for North Carolina to “start cutting carbon emissions in the mid-2030s rather than later,” Warren noted.

This is horribly out of step with the 61 climate scientists pressing him to stop Duke Energy’s fossil fuel expansion immediately,” Warren’s statement reads.

Continue reading

The post Data centers could cost NC consumers $50B by 2050, Gov. Stein’s office estimates — The News & Observer appeared first on NC WARN.

This article by Sanket Jain first appeared on Yale Climate Connections and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Farmers around the world are spraying more chemicals than ever on their crops as they battle insect pests. Many of these small, hungry creatures have benefited from climate change, which has expanded their range, extended their breeding season, and made them harder to control with pesticides.

“As temperatures rise, managing pest attacks is becoming increasingly difficult as many of these pests multiply much faster,” said Laxman Mane, 50, who farms a plot of just under two acres in western India’s Haroli village, growing cauliflower, cabbage, cucumbers, okra, sugarcane and tomatoes.

“Earlier, none of these pesticides were required, but now if you don’t use them, you can’t cultivate any crop,” said Mane, who has been farming for three decades and now sprays chemicals on his cauliflower and cabbage weekly. He started out using dimethoate, then switched to another insecticide that only controlled the pests for about two years, he said. He has boosted the dosage, but heavier spraying has not solved the problem.

Pests and diseases reduce global crop yields by an estimated 20-40% every year, causing $220 billion in losses. Pesticide use in agriculture more than doubled worldwide between 1990 and 2024, reaching 3.92 million metric tons of active ingredients, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

Researchers have found that in some pest species, biological mechanisms that help them tolerate extreme heat can also help them withstand pesticides.

So as pests grow more resilient, experts say farmers also need to adapt. Many recommend integrated pest management, which includes monitoring fields and spraying only when it makes economic sense rather than on a calendar schedule. Farmers also should use natural predators to control pests. They need to adjust planting windows and, where available, choose crop varieties that better resist pests. Rotating chemical pesticides is recommended, as is taking care to make sure that pesticides do not kill off pollinators and other beneficial organisms.

But an integrated approach is difficult for smallholder farmers with limited access to training and resources.

“Poor farmers like me are left with no resort but to keep spraying,” Mane said.

Research from other countries points to similar concerns. A review study of African smallholder farming found that changing climatic conditions can increase pest problems and crop-loss risks in cotton, tomato, maize and cowpea.

Why some pests become harder to control

Warmer temperatures do not make every pest more resistant. In some cases, in fact, it’s the opposite. But in general, as temperatures rise, pests are expanding into new areas, appearing earlier in the season, or producing more generations in a year. Warmer conditions can cause some insects to develop faster.

When insects mature faster and produce the next generation more quickly, pesticide resistance can evolve more rapidly because resistant individuals have more opportunities to survive pesticide exposure and pass resistance traits to their offspring.

“In regions experiencing frequent heat waves, we could certainly see a decline in insecticide efficacy over time,” said Aline Guidolin, an entomologist and professor at the University of São Paulo’s Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture. 

Global warming will not help all pests. In places where pests are already close to the highest temperatures they can tolerate, extreme heat can make some pests less successful, said Sanford Eigenbrode, an entomologist and professor emeritus at the University of Idaho. However, he added, “In temperate latitudes, warming is more likely to increase pest developmental rates, making them more difficult to control.” 

One species that has developed resistance is the diamondback moth, a major pest of cabbage, cauliflower and other related crops. The past 50 years of global warming have expanded the area where it could survive winter by about 2.4 million square kilometers. Researchers have found that, on average, pesticide resistance levels were 158 times higher in areas where the moth could survive winter than in areas where it occurred only seasonally.

How warming can reshape pesticide resistance

Pesticide resistance depends on several factors, Eigenbrode said, including frequency of exposure, pre-existing resistance traits in a population, breeding and development characteristics, and the level of annual exposure.

“Warming climates can alter these factors,” he said.

Rising temperatures or other environmental factors can change which versions of certain genes become more common in a pest population. Evolutionary biologist Henry Chung, an associate professor at Michigan State University, said certain genes may be involved in both heat tolerance and insecticide resistance. Changing environmental conditions can make these gene versions more or less common over generations. This could make a population more or less resistant to insecticides.

“Environmental change can cause populations to be more resistant to an insecticide, or it can also cause populations to be more susceptible,” Chung said.

A pest could even become more resistant to one insecticide while becoming more susceptible to another.

Heat makes resistant pests harder to kill

In Brazil, researchers tested fall armyworms, a major maize pest, between 18°C and 32°C, comparing insects resistant to two insecticides with those that were not. At 28°C, they needed a concentration 340 times higher of spinetoram insecticide to kill resistant armyworms than they did to produce the same mortality level in susceptible insects.

At 32°C, the difference grew to nearly 590 times. 

Guidolin, who co-authored the study, said that at higher temperatures, the armyworms’ metabolism speeds up, allowing them to break down and detoxify insecticides faster. Higher temperatures enhance this defense mechanism, she said, making insecticides like chlorantraniliprole and spinetoram less effective.

To manage the growing challenge of pesticide resistance, Guidolin said farmers should follow insecticide-resistance management practices, including applying insecticides only at manufacturer-recommended rates, avoiding under-dosing and over-dosing. Farmers should also rotate between pesticides that work in different ways.

Still, “As temperatures rise, chemical rotation alone won’t be enough,” she warned.

Sanford recommends switching between pesticides that target pests in different ways, while protecting beneficial organisms, including pollinators.

Researchers try switching off genes that build resilience

Researchers in China studied Tetranychus truncatus, a spider mite that attacks more than 100 crops, including maize, cotton and soybean. They identified five genes involved in producing heat-shock proteins, which protect cells from stresses such as extreme heat and pesticides. Three of the genes became much more active at 38°C to 42°C. Two also became more active after exposure to sublethal doses of three acaricides.

When the team switched off these two genes, the mites became more vulnerable to both heat and acaricides. Mortality increased by up to 35% under heat, and by up to 38.8% after pesticide exposure, showing that the same biological defenses that help the mites cope with heat can also help them withstand pesticides. 

Farmers facing increasingly difficult pest-control challenges need solutions that protect their crops while slowing the development of pesticide resistance.

Raosaheb Yadav, 65, has cultivated cabbage since 1978. He grows three cabbage crops a year and said global warming has made each cycle harder. Pest numbers have increased, and so have the varieties of pests, forcing him to rely on more chemicals. He used to spray every 10 days; now he sprays more than once a week, he said.

He said farmers can no longer wait to spray until they see pests in their fields: “You miss one window, and the next day you will see several pests.”

To make matters worse, some of the insecticides he once relied on have also stopped working effectively, forcing him to use higher concentrations and add a sticker, an additive that helps the pesticide adhere to the plant surface and reduces the amount washed away by rain or irrigation.

The integrated practices recommended by experts could reduce unnecessary pesticide use and slow the development of resistance, but Yadav said he feels unable to weather any short-term losses that could come with switching tactics.

“A farmer can’t afford any losses here because the cost of production is already so high,” he said. If the pests do not die, farmers have little choice but to find another pesticide. “I never imagined pest control would become this difficult.”

//

26550RainfallThe Sanctuary recorded 4.81 inches of rain in October, which is 24% above average for October.  To date, we have received 81% of the rainfall we typically receive from June through...

Brazil’s COP30 presidency has unveiled a much-anticipated plan to halt forest loss around the world, saying a global target to end deforestation by 2030 remains within reach using existing national and international tools, but requires more finance behind it and everyone to go “faster and further”.

COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago told a press conference to launch the new roadmap in Brasilia that, while some countries pushed back against a global blueprint, it was developed as a way to inspire governments, business and civil society to focus on meeting commitments to protect forests.

“It’s all processes that already exist. All instruments that already exist. That’s one of the best conclusions: everyone can start acting today,” do Lago said.

The voluntary deforestation roadmap, along with another on transitioning away from fossil fuels, was promised by Brazil in the final hours of last year’s COP30 in the Amazon city of Belém after countries could not agree to include it in the formal Mutirão outcome.

Do Lago reiterated on Tuesday that the roadmap is not an official UN document, but rather a guide to implement targets already agreed three years ago at COP28 in Dubai, when countries took stock of national climate policies and agreed to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030.

Last year, global deforestation declined by 15% – the largest drop in recent years, achieved in large part thanks to Brazil’s tougher enforcement against illegal expansion of cattle-ranching – but countries remain far off track for the drop needed to achieve the COP28 target.

Former Brazilian environment minister Marina Silva, a close ally of newly re-elected President Lula da Silva and one of the main advocates of the roadmap, celebrated its launch and described it as “not a new path but a new way of walking” towards the global goal.

• Nov 3, 2026 News Africa launches long-delayed energy bank to finance fossil fuel projects The Africa Energy Bank’s main aim is financing oil and gas projects, underscoring support among many African governments for continued fossil fuel development Read more
• Oct 31, 2026 News COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature After a two-week stalemate, countries agreed to invite wealthy emerging economies like China to assume donor status and help fund biodiversity protection as finance falls short Read more
• Nov 3, 2026 News Canada, EU agree deeper cooperation on energy and cleantech supply chains Both sides have pledged to strengthen investment and trade cooperation to make cleantech supply chains more resilient to shocks Read more

What’s included in the roadmap?

The roadmap compiles a menu of policies to reverse deforestation and restore the world’s forests at both the national and international level, informed by more than 180 contributions from governments, civil society, the private sector and others. It focuses on ways countries can ramp up forest conservation, sustainable management and restoration, while tackling deforestation and forest degradation.

At the country level, it urges each government to follow a four-point plan, starting with identifying the drivers of deforestation in its territory, adjusting existing policies such as climate and biodiversity plans to address those drivers, setting targets according to available resources, and then implementing measures to reach them.

At the international level, it urges countries to co-operate on diverting trade-related incentives away from forest-destructive activities, and to strengthen prosecution of cross-border environmental crimes at the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC). It also calls for collaboration on forest monitoring platforms and developing unified indicators for tracking progress.

The document also identifies the next UN Global Stocktake of climate policies in 2028 as a key milestone when countries will have a last chance to review forest policies before the end of the decade.

Do Lago said some countries might want the roadmap to become a contribution to the next stocktake, adding that this document is “the first contribution for that discussion”, which will start at COP31 in Antalya and continue until COP33.

COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago looks over documents at the UN mid-year climate talks in Bonn, Germany on June 11, 2026 (Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth) Finance boost needed

To achieve the 2030 global target, the roadmap also says a major scale-up of financial resources will be required. The UN estimates that $84.5 billion was channelled into forest protection in 2023, which will need to increase to more than $300 billion a year by 2030. Nearly 90% of finance going to forests comes from domestic government budgets in developing countries, rather than international aid or private-sector investment.

The roadmap suggests that, since countries are already paying to look after their forests, they can act in two main ways: diverting domestic support away from nature-damaging activities, and building demand for “verified forest outcomes” such as paying to keep forests standing or creating forest-positive subsidies.

In the case of international finance, the document identifies several initiatives seeking to channel new public and private funds towards forest protection, including paying for carbon sinks – known as REDD+ in technical jargon – as well as through the newly established Paris Agreement carbon market.

The roadmap also singles out recent efforts to shift more private finance into solutions for nature, such as the Brazil-led Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) launched last year in Belém.

“The great challenge is not new policies, but scalability and acceleration to arrive at 2030 as promised, having ramped up efforts to end deforestation and forest degradation,” COP30 CEO and veteran climate diplomat Ana Toni said at the press conference.

Timeline requires quick implementation

Damian Fleming, senior director for forests at green group WWF International, said the roadmap “gets many of the fundamentals right” including on governance, regulatory and legal enforcement, community rights, finance, and the need to tackle degradation as well as deforestation.

However, he added that “the challenge now is speed” with 2030 just a few years away. “Countries need to use [the roadmap] to turbocharge action for results on the ground,” he said, urging governments to pursue deforestation-free supply chains and respect the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Anders Haug Larsen, director of international advocacy at the Rainforest Foundation Norway, highlighted the wide range of partners that can drive the anti-deforestation plan forward, adding he hoped that rainforest nations would now step up to champion it.

“Tropical forests are too important for fragmented approaches,” he said. “The roadmap can help bring together governments, Indigenous Peoples, investors and existing initiatives behind a common goal: ending deforestation and keeping forests standing.”

Natalie Unterstell, founder of the Talanoa Institute, a Brazilian climate think-tank, said the roadmap builds on Brazil’s “successful experience” of reducing deforestation, which has dropped to a record-low level, going beyond a simple focus on law enforcement but also identifying business and finance opportunities that bring positive results.

“The next step is for other governments and incoming COP presidencies to take ownership of this agenda, turn the proposed pathways into co-ordinated action, and use the 2028 Global Stocktake to assess collective progress. With only four years left, the roadmap needs a coalition of countries committed to delivering it,” she told Climate Home News.

The post COP30 roadmap says faster use of existing tools can halt forest loss by 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.

On a chilly December morning, I packed my snacks and binoculars, threw my coat on, and rushed out the door to meet my CBC counting group for my local circle in Fort Collins, CO. In doing so, I was...

Brazil has proposed a voluntary timetable to speed up the world’s transition away from fossil fuels (TAFF), fulfilling the promise it made to draw up the first global roadmap at last year’s UN climate summit in Belém. 

Through a “TAFF Mutirão”, named after the Indigenous Brazilian term for collective effort, the COP30 presidency sets out three stages for cutting the world’s reliance on oil, gas and coal up to 2033.

Countries are first encouraged to draw up national transition plans by 2028 in time to feed into the next global stocktake, the UN’s five-yearly review of progress on climate action. During the same period, Brazil’s blueprint suggests governments could take early steps such as reforming fossil fuel subsidies or stopping methane leaks at oil and gas sites.

• 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
• Sep 22, 2026 Energy UN chief urges countries to adopt fossil fuel transition plans with timelines In his last speech to the UN General Assembly, António Guterres for the first time called on every nation to deliver a plan to phase out coal, oil and gas while protecting workers Read more
• Jun 12, 2026 News European, island states seek clear future for global roadmap to cut fossil fuels Some European, small island and other nations argue the forthcoming roadmap should be part of UN climate talks, while Russia has resisted this idea Read more

In 2029 and 2030, Brazil sees the focus shifting to building an alternative energy system, by prioritising clean power, electric transport and heating, more efficient energy use and by rolling out the power grids and batteries that support them.

Only in the final stage, from 2031 to 2033, does the roadmap expect the main push to reduce fossil fuel production. By then, it argues, falling use of fossil fuels should allow producers to “adjust and diversify supply in step with demand”.

The roadmap acknowledges that fossil fuel demand must fall “substantially faster” to meet the 1.5C temperature goal, but warns that cutting supply too early would drive up prices and risk “losing societal support for the transition”.

Coordinated agenda

Pedro Brancante, a senior official at the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and one of the authors of the roadmap, said the document proposes both a global, coordinated agenda and accelerated action at the national level.

He told a webinar hosted by Climate Home News that Brazil sees the roadmap as a tool to organise the discussions around the fossil fuel phase-out and help that debate develop further without getting stuck on definitions or the different responsibilities of particular countries.

The COP30 presidency offered to draw up the roadmap in the dying hours of the Belém summit. A push by about 80 countries to start that work within the formal negotiations had been blocked by some fossil fuel-producing nations.

The 182-page document does not name any countries and it sets no deadlines for winding down fossil fuel production. But it offers countries a self-assessment tool to score themselves on how heavily they depend on fossil fuels and what capacity they have to move away from them.

Fossil fuel “archetypes”

Across energy demand, supply and the wider economy, countries can place themselves in one of 12 “archetypes”, each with its own suggested first steps.

For example, countries where transport, industry and homes still run mostly on fossil fuels, and where energy demand is growing fast, are urged to meet that growth with electric and other low-emissions options rather than locking in new fossil fuel use. Major oil and gas producers with strong institutions and good renewable resources are told to manage an “orderly transition” of their production while expanding clean energy, then to redirect their infrastructure and skills toward new energy industries.

COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago told journalists on Tuesday that countries need to recognise themselves in the categories and use the frameworks as “food for thought” to plan the next steps.

COP30 CEO Ana Toni added that the presidency limited its time horizon to 2033 and did not try to think about 2050 or 2060 because “there is an urgency and these are short-term measures” that all countries can act upon now.

Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive

Brazil has yet to publish its own national roadmap away from fossil fuels. At the end of last year, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva asked his government to draft the roadmap’s guidelines by February 2026, but officials said on Tuesday that the document is still awaiting approval from the President.

Lula, who was recently re-elected, has backed the expansion of oil and gas exploration. In August, after Petrobras struck oil off the coast near the mouth of the Amazon River, he said drilling along Brazil’s northern coast could be “a passport to the country’s future”.

“Valuable blueprint”

The release of the roadmap was largely welcomed by analysts and campaigners. 

Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said Brazil has offered “a valuable blueprint” for the fossil fuel phase-out, adding that while “there is not one-size-fits-all pathway”, all countries need to plan their transition now.

 But he warned that suggesting that a reduction in fossil fuel supply could wait until the 2030s would be “a grave mistake” and guarantee a “chaotic transition”. 

Smoke rises from Yatagan thermal power plant near southwestern town of Yatagan in Mugla province, Turkey, February 24, 2021. (Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas) Smoke rises from Yatagan thermal power plant near southwestern town of Yatagan in Mugla province, Turkey, February 24, 2021. (Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas)

Kat Paterson, programme lead for global clean power diplomacy at E3G, said the roadmap puts the fossil fuel transition at the heart of both global climate cooperation and national economic planning. 

“As governments head to Antalya, the task is now for the COP31 presidency to carry Brazil’s work forward, and for countries to demonstrate their own plans to develop national roadmaps as pathways towards clean, resilient economies,” she added. 

Turkey, which hosts COP31 from next Monday, and Australia, which will preside over the negotiations, have not said whether or how they will take the roadmap forward at the summit.

At the press conference in Brasilia, the Brazilian officials stressed that the roadmap represents a call for action and not a formal document that needs to be adopted in the official talks.

“We are not suggesting negotiations, we are not suggesting the creation of a new entity,” said Corrêa do Lago. “Everything is around implementation, around institutions and processes in place that already exist and have been agreed beforehand.”

The post Brazil’s fossil fuel roadmap sketches out first global timetable appeared first on Climate Home News.

By KD Chavez, executive director, Climate Justice Alliance

On September 30th, the Senate proposed the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA). This bill would gut bedrock environmental laws created over half a century ago, make it harder for communities to stand up for themselves, and make it easier for polluting industries to sue the federal government to keep destroying our planet.

The laws it targets—including National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Clean Water Act (CWA)—helped our nation transition away from a legacy of cities blanketed with smog and at least one river catching fire from pollution.

BAAJA claims it will create more jobs and make things more affordable, but faster approvals alone do not guarantee good jobs, lower energy costs, or healthy communities.

The bill eviscerates legal norms and common sense in two ways: weakening current protections and establishing new provisions.

Weakening Current Protections

NEPA is the reason governments do environmental reviews for significant projects that could have an impact on the human environment and fall under federal jurisdiction (whether on federal land or receiving funding). This is often the process that triggers public comment periods where communities are able to share how a proposal will impact them, and experts can weigh in. The end result of that review is a final determination on the project’s permit: if it is allowed to build, and if it must take measures to mitigate impacts to the environment or human health.

Before they even get to that point, projects need to be considered a major federal action, and determine if they qualify for a categorical exclusion (CATEX). CATEX basically means the government has already assessed that type of project and determined it doesn’t have a significant impact on the human environment, so no need to go through an environmental review process. BAAJA expands CATEX to include natural gas pipelines, new infrastructure built within already established rights-of-way, and repairs to facilities that can increase capacity of projects of up to 20%.

Let’s use a specific example to clear up all that jargon: imagine a company just proposed building a data center on federal lands and didn’t plan on using substantial federal funding, if the nearby transmission lines needed to be upgraded to power it and they needed to build diesel powered backup generators onsite, under BAAJA the project wouldn’t trigger an environmental review process. Without this public review, there would be no way for the public or decision makers to understand how the proposed activity could cause significant impact to the environment, like air quality and water resources. And remember, federal lands aren’t just far-away, pristine natural spaces, they include Superfund sites and other properties next to homes, schools, places of worship, and businesses all around this country.

Another consequence of reducing the amount of projects that receive federal review is that it limits the ability of Tribes as sovereign nations to provide input on permitting processes. This is clearly intentional because BAAJA doesn’t stop there. As the Native American Rights Fund shows in their analysis of the bill, it goes “so far as stripping cultural protections and Tribal participation in the [National Historic Preservation Act].” These rights of Tribal Nations played significant roles in recent organizing fights including the Dakota Access Pipeline losing its initial operational clearances after the federal government acknowledged important issues surfaced by Tribal Nations and their members hadn’t been addressed, and the Resolution Copper Mine on sacred Apache lands Oak Flats being forced to re-initiate government-to-government consultation.

What’s more, current law allows for judicial review up to six years after approval if someone can show the approving agency didn’t properly address concerns that were raised. BAAJA would limit that time to a mere 150 days. It also states that in order to sue, a party must have made a comment during review that “sufficiently detailed to put the applicable Federal agency on notice of the particular issue on which the party seeks judicial review.” Finally, it strips the court’s ability to issue preliminary injunctions that could stop construction while the case is determined. This mechanism for judicial review is what just stopped the first data center from being built on public lands in Nevada.

Essentially, the bill eviscerates communities’ democratic right for public comment on a project near, or in, their neighborhood, and it limits the legal options our communities have to fight bad projects in the courts—even when new impacts, harms, or new science is revealed.

Establishing New Provisions

Project Certainty and Disparate Impacts

BAAJA also focuses on the concept of project certainty. It’s an attempt from legislators to show corporations that once their permit has been approved, it is unlikely to be overturned. That might sound like common sense, especially given how hostile the Trump Administration has been to renewables. It’s also snake oil being sold to Democrats and a glaring handout to Big Oil and Big Tech, since it will prevent future administrations from reducing fossil fuel or AI data center build out on public lands.

BAAJA includes a section outlining “disparate treatment” for projects including a variety of mining and energy projects. This creates a pathway for corporations to sue the federal government if they feel their type of project has been discriminated against. On the surface, giving companies the power to sue the government over discrimination might sound positive—the current administration has stalled or canceled over 200 renewable energy projects and slowed down renewable energy permitting. However, it stipulates that they must be able to show an increase in federal authorizations or permit decisions or delays for that type of project compared to the most recent five calendar years. As Michael B. Gerrard of Columbia Law School pointed out in a recent expert opinion for Law.com, “One problem is that, depending on when a bill with this provision is enacted, the baseline will include two, three or four years of the second Trump administration, when there were many approvals of fossil projects and disapprovals or delays of many renewable projects. Thus any reversal of this pattern in a future administration could count as disparate treatment, making it more difficult to block fossil projects that the previous administration had approved.”

In a suit related to “disparate impacts”, a judge could award anywhere from half to the “total reasonably expected cost of construction of the project.”

For instance, since the federal government has already approved liquid natural gas export terminals or petrochemical plants in the past, if it chooses to not approve them in the future, the largest corporations on the planet could sue the government for billions in damages based on “disparate treatment.” Effectively corporations will be able to hold our taxpayer dollars hostage and tell the government, “let us build something that will harm people and planet, or hand over the money.” And, of course, this deregulatory deal does not have a single provision to address disparate impacts caused by fossil fuel pollution that hurt communities. The only thing it makes certain is that powerful project developers, such as AI data center developers, will profit at our expense.

Another Glaring Problem

Let’s set aside the issues with project certainty and disparate impacts laid out above, and assume BAAJA would be a boon to renewable energy like some proponents claim. Two major issues arise from this.

First, the report Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States: September 2026 Edition from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School found that by “the end of 2025, at least 888 state and local restrictions that were so severe they could have the effect of blocking renewable energy projects had been adopted.” This same report found local-level restrictions to “ordinances that impede the siting of utility-scale solar, wind, battery storage, and related transmission projects” in 46 states, while there were 19 state-level restrictions in place. Through the end of 2025 the report documents at least 567 contested projects.

Resistance to these projects, and the laws challenging them, are in large part being led by fossil fuel companies and their associated organizations, think tanks, and activists. We also cannot deny that when communities don’t like something and feel like their voices haven’t been heard, they’re going to fight against it—a company picking and choosing collateral damage isn’t being a good neighbor, regardless of whether they’re fossil fuels or renewables.

Despite the myth that community input delays projects, studies of energy projects have actually shown that lack of public engagement is cited as a major cause for delays. When people are excluded from decisions that affect their homes, health, and livelihoods, opposition is not irrational, it is predictable. Early and meaningful stakeholder engagement leads to better siting decisions, greater public trust, and faster project completion. BAAJA takes what has already become increasingly challenging, everyday people getting a say in what happens in their neighborhood, and promises to make it futile.

Understanding all this, we have been working to center impacted communities for years, including through the comprehensive input process we provided to build the Environmental Justice For All Act, first introduced in March 2020 by late Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Donald McEachin.

There Is an Answer – and It Is Community Led

While BAAJA might make it easier for some projects to get approval, it’s going to do more harm than good for our communities, our health, and our planet. It will fast track unpopular projects, especially pipelines and data centers. This proposed law takes away our power to determine our future, and hands it over to corporations, billionaires, and out-of-touch politicians.

Instead of BAAJA, we need durable permitting reform that:

• Puts communities at the table through early, ongoing engagement, and meaningful public participation.

• Accounts for cumulative harms by evaluating pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, public health, and existing environmental burdens.

• Strengthens the build out of responsible clean energy by modernizing transmission planning, strengthening federal oversight of interstate energy markets, and ensuring large energy users pay their fair share of grid costs.

• Invests in effective government through fully staffed agencies, stronger technical expertise, and better interagency coordination.

• Upholds constitutional Tribal sovereignty through meaningful government-to-government consultation and advancing Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.

• Ensures transparency and accountability through accessible permit information, environmental reviews, project status, and compliance records

What the people in power don’t want us to remember is that when we come together to stand up against an infrastructure project, we are practicing a fundamental right afforded to us in our constitution. It is what Democracy looks like the other 364 days a year when we don’t cast a ballot.

On the heels of the mid-term elections, in which the people have given a clear mandate to Congress to support and center people and democracy rather than corporate interests, now is not the time to settle and cede ground to those who see our neighborhoods as their dumping grounds: the corporations, and people running them, who see our loved ones as line items. This attempt at deregulation is the worst yet, with over 75 rollbacks, sacrificing working class people, and locking in pollution and injustice for decades to come.

Ultimately, the name of this bill says it all, it’s a bait and switch: putting buzzwords important to constituents in the title so legislators feel compelled to vote for it, regardless of what the fine print says.

We, the constituents, need to fight to stop this bill, ensure our elected leaders listen to the people and defend our rights, and then encourage them to pass common-sense and durable permitting reform that centers the people and planet.

The post New Permitting Bill in Senate Would Lock in Fossil Fuel Dominance for Generations appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

Workers at Indonesian nickel plants power the renewable energy industry. But the costs are steep.

Along the coast of Sulawesi Island in Eastern Indonesia, workers at the biggest nickel industrial park in Asia, Indonesia Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP), produce the nickel that is found in stainless steel, carbon steel, electronic devices, electric vehicle batteries and other consumer goods. Foreign companies and the Indonesian government grow rich from the speculation over demand for renewable energy technology and electric vehicles. Workers have paid a steep cost for doing the actual labor needed for nickel production. 

Between 2015 and 2025 there have been 107 worker deaths and 240 injuries at Indonesian nickel plants, 40 of which occurred at IMIP. In response, workers have been organizing to demand better occupational safety and health protections. They have often been met with union busting tactics and hostility.

IMIP is a sprawling 4,000 hectare industrial park that employs over 98,000 workers. Indonesia has strongly prioritized developing its nickel industry in the last decade, and currently produces 60% of the world’s nickel supply. According to research from 2023, nickel industrial parks in Morowali, Obi Island and in Halmahera supply a group of nine factories that account for 40% of electric vehicle battery production making them a key part of the supply chain. Yet, the benefits of this growth have remained concentrated among Indonesian politicians and foreign investors, particularly from China and Korea. 

Workers raise concerns about unsafe mine waste, long hours, and health issues

Some of these deaths have occurred in facilities where companies store toxic waste from mining, specifically in high pressure acid leaching tailings facilities. A report that Earthworks published earlier this year warns of the dangers that these facilities pose for workers, communities and the environment. Richard Labiro, director of the organization Yayasan Tanah Merdeka, stated that, “In Indonesia right now, these tailings facilities are a disaster by design. The risks created by the huge and growing amount of toxic waste are borne by workers, local communities, and the environment.” Just this year a worker at IMIP was killed when a tailings landslide buried the excavator he was operating. 

Some researchers have speculated that the high number of workplace accidents and fatalities might be linked to the long work hours that appear to be a common experience among workers at IMIP. One work schedule at the industrial park involves working 12 hours for two shifts in a row which often results in a 60 hour work week. According to the WHO, working long hours is a “serious health hazard” and is the “largest occupational disease burden.” 

Furthermore, workers have noticed growing health issues that merit further study and better access to treatment options. Recent research has shown significant air pollution around IMIP, specifically fine particulate matter (PM) levels that surpass the WHO guidelines by up to 10 times the limit during pollution peaks. High levels of PM have been linked to respiratory, cardiovascular, and cognitive problems. Workers at IMIP experience respiratory issues and health impacts from heat, noise and chemical exposure on the job. But beyond the unhealthy work conditions, the poor design and lack of regulation of these facilities, especially HPAL waste management facilities, cannot be ignored.

Workers pay the cost and offer solutions when mining isn’t safe

When we talk about frontline communities impacted by mining, it is important to remember that workers are often among those first impacted due to their proximity to projects. In the case of tailings management, there are clear examples of workers bearing the brunt of tailings mismanagement. One of the most horrific tailings failures, the Brumadinho failure in Brazil in 2019, had such a high fatality rate because the worker cafeteria was constructed directly below the tailings dam and the dam failed during workers’ lunch break. 

In Indonesia, workers and civil society organizations are sounding the alarm as tailings facilities have caused workplace fatalities at multiple nickel sites, pointing to a systemic problem with tailings management and workplace safety across the industry. Workers often have valuable insights into the safety of mine waste facilities, and protecting whistleblowers from retaliation can help prevent accidents. Due to their expertise, workers and labor unions should also be an integral part of decisions made regarding occupational health and safety.

Workers reject recent contract negotiations as PT IMIP negotiates in bad faith

Last month, labor unions at IMIP underwent negotiations for a new employment contract. However, the outcome was rejected by union members, who allege that the company failed to follow proper procedures—altering the final draft of the contract so that it no longer reflected the agreements reached during negotiations—and, ultimately, disregarded many key demands. 

On Saturday, October 31, workers occupied the offices of PT IMIP to protest the new contract, as well as the manner in which the negotiation and contract drafting process was conducted. They plan to continue their protests at government offices from November 3 – 7, to demand that negotiations restart in an open and transparent manner.

Workers protest at PT IMIP headquarters. Photo courtesy of FSPIM.

The membership of FSPIM, a union federation that organizes workers across three provinces in Indonesia, demands for IMIP management to: 

1. provide a living wage that increases in line with inflation;
2. improve occupational safety and health practices with the goal of zero workplace accidents or fatalities;
3. implement strict policies to protect women workers from sexual harassment and violence in the workplace and to simplify the process to access their legally-protected right to menstrual and maternity leave; and
4. respect workers’ right to unionize and end all union-busting tactics, such as harassment, retaliation and layoffs.

A declaration on mining and the energy transition drafted by Earthworks and signed by 168 organizations and unions states that communities, the environment and workers’ rights must be put first for a truly just and equitable energy transition. The Declaration calls for centering the human rights of Indigenous, frontline communities, and workers and prioritizing solutions that reduce the overall demand for primary metals through strategies such as reuse, reduction, recycling, and design for disassembly. It calls for health and safety protections for workers and communities at all stages of the supply chain.

The environmental and community-level harms occurring at nickel mining sites in Indonesia are intimately tied to the horrible consequences of labor violations and lack of respect for the rights of workers. A just energy transition cannot follow the same extractivist patterns that caused the climate crisis. When companies fall into these old patterns, they cause interrelated harms towards workers, communities and the environment that stand in the way of truly sustainable progress. 

It is imperative that IMIP swiftly heed workers’ demands and reopen negotiations in a fair and transparent way.

The post Nickel Workers Call for Reforms as Deaths and Injuries Add Up appeared first on Earthworks.

Print article Share

The upcoming COP31 climate talks in Antalya, Turkey need to respond to the latest science on global warming, which is “really scary”, says UK climate minister Katie White.

In an interview with Carbon Brief setting out the UK’s priorities for the summit, White also responds to suggestions that the government is walking back its climate policies.

White says the “shocking” impact of extreme heat and wildfires this summer makes it clear that climate change “isn’t something far off; it’s something we’re living through”.

She adds that the UK will be working to “hold up the science”, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that should be the “basis of discussions”.

The COP31 presidency push on electrification is “going to be key”, says White, who points to other priorities for the UK that include tackling methane emissions and reducing deforestation.

White says the recent approval of the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea is “fully in line” with carbon budgets and that the UK continues to support the “transition away from fossil fuels”.

She adds that the Hormuz crisis has helped drive the “biggest uptake…we’ve ever seen” in the UK for solar, electric vehicles and heat pumps.

Finally, White defends the new approach set out in the budget by chancellor John Healey, including a greater focus on affordability, as a “natural evolution” of UK government policy.

Carbon Brief: Katie White, thank you very much for joining Carbon Brief today. Next week we’re going to be heading to COP31 climate talks in Antalya in Turkey. 

We’ve seen this year the UN warning that a temporary overshoot of 1.5C degrees is now inevitable. We’ve had 50,000 excess heat deaths across Europe this summer. We’ve had extreme weather events hitting Nepal, deadly floods there. Heading into the talks, what would you say the UK’s priorities are?

Katie White: Thanks, Simon. Look, just to say, it’s great to be here. I’m a big fan of Carbon Brief and the work you’ve been doing. I think it’s incredibly important that there are people who are focused on the facts and have really excellent commentary. So just to say thank you, and it’s good to be here to discuss with you.

Look, this year has been a very significant year in terms of climate, particularly sat here in the UK. I think we have really felt the impacts of climate change for the first time. For you and me, who’ve been working on this for a long time [and] we talk about it. But even so – I don’t know how you felt – but I was even shocked by the implications of what that was for everyday life, for people actually sleeping at night. You know, in terms of parliament, I had colleagues who had to go pick up their children because their schools weren’t available, and you know, tragedies in terms of older people struggling in the heat.

Not to mention the wildfires that we had across the country. I went to visit one in Romford and I think just standing – literally in the ashes – and seeing people’s homes really close by. My colleague in Stourbridge, obviously, they had burnt-out houses – you know, devastating. And you think about it – and I talked with her about – the actual real-life implications of that. 

Membership

Support award-winning climate journalism Join CB+

Obviously, people think about it, but then the after-effects, and you know the challenges with insurance and the challenge with all these sky boxes, and all of the things that come –  those smaller things, as well as the tragedies around your photos, and all of that being lost.

So I think it’s really opened, sadly, another door for us in terms of the climate-change journey. This isn’t something far off; it’s something we’re living through. I know that’s been the case for many countries for a long time, but it really felt like a shift here in the UK.

You’re right, the science, once again, is really scary. The overshoot report is incredibly concerning. Scientifically, obviously, they look for a longer period. But I think the main message – for me as a politician – is this is really worrying. And every year we have another call to action. How do we translate that call into actual delivery? And that’s the bit we need to make sure of, because you know, I think we have to be listening to the science, and the science is fundamental and key. And we might talk about the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and all the elements of that. But also, for me, how do we translate that?

It’s not, as you all know, it’s not the big global stocktake COP [this year in Antalya]. So it’s not going to be that big event, where we have it every five years. But we still need to be making significant progress. So we really focus a lot on the science, on the “action agenda” and on those political decisions – that “cover decision” that the Australian presidency [of negotiations] has said that they’re going to pursue.

So in terms of the action agenda, which obviously the Turkish [presidency] has led on and [has] been really forthright about leading on this, I think electrification is going to be key. It’s something that shot up the agenda. 

I think most of your audience will know what electrification is, but for anyone outside of the climate bubble [it is] around electrifying our homes, electrifying our transportation. And in the UK, we’ve done a good job of decarbonising our electricity system, but we need to be pulling down on that and increasing demand to make sure that we take full advantage of the clean electricity that we have, which would be good for bills, but also around reducing our emissions as well. So something around electrification, we’re expecting a lot of talk of that. [It is] something the Turks have been talking about a lot.

Methane is another area which we’ve been working on, but I expect there will be some progress in terms of methane. Forests, you’ll know that we’ve pledged an investment to the [Tropical Forest Forever] TFFF, so we will be hoping for some momentum around that forests agenda. 

So, I think, those are some of the really practical areas of action, as well as making sure we’re moving forward, holding up the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change], holding up the science, so we can keep moving forward and making progress on any of those areas within the cover decision that the Australians will obviously steer us through.

CB: Great, thank you. You mentioned electrification. Obviously, that’s a target announced by the Turkish presidency earlier this year. They said they want to see the adoption of a global target for 35% of final energy to come from electricity by 2035. 

At the moment, it’s a voluntary sign-on pledge, but presumably that’s something that could enter into the cover decision, as you mentioned. I guess I’m wondering: is the UK going to sign up to that, if it remains as a voluntary pledge? And would the UK like to see that in the cover decision, brought formally into the [COP31] outcome?

KW: Good questions. Look, so we’ll wait and see how we manage the next couple of weeks in terms of [that]. I think we have definitely, domestically, been looking at electrification and how we take advantage of the clean electricity that we have more effectively. Because of the Middle East crisis, broadly, we’ve seen interest in EVs, in solar panels and heat pumps, just shoot up this year, as people have got increasingly concerned about energy prices. And for those who are in a position, you know, a lot of them have taken advantage.

So we are seeing shifts in the market, and we’re looking at what role we can play to encourage and accelerate that. Whether it’s supporting the rollout of charging points for electric vehicles. You’ll probably know this, Simon, but there are more public charging points in the UK now than petrol pumps, which I think is an incredible fact – and most people don’t know. That’s not including those within driveways, of which nearly 70% of the UK has access to a driveway, so all of those people who might have their own home charging, there is more public.

We are making this infrastructure more easy, more accessible, so that people can make that shift. But we are [already] seeing the shift, you know, we’ve got two million EVs on the road. Super excitingly for the motor geeks, the second-hand [EV] car market is really starting to – excuse the pun – “motor”. Actually, that does mean a big shift in terms of accessibility.

So we’re seeing this happen within the UK. We’ll look at whether that’s a helpful target for us, but in terms of the focus, the ambition on electrification in the UK will remain. And I’m really pleased to see it as part of the negotiations this year or the action agenda.

It was interesting to see the Europeans do their own electrification – I don’t know whether they called it a plan or a roadmap, everybody gets caught up on these words – but they also brought forward [an “action plan”]. So obviously, we’re looking at where we can, you know, be a little bit more aligned with them.

CB: You mentioned roadmaps. Now, obviously, last year at the COP, the big debate, slightly outside of the formal negotiations, was around the idea of a roadmap away from fossil fuels and the UK was one of more than 100 countries that were really pushing for that to again be brought into the formal outcome of the summit in Brazil. Is that something that the UK is going to be pushing again this year?

KW: For sure. So look, we very much support the agenda around the transition away from fossil fuels. You know, in terms of, how do we support countries, how do we work together in terms of moving away from that? You’ll know that Rachel Kyte, our special representative, was in Santa Marta in April of this year to talk through [this topic] and we hosted a follow-up event at Wilton Park around the London Climate Action Week. So you know, very keen to support and work that through.

It’s obviously a hard agenda, but it’s something that I think we should have been discussing for a while in terms of the COP processes. So it was great that we managed to do that. I think it was as a result of lots of different people talking about it, different campaigns, different, you know, how do we work together around this, in terms of managing the resources we have most effectively, and transitioning away. [That’s] for climate reasons, for health reasons and, in large part, economic reasons as well.

UK climate minister Katie White during a Zoom interview with Carbon Brief. Credit: Carbon Brief

CB: Great. You mentioned the IPCC timeline. This is obviously something that’s been rolling on for quite a while. There’s been a group of countries making a concerted effort to delay the publication of the next IPCC assessment report, so that it won’t align with the next global stocktake under the Paris Agreement. 

The UK, as far as I understand, is pushing for that timeline to be accelerated, or to at least align with the stocktake. I just want to confirm that that’s the UK’s position and then ask, what is your understanding of the arguments being made for not doing that, for not aligning those timelines?

KW: So look, we obviously would like to have as much of the science ready for the global stocktake. That would be the ideal outcome in terms of what we are looking for, and we have said that we will continue to say that we would also like an outcome. 

So, in a sense, we would like to make sure that we have a decision and we are moving this forward, and we don’t get caught up in having longer negotiations, which stall us making any progress at all.

I wasn’t at the [IPCC] meeting this autumn, but in terms of [what] I understand, [IPCC chair Prof] Jim Skea did a good job of trying to navigate that and making sure that this is inclusive. We want to listen to concerns around inclusivity, but we also want to make progress, because of the reasons that we talked about right up front: there is some really scary science going forward. The IPCC is peer-reviewed, it’s the best in the world, and we want to make sure that that is the basis of discussions.

So the more we can align that together, the better. But we’re also practical. We want to work with everybody. We want to listen to everybody. But we are keen to move that forward and hold up the IPCC in the way it has been. It’s become the most respected, established platform for all that the negotiations are based on. 

CB: Great, thank you. I want to turn to the UK now, if I can. So, under the Paris Agreement, the UK has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 68% below 1990 levels by 2030. In June, the Climate Change Committee, in its assessment, said something like 17% of the cuts required to meet that target just didn’t have plans in place. 

The government’s own carbon budget delivery plan said that current policies were falling short of what would be needed. And then, obviously, since then we’ve had a number of cuts. We’ve had cuts to heat pump subsidies, cuts to hydrogen and carbon-capture and storage. We’re expecting to see further watering down of the zero-emission vehicles mandate for electric vehicles. We just had approval of new drilling at Jackdaw. We may also see Rosebank being approved. 

When you’re at the COP in Antalya, how will you be reassuring UK partners that the UK remains committed to its climate pledge?

KW: So look, it’s absolutely right that you pick out any of the challenges – and say where the challenges are to our evidence. That’s really helpful, as part of our process of doing that. I would also then say, there are a whole bunch of other things – on the side of positives – that are moving forward, some of which we have touched on.

We put forward a carbon budget growth and delivery plan last year that we had to redo, because obviously there had been a legal challenge. We did that. It was a very comprehensive process. You know, a huge amount of work to make sure that we were on track to deliver that. So that is the case. The Climate Change Committee was obviously coming back on what was happening now, and we will report to parliament [in response to the committee] in the normal way. I will leave that report to talk for itself when it comes out to parliament.

We also – the great thing about the Climate Change Act and the carbon budgets is that it does allow flexibility over time. You have that trajectory, you have the volume of emissions over time, but it does allow you to adjust and course correct. There are things, in terms of challenges, that come forward.

So let’s take the Middle East crisis. Obviously, that’s been a big disruption to our energy and climate system. Arguably, one of the biggest disruptions we’ve ever had. Now, that has led to a few things happening. 

One is to say that electrification – you know, people are moving towards the biggest uptake in solar, heat pumps and EVs that we’ve ever seen. So we’re seeing that trajectory go up. That’s great, and that is on the positive side. At the same time, it has meant geopolitically, people are looking at their energy security and where you do have access to fossil fuels, people are considering those options.

We made the Jackdaw decision fully in line [with our carbon budgets]. We looked at the emissions – and emissions would actually be a tiny bit lower because of transportation from Norway. So it is absolutely within those boundaries. 

But of course, I’m constantly keeping an eye on how that budget is moving. In the same way that over the road [in Whitehall] at HMT [the Treasury], they’re keeping an eye on their financial budget, as they should do, I will keep an eye on the carbon budget, as will the secretary of state [Miatta Fahnbulleh]. So we will be keeping a look.

But I think let’s also be clear that the UK has got a good story to tell. I of course want it to be better, and that’s part of my job, to make sure that we have the next chapter evolving and we can keep telling our story. 

UK climate minister Katie White during a Zoom interview with Carbon Brief. Credit: Carbon Brief

But right now, we have a pretty good story to tell. You know, we’ve got over [a] 50% reduction in emissions, whilst having 80% [economic] growth since 1990. So we have got a good story to tell. We are making those transitions and we will continue to say that. But also, we’ll continue to listen and learn because nobody has got the perfect plan for this. No one country has got all the answers or the solutions. 

So I think, being clear where we’ve had success, being honest where it’s not worked, and having a bit of humility to learn from others along the way, is how we’re going to approach the COP.

CB: Great, thank you. I want to ask about climate finance. The UK is one of the only major donors to have made a new climate-finance pledge, offering £6bn, I believe, over three years. However, that is, relative to the last financial year, roughly halving; it was about £4bn in 2025-26 and it’s [now] £6bn over three years, so roughly £2bn a year. 

Again, I’m just curious how you’re going to be talking about that with the UK’s international partners, the developing countries that will be looking to the UK for that kind of support.

KW: In terms of the £6bn, so look, let’s also be clear. So you’re absolutely right that we – the [previously pledged] £11.6bn was over a five-year period. The £6bn is over a three-year period, and we’re also talking about an additional £6bn in terms of other sources that we’re looking at. So it is still a sizeable amount of money and investment. 

Of course, it’s not enough in terms of what the need is, and as the need increases over time, we need to be exploring other options, which is why I’m very excited about the TFFF, because it starts a new way of mobilising finance, which might unlock a whole other range of capital, which is urgently needed.

So, look, we have the £11.6bn [and] we delivered absolutely every bit of it. So I think we’re seen as someone who is a credible donor, who delivers what they say we’re going to do. We’ve also laid out a plan. We’ve been working across government with my colleagues at the Foreign Office and with Defra [Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] in terms of how we’re going to do that. Which, again, was something that developing countries were really keen [on], that we laid out that plan beforehand, so that there is some element of expectation, and it’s not, you know, done at the last minute, and they can plan ahead at the same time.

We are, you know, the biggest donors of the Green Climate Fund as well, and we’ve looked at how we protect the climate element of our resources within the ODA [overseas development aid] cuts, which have been a cut to our international development aid, I can’t say anything different to that. So we have looked at how we protect [climate] within it.  [In fact, the UK is now the fourth-largest contributor to the Green Climate Fund, following a government decision earlier this year to only honour half of its most recent pledge.]

So, look, of course, I will be talking about what we have done and what we continue to do, and how we’ve listened to countries and laid that [plan] out, so there is some element that they can help plan ahead. But also, looking at what those alternative sources, for instance, around the structuring of the TFFF, to make sure we’re looking at other options, because we do need to meet the need. The need is growing, and the finance pot needs to do the same.

CB: Thank you. One final question, if I may. Last week we obviously had the first budget from the new chancellor, John Healey. There’s been a lot of conversation and media coverage since that budget about what he described as a new path for energy policy in the UK. There’s been quite a lot of media coverage – and perhaps briefing from government insiders and so on – suggesting that this is a real shift in the government’s approach. Effectively, giving up on – or putting slightly to the side – the clean power 2030 target. 

Again, you’re going to be going into the COP next week. People, I’m sure, will have been reading the papers. I wonder how you will explain to them what’s going on?

KW: So, look, the first thing I’d say is it was great to hear the chancellor say on the floor of the house [of parliament] about net-zero, his commitment to net-zero by 2050 and our steadfast approach to delivering that. I think it’s really helpful. You know, the chancellor’s voice counts for a lot. We’ve heard the prime minister say it twice. He’s written articles on it as well, so it’s great to see that commitment from the top. There has been a lot of politicisation around net-zero, so I think the direction of travel is absolutely clear.

[The] secretary of state has said that her number one aim is around affordability. We know that we are in a cost of living crisis. At the same time, the Climate Change Committee has said the best thing we could do [to lower emissions] is bring down electricity prices, and so I think there is a really great alignment between those three things [cost, climate and security].

The clean-power mission has been incredibly effective in terms of getting a lot of clean power built. We now need to make sure we’re utilising that clean power across the board, and we need to, and we want to do it in the most cost-effective way possible.

As you can probably hear from my accent, I’m from Yorkshire. We’re a little bit tight [careful with money] and I want to make sure that we are using that energy most effectively. And the system at the moment is not set up to do that. There are some pretty ineffective elements of it, that we want to make sure that we’re using far more effectively. 

So I think that is the shift we’re looking at. We’re now in the next chapter of, how do we make sure that energy – and specifically electricity – is as affordable as possible for consumers, for our constituents up and down the country, but also for small businesses. And how do we make sure that demand, that use of the grid, is [met by] connecting some of these great [clean-energy projects]. 

You know, the last government did build some of these offshore wind turbines. They just didn’t connect them all, so we need to make sure that we’ve got all of these things connected, and then we’re utilising it really effectively, and we’re supporting consumers and businesses to draw down on that.

So I think it’s a really exciting opportunity for us. But I think it’s just a natural evolution of the next step, to make sure that the UK citizens are getting the best value from the infrastructure that we already have.

CB: Brilliant, very, very quickly, before you have to go, the UK is going to be leading the umbrella group of countries at the COP. So coming back to the COP, I’m just curious how the UK is going to deal with being in that spotlight [and] make use of that position?

KW: Look, we are sending a great team of ministers to the COP. Obviously, the secretary of state, it’s going to be her first time leading the delegation, but our ex-secretary of state [Ed Miliband] is there in his new role. He’s going as the foreign secretary and the prime minister [Andy Burnham] is going, and I will also be there as well. So I think we are turning up, making sure that Britain is fully part of the conversation.

We do that in lots of different ways, whether it’s part of the umbrella group or whether it’s on our own or whether it’s part of – I co-chair the Forest and Climate Leaders Partnership. We’re always looking at ways where the UK can show up and try to make a positive difference.

So again, I think we’ll be doing that, but working closely with our umbrella colleagues. We’ve been in the group, so it’s a natural step for us to step up and do that. But I think operating in different areas of the ecosystem helps us to make sure we can bring forward a really comprehensive, thoughtful approach to the negotiations.

CB: Brilliant! Thanks very much, Katie, and great to have you.

article information

This interview was conducted by Dr Simon Evans via Zoom on 2 November 2026. Video editing by Joe Goodman.

Related UK budget 2026: Key climate and energy announcements 28.10.2026 UK policy Analysis: How the UK spent more than £11.6bn on climate aid since 2021 28.10.2026 UK policy Revealed: UK relied on £2bn of ‘questionable accounting’ to hit its climate-aid goal 28.10.2026 UK policy Q&A: Why are UK energy bills so high – and how could they be lowered? 27.10.2026 Oil and gas

The post UK climate minister Katie White: COP31 must respond to ‘really scary’ science appeared first on Carbon Brief.

November 3, 2026 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SUWA Statement on Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 – 11.3.26  Bill would gut bedrock environmental laws that protect Southern Utah’s wildest places 

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org

Washington, DC – Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) have introduced the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA); a vote on the floor of the Senate to expedite the bill towards a final Senate vote could occur as soon as Monday, November 9. Below is a statement from SUWA DC Director Travis Hammill and additional information on the bill’s potential impact on public lands in Southern Utah. 

“Southern Utah’s wild places and cultural sites have remained intact in no small part because of bedrock environmental and historic preservation laws. This bill imperils those hard-won protections and places industry in the driver’s seat,” said Travis Hammill, DC Director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “If you care about keeping public participation a core component of public lands decisions, the federal government being forced to think before it acts, Tribal sovereignty, or clean air and water, you should be opposed to this bill and we encourage you to reach out your members of Congress, immediately.”  

Additional information: 

Here’s just a few ways the bill would impact Southern Utah’s wildest public lands: 

• It will lock in harmful development projects on public lands, preventing future administrations from taking any action on these permitted projects even if those projects were approved illegally. This includes permits for data centers, oil and gas drilling approvals, and hard rock mining authorizations. In Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, this bill could preclude future administrations from taking corrective action on the more than 110 mining claims filed on lands within the original boundaries of the monuments that President Trump unlawfully cut by nearly 90%. The bill will also make it extremely difficult for the public to challenge development of those mining claims, permanently greenlighting endless development and harm for these iconic landscapes.  

• It will undermine Tribal sovereignty while threatening sacred and irreplaceable cultural sites. Southern Utah holds tens of thousands of cultural sites reflecting thousands of years of human history. The bill effectively rewrites provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act to restrict what is considered an important cultural site, make consultation with Tribes and communities optional and require fewer environmental impacts to be taken into consideration. These changes would limit the power of Tribal Nations to define the places that matter to them and minimize if not eliminate opportunities for Tribal Nations to be heard. 

• It will fast-track the already rapid acceleration of data center proposals on public lands. In Utah and across the country, communities are demanding greater transparency and input as data centers are rapidly built. Proposals like Project Beehive in Carbon County have many unanswered questions about their legality and potential impacts, but would be expedited if the bill passed.   

• Decreases transparency in decision making by narrowing the projects subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and limiting the public’s ability to review and comment on projects that impact public lands. 

Analysis and materials by other organizations and recent media: 

• 6 threats to public lands in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, The Wilderness Society, Oct. 15, 2026 

• The National Congress of American Indians and 8 other tribal letter to Congress, arguing BAAJA undermines Tribal sovereignty and threatens sacred sites, Oct. 9, 2026.  

• Native American Rights Fund statement: “(BAAJA) has significant impacts on the ability of Tribal Nations to participate meaningfully in permitting issues that can effect their land, water, and cultural interests.” Oct. 15, 2026 

• Senate Permitting Reform Bill: If It Passes, Will It Work?, Center on Global Energy Policy, Oct. 27, 2026 

• NRDC Assessment of BAAJA, the 2026 Permitting and Transmission Bill, Oct. 27, 2026 

• More Than Just Parks: Senate Permitting Bill Is a Betrayal of Our Public Lands. Oct. 16, 2026 

• Center for Western Priorities: The Senate permitting bill would lock in data centers and nuclear waste on public lands. It only gets worse from there. Oct. 21, 2026.  

• The proposed U.S. infrastructure permitting reform bill would be a disaster for communities and for climate action, Oil Change International, Oct. 26 2026 

• A ‘Bipartisan’ Bill to Dismantle the Nation’s Bedrock Environmental Law, The Revelator, Oct. 23 2026 

• ‘Permitting Reform’ Is a Giveaway to Data Centers and Fossil Fuels, Common Dreams, Oct. 26, 2026 

• Why green groups won’t endorse the Senate permitting deal, Latitude Media, Oct.23, 2026 

• The Worst Thing That’s Ever Happened to Public Lands Could Be a New Bill You’ve Never heard Of, Wes Siler. Oct. 28, 2026.  

• John Podesta Says Permitting Deal Hands Trump ‘a Loaded Howitzer, Heatmap, Oct. 27 2026 

• Podesta warns of ‘loaded howitzer’ in permitting bill, Politico, Oct. 27, 2026 

### 
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards a world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org. 

The post SUWA Statement on Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 – 11.3.26  appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

For decades, Kenyan farmers have faced exposure to pesticides banned or restricted in their manufacturers’ home countries.

The post Kenya: Double standards in the agrochemical use and trade appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

After repeated delays, the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) was officially launched this week – tasked with financing oil and gas projects across the continent as global lenders retreat from such investments due to climate concerns.

Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at about 125 billion barrels of crude and more than 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to fund economic development.

“The creation of the Africa Energy Bank reaffirms African governments’ determination to secure their own energy future,” said a statement announcing the institution’s launch at a meeting in Abuja, adding that the bank’s founders believed oil and gas remained vital to the continent’s energy systems.

The delays to the bank’s launch had raised questions about its momentum and whether it could mobilise investment to finance major African hydrocarbons initiatives in an era of energy transition.

The initial plan for the energy bank – a joint initiative of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) and the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) – was to start operations in January 2025, but the bank’s opening was repeatedly pushed back.

Quest for investment

The bank said it had authorised capital of $5 billion but did not disclose how much of that had been subscribed or paid in by shareholders. It vowed to focus on projects that would help strengthen productive capacity, reduce reliance on imported fuels and promote trade in energy goods across the continent.

• Sep 11, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Made in Nigeria: The race to build an African solar industry from scratch A solar power revolution is gathering pace in Africa and Nigeria wants a slice of the fast-growing industry, but competing with Chinese imports won’t be easy Read more
• Sep 21, 2026 Comment Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis  With hundreds of millions of Africans still lacking electricity access, global electrification goals must reflect the continent’s realities and deliver development alongside connections Read more
• Mar 2, 2026 News Uganda cites contentious IEA fossil fuel scenario backed by Trump administration Critics of the African nation’s oil ambitions say referencing the International Energy Agency’s most pessimistic scenario for climate action is a risky policy Read more

It estimates Africa’s energy investment needs at $200 billion, and energy analysts told Climate Home News the institution could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale projects.

However, its backers said at the weekend launch that the bank would seek investment from governments, national oil companies, financial institutions and private investors across the continent to ensure that “Africa’s energy future is shaped by Africans”.

African-led approach to energy financing

Backers said the bank was needed because many traditional international lenders have curtailed financing for oil and gas projects, potentially hindering a more extended and gradual energy transition advocated by many African leaders as a way to ensure economic and social development.

Chantal Naidoo, executive director at Rabia – a South Africa-based just transition think-tank – said the creation of a bank to invest in fossil fuel projects reflected the complexities of switching to clean energy for African countries – noting the high cost of financing for clean energy projects.

Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight

At the same time, Naidoo said, the continent is expected to transition within a global system in which the rules are not applied equally – citing recent support for continued oil and gas development by the British and Norwegian governments. 

“A binary choice between fossil fuels and renewables does little to address these complexities,” Naidoo said.

“Momentum lies with renewables”

But many climate campaigners say the bank should prioritise renewable energy investment as Africa builds out much of its energy system for the first time, fueling growth in solar power.

Data from energy think-tank Ember, published in August, projects that the continent will install a record 17 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity in 2026 – equal to about 100,000 solar panels every day. This would mark the third consecutive year of record growth, following increases of 51% in 2025 and 25% in 2024.

African governments strengthen waste rules as solar and battery use surges

Joseph Ibrahim, Nigeria campaign director for Secure Energy Project, a global advocacy organisation working to accelerate the energy transition, said Africa receives only about 2% of global clean energy spending, leaving plenty of scope for more.

“A new African energy bank should build on that momentum, not pull scarce public money away from it,” Ibrahim said.

The post Africa launches long-delayed energy bank to finance fossil fuel projects appeared first on Climate Home News.

Para pekerja di industri nikel Indonesia turut menopang industri energi terbarukan. Namun, mereka justru harus membayar harga yang sangat mahal.

English version

Di Indonesia bagian timur, di pesisir Pulau Sulawesi, terdapat kawasan industri nikel terbesar di Asia, yakni Indonesia Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP). Di sana, para pekerja memproduksi nikel yang digunakan dalam berbagai produk, mulai dari baja tahan karat, baja karbon, perangkat elektronik, baterai kendaraan listrik hingga berbagai barang konsumsi lainnya.Spekulasi akan terus meningkatnya permintaan nikel sebagai bahan baku untuk mendukung pengembangan teknologi energi terbarukan dan kendaraan listrik telah mendorong pesatnya industri ini, sekaligus mendatangkan keuntungan besar bagi perusahaan-perusahaan asing maupun pemerintah Indonesia.Ironisnya, di balik pertumbuhan pesat industri tersebut, para pekerjalah yang harus menanggung dampak terberat dari proses produksi nikel.

Dalam kurun waktu sejak tahun 2015 hingga 2025, tercatat dari 107 pekerja meninggal dunia dan 240 pekerja mengalami cedera di berbagai fasilitas industri nikel di Indonesia. Sebanyak 40 kasus kematian di antaranya terjadi di IMIP. Menanggapi kondisi tersebut, para pekerja mulai mengorganisir gerakan untuk menuntut perlindungan keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja (K3) yang lebih baik. Namun, upaya mereka sering kali dihadapkan pada berbagai tindakan pemberangusan serikat pekerja (union busting) dan sikap permusuhan.

IMIP merupakan kawasan industri seluas 4.000 hektare yang mempekerjakan lebih dari 98.000 pekerja. Dalam satu dekade terakhir, Indonesia memberikan prioritas besar pada pengembangan industri nikel sehingga kini menghasilkan sekitar 60 persen dari pasokan nikel dunia. Berdasarkan penelitian tahun 2023, kawasan industri nikel di Morowali, Pulau Obi, dan Halmahera memasok sembilan pabrik yang secara keseluruhan menyumbang 40 persen produksi baterai kendaraan listrik. Hal ini menempatkan kawasan-kawasan tersebut sebagai tulang punggung rantai pasok industri baterai kendaraan listrik. Namun, keuntungan dari pertumbuhan industri ini masih terkonsentrasi pada kalangan politisi Indonesia dan investor asing, terutama dari Tiongkok dan Korea.

Para pekerja mengemukakan kekhawatiran terkait limbah tambang yang tidak aman, jam kerja yang panjang, dan masalah kesehatan

Sebagian kasus kematian tersebut terjadi di fasilitas dimana perusahaan menyimpan limbah beracun dari kegiatan pertambangan, khususnya di fasilitas penyimpanan tailing dari proses high pressure acid leaching (HPAL). Mengacu pada laporan yang diterbitkan Earthworks awal tahun ini, telah diperingatkan bahaya yang ditimbulkan fasilitas tersebut bagi para pekerja, masyarakat sekitar, dan lingkungan. Richard Labiro, Direktur Yayasan Tanah Merdeka, menyatakan, “Saat ini di Indonesia, fasilitas tailing seperti ini memang seperti sudah didesain untuk menimbulkan bencana di kemudian hari. Risiko yang ditimbulkan limbah beracun dalam jumlah yang sangat besar dan terus bertambah ini harus ditanggung oleh para pekerja, masyarakat sekitar, dan lingkungan.” Tahun ini saja, seorang pekerja di IMIP meninggal dunia setelah longsoran tailing menimbun ekskavator yang sedang dioperasikannya.

Sejumlah peneliti menduga bahwa tingginya angka kecelakaan dan kematian di tempat kerja tersebut mempunyai kaitan dengan panjangnya jam kerja yang sepertinya sudah menjadi hal umum di kalangan pekerja IMIP. Salah satu pola kerja di kawasan industri tersebut mengkondisikan pekerja untuk bekerja selama 12 jam dalam dua sif berturut-turut, sehingga jam kerja mereka sering kali mencapai 60 jam dalam seminggu. Menurut WHO, jam kerja yang panjang adalah “bahaya serius bagi kesehatan” dan “berpotensi terbesar menimbulkan penyakit.”

Selain itu, para pekerja mulai merasakan banyak gangguan kesehatan yang bermunculan yang perlu diteliti lebih lanjut, dan mereka membutuhkan akses yang lebih baik untuk mendapatkan layanan pengobatan. Penelitian terbaru menunjukkan adanya tingkat pencemaran udara yang cukup tinggi di sekitar IMIP, khususnya terkait konsentrasi partikulat halus (particulate matter atau PM) yang pada titik puncak polusi dapat mencapai 10 kali lipat di atas batas yang direkomendasikan WHO. Paparan PM berkadar tinggi diketahui dapat menimbulkan berbagai gangguan pernapasan, kardiovaskular, dan fungsi kognitif. Para pekerja di IMIP sendiri telah mengalami gangguan pernapasan serta berbagai dampak kesehatan akibat paparan panas, suara bising, dan bahan kimia di tempat kerja. Namun, persoalannya bukan hanya kondisi kerja yang tidak sehat. Buruknya desain serta lemahnya regulasi terhadap fasilitas-fasilitas tersebut, terutama fasilitas pengelolaan limbah HPAL, juga harus diperhitungkan.

Para pekerja menanggung biayanya dan menawarkan solusi ketika kegiatan pertambangan tidak aman

Ketika kita berbicara mengenai masyarakat yang berada di garis depan, dan mereka yang terdampak kegiatan pertambangan, penting untuk diingat bahwa para pekerja merupakan kelompok pertama yang merasakan dampaknya, karena mereka berada paling dekat dengan lokasi kegiatan. Dalam pengelolaan tailing, ada sejumlah contoh nyata bagaimana para pekerja harus menanggung dampak terberat akibat buruknya pengelolaan tailing. Salah satu bencana tailing yang paling mengerikan pernah terjadi di Brumadinho, Brasil, pada tahun 2019. Bencana tersebut menelan begitu banyak korban jiwa karena kantin pekerja dibangun tepat di bawah bendungan tailing. Pada saat bendungan tersebut jebol, para pekerja sedang berada di kantin untuk makan siang.

Di Indonesia, para pekerja dan organisasi masyarakat sipil telah menyuarakan peringatan setelah terjadinya insiden-insiden di fasilitas tailing yang menyebabkan kematian pekerja di sejumlah lokasi industri nikel. Kondisi ini menunjukkan adanya persoalan sistemik terkait pengelolaan tailing dan keselamatan kerja di industri tersebut. Para pekerja mempunyai pengetahuan dan pengalaman langsung yang sangat penting untuk diperhatikan terkait keamanan fasilitas limbah pertambangan. Oleh karena itu, para pelapor (whistleblower) harus dilindungi dari tindakan pembalasan karena justru merekalah yang dapat membantu mencegah terjadinya kecelakaan. Menilik pengetahuan dan pengalaman yang mereka miliki, para pekerja dan serikat pekerja sudah seharusnya dilibatkan dan dijadikan bagian penting dalam pengambilan keputusan terkait keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja.

Para pekerja menolak hasil negosiasi Perjanjian Kerja Bersama (PKB) terbaru karena PT IMIP melakukan negosiasi dengan itikad buruk

Bulan lalu, serikat pekerja di IMIP menjalani negosiasi untuk kontrak kerja baru. Namun, hasilnya ditolak oleh para anggota serikat pekerja, yang menuduh bahwa perusahaan gagal mengikuti prosedur yang semestinya—mengubah draf akhir kontrak sehingga tidak lagi mencerminkan kesepakatan yang dicapai selama negosiasi—dan, pada akhirnya, mengabaikan banyak tuntutan utama.

Pada hari Sabtu, 31 Oktober, para pekerja menduduki kantor PT IMIP untuk memprotes PKB terbaru tersebut, serta cara pelaksanaan proses negosiasi dan penyusunan perjanjian. Mereka berencana melanjutkan aksi protes di kantor-kantor pemerintah mulai tanggal 3 hingga 7 November, untuk menuntut agar negosiasi dimulai kembali secara terbuka dan transparan.

Foto oleh FSPIM

FSPIM, sebuah federasi serikat pekerja yang mengorganisir pekerja di tiga provinsi di Indonesia, telah menyampaikan sejumlah tuntutan kepada manajemen IMIP:

1.     Memberikan upah layak yang meningkat sejalan dengan tingkat inflasi;

2.     Meningkatkan penerapan keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja (K3) dengan target nol kecelakaan dan kematian di tempat kerja;

3.     Menerapkan kebijakan yang tegas untuk melindungi pekerja perempuan dari pelecehan seksual dan kekerasan di tempat kerja, serta mempermudah proses bagi pekerja perempuan untuk mendapatkan hak cuti haid dan cuti melahirkan yang dilindungi oleh undang-undang; dan

4.     Menghormati hak pekerja untuk berserikat dan menghentikan segala bentuk pemberangusan serikat pekerja (union busting), termasuk intimidasi, tindakan pembalasan, dan pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK).

Sebuah deklarasi mengenai pertambangan dan transisi energi yang disusun oleh Earthworks dan telah ditandatangani oleh 168 organisasi serta serikat pekerja menyatakan bahwa kepentingan masyarakat, lingkungan, dan hak-hak pekerja harus menjadi prioritas utama dalam mewujudkan transisi energi yang benar-benar adil dan setara. Deklarasi tersebut menyerukan agar hak asasi masyarakat adat, masyarakat yang berada di garis depan, dan para pekerja ditempatkan sebagai perhatian utama. Deklarasi ini juga mendorong agar dibuatkan solusi yang nantinya dapat mengurangi kebutuhan akan logam primer secara keseluruhan melalui berbagai strategi seperti penggunaan kembali, pengurangan penggunaan, daur ulang, serta desain produk yang memungkinkan komponen-komponennya mudah dibongkar. Deklarasi tersebut juga menyerukan perlindungan kesehatan dan keselamatan bagi pekerja dan masyarakat di setiap tahapan rantai pasok.

Kerusakan lingkungan dan dampak terhadap masyarakat yang terjadi di berbagai lokasi pertambangan nikel di Indonesia memiliki kaitan erat dengan berbagai dampak buruk dari pelanggaran ketenagakerjaan dan tidak dihormatinya hak-hak pekerja. Transisi energi yang adil tidak dapat dilakukan jika tidak meninggalkan pola-pola ekstraktif yang sama, yang telah turut menyebabkan terjadinya krisis iklim. Apabila perusahaan terus menggunakan pola-pola lama tersebut, dampak yang ditimbulkan terhadap pekerja, masyarakat, dan lingkungan akan saling berkaitan satu sama lain. Pada akhirnya, kondisi seperti ini justru menjadi penghambat bagi tercapainya kemajuan yang benar-benar berkelanjutan.

IMIP harus segera menanggapi tuntutan para pekerja dan membuka kembali negosiasi dengan cara yang adil dan transparan.

The post Di Tengah Terus Bertambahnya Korban Tewas dan Cedera, Pekerja Nikel Tuntut Reformasi appeared first on Earthworks.

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: propyl paraben Iris Myers November 3, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing propyl paraben.

Propyl paraben is a synthetic preservative shown in studies to mimic the hormone estrogen, raising concerns about its potential to disrupt hormonal processes. 

Several studies have linked propyl paraben exposure to reproductive health effects. These effects include changes in sperm quality and testosterone levels in males and associations with egg quality and quantity and pregnancy outcomes in females.

What is propyl paraben?

Propyl paraben, part of the paraben family, is a synthetic preservative used to prevent the growth of bacteria, mold and yeast in food, personal care products, cosmetics and some pharmaceuticals, extending their shelf life.

Which foods contain propyl paraben?

Propyl paraben is typically added to baked goods such as tortillas, cookies, cakes and packaged snacks like chips and trail mix.

Look for propyl paraben in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the Nutrition Facts panel, on the back of the package.

How is propyl paraben regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration oversees food additives and other ingredients. The FDA has permitted propyl paraben as a food additive since 1977, classifying it as “generally recognized as safe” under thresholds of 0.1 percent. 

In 2024, the FDA added propyl paraben to its list of chemicals under post-market safety reassessment.

The European Union banned propyl paraben from food in 2006, citing the EU’s food safety arm finding that it caused reproductive harm and hormone disruption in young rats at all doses tested – meaning no safe daily intake could be established.

Several U.S. states have acted to restrict or ban propyl paraben in food. In 2023, California passed a law to prohibit it in food sold in the state beginning in 2027. West Virginia and Arkansas passed similar restrictions in 2025. Numerous other states have proposed legislation to ban propyl paraben.

Propyl paraben is prohibited in certified organic foods under Agriculture Department organic standards, which bar synthetic substances.

What does the science say about propyl paraben?

Multiple studies have confirmed that even at low doses, propyl paraben can mimic the hormone estrogen in the body, potentially disrupting hormone-sensitive processes like reproduction, development and cell growth. 

In laboratory experiments, propyl paraben activated genes linked to tumor growth. It also encouraged the growth of breast cancer cells that respond to estrogen.

These findings suggest propyl paraben may play a role in breast cancer progression.

Studies in humans and animals have linked propyl paraben to reproductive harm. Research found associations between higher levels of propyl paraben in urine and reduced egg count in women. 

In men, propyl paraben exposure has been associated with reduced sperm count and quality and decreased testosterone levels. A 2026 study of mother-infant pairs found prenatal propyl paraben exposure was associated with fetal distress and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Animal studies show propyl paraben can affect multiple generations: Prenatal exposure has been linked to reduced egg count across generations, while long-term low-dose exposure has been shown to promote mammary tumor growth. 

In mouse embryos, propyl paraben triggered oxidative stress, DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction, interfering with early embryo development.

Because people are exposed to propyl paraben both through food and personal care products, determining the long-term impact of dietary exposure alone is an area of ongoing research.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to propyl paraben – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen™ list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing concerns, and flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.

Propyl paraben is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative. EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetic database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. EWG Verified® products meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health.

And the Healthy Living™ app lets you take these tools with you on the go.

Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN November 3, 2026

Print article Share Article Contents Expand menu

• A record August and the second-warmest year to date
• A record-setting El Niño event
• Record heat across much of the world
• Good odds of being world’s warmest year 
• Datasets are split on whether 2026 is headed for a record
• 2027 very likely to be the warmest year on record
• Earth’s energy imbalance has more than doubled
• Arctic sea ice minimum tied for 10th lowest, Antarctic near record lows

With three-quarters of the year now past, it is virtually certain that 2026 will be the warmest or second-warmest year on record.

A rapidly strengthening El Niño, alongside human-caused global warming, made this year’s August the warmest on record and September the second-warmest. 

El Niño is the warm phase of a recurring climate pattern in the tropical Pacific that releases heat from the ocean into the atmosphere and temporarily boosts global temperatures.

Carbon Brief’s analysis gives 2026 a 67% chance of surpassing 2024 as the warmest year on record across an average of six global temperature datasets. 

In January, it is likely the groups that report global surface temperatures will be divided on whether 2026 officially beat 2024’s record. 

Currently, the odds for a record year range from as high as 97% in Berkeley Earth’s dataset to less than 20% in European Copernicus/ECMWF’s ERA5 reanalysis product.

With El Niño expected to intensify into the winter, Carbon Brief projects that 2027 will be 1.7C above pre-industrial levels, with a 96% chance that it is the warmest year on record.

In this latest “state of the climate” quarterly update, Carbon Brief finds:

• August 2026 was the warmest August on record in all six major datasets, at around 0.12C above the previous record. September was the second-warmest September, behind 2023.
• January-September was the second-warmest such period on record, at around 1.45C above pre-industrial levels, behind only 2024.
• El Niño broke the daily “Niño3.4” region record in September and has stayed above the previous record every day since. Nearly all forecast model runs have it as the strongest El Niño on record, with a peak of around 4C occurring this winter.
• Around 22% of the world’s surface saw its warmest July-September on record, including much of the tropical Pacific, the western Mediterranean and Iberia. Western Europe had its hottest summer on record and Spain its warmest September, beating the previous record by 0.7C.
• Carbon Brief projects that 2026 will end up around 1.52C above pre-industrial levels, with a 67% chance of beating 2024’s record. 
• Whether 2026 is declared the warmest year depends on the dataset; a record is likely in Berkeley Earth and NASA GISTEMP, is too close to call in HadCRUT5, JRA-3Q and NOAA and is unlikely in ERA5.
• Earth’s energy imbalance has more than doubled since the start of the satellite record, from around 0.5 watts per metre squared (W/m2) in the 2000s to around 1.25W/m2 over the past decade.
• The Arctic sea ice minimum was tied for 10th lowest in the satellite record, while Antarctic sea ice saw its third-lowest winter peak.
• This year’s record-setting El Niño will have its largest effect on global temperatures in 2027. Carbon Brief projects 2027 at around 1.7C above pre-industrial levels, with a 96% chance that it will be the warmest year on record.

A record August and the second-warmest year to date

Carbon Brief analyses records from six different groups that report global surface temperatures: 

• NASA’s GISTEMP
• NOAAGlobalTemp
• The Met Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia’s HadCRUT5
• Berkeley Earth
• Copernicus/ECMWF’s ERA5 reanalysis product
• The Japan Meteorological Agency’s JRA-3Q reanalysis product 

There are a number of additional groups that feature in Carbon Brief’s annual “state of the climate” update, but are not included here due to a lack of regular monthly updates.

The first nine months of 2026 were the second warmest on record in all six datasets, behind only 2024. 

The figure below shows annual temperatures in each dataset since 1970, along with the 2026 average to date.

Global mean surface temperatures datasets aligned on a common 1981-2010 baseline, then shifted by the average 1850-1900 to 1981-2010 warming (0.67C) in HadCRUT5, NOAA and Berkeley Earth. 2026 to-date dots are staggered horizontally to avoid overlaps and the HadCRUT5 is for January-August as September data was not available at time of publication.

The year got off to a comparatively slow start. Each month from January to June ran cooler than the same month in 2024, as the lingering effects of weak La Niña conditions gave way to a developing El Niño.

La Niña and El Nino are the cool and warm phases of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a recurring climate pattern in the tropical Pacific that reshapes weather patterns around the world. 

That changed in the third quarter of the year. July 2026 was the second-warmest July in the six-dataset average and a narrow record in the NASA GISTEMP and NOAA datasets. (NOAA’s own assessment described it as tied with July 2024.)

August then set a new record for the month by around 0.12C in the six-dataset average. It was the warmest August on record in every one of the six datasets, by margins ranging from 0.07C (HadCRUT5 and NOAA) to 0.13C (ERA5).

September temperatures stalled a little following the rise in July and August. At around 1.62C, it was the second-warmest September on record in all five datasets to have reported so far, around 0.08C below the record set in September 2023.

The figure below shows each month of 2026 alongside every year since 1940, with 2023, 2024 and 2025 highlighted.

Monthly averages of six global mean surface temperature datasets. The September datapoint excludes HadCRUT5 which had not reported at the time of publication.

Across the six-dataset average, July-September 2026 was effectively tied with the same period in 2023 as the warmest on record, at around 1.57C. It ranked first in GISTEMP and NOAA (and in HadCRUT5 for July-August), and second in Berkeley Earth, ERA5 and JRA-3Q.

The figure below shows the January-September average for every year since 1850. It shows how temperatures in 2026 to date sit at 1.45C – around 0.06C below 2024. 

A record-setting El Niño event

In September, El Niño crossed a milestone. The daily sea surface temperature anomaly in the “Niño3.4” region of the tropical Pacific – the area most widely used to gauge El Niño strength – broke the record, previously set in November 2015, to become the strongest event since the satellite era began in 1981. 

This year’s El Niño has remained above that record every day since. September recorded the highest monthly Niño3.4 region temperature anomaly since records began in the mid-1800s.

As of 18 October, the daily value stood at around 3.5C above the 1996-2025 average for the time of year and around 0.4C above the 2015 peak.

The figure below shows how El Nino is projected to keep intensifying until the end of this year. 

Average of 656 forecasts across 14 dynamical models. The lighter shaded area reflects the period when only seven models are available.

Carbon Brief examined 656 forecasts from 14 different climate models that were run between late September and mid-October. On average they estimate that this year’s El Niño will peak around 4C in December – more than 1C above the prior record. 

(Ten models expect a December peak and four anticipate a November peak.)

Based on an analysis of tree rings and coral sediments, it is possible that this will be the strongest El Niño event in a millennium.

Niño3.4 region sea surface temperature peak anomaly projected from 656 runs of 14 different dynamical El Niño models. Y-axis denotes the share of model runs in each 0.2C “bin”.

The forecasts have strengthened since Carbon Brief’s July “state of the climate” update, when El Niño was expected to peak around 3.6C. 

While human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are responsible for effectively all of the Earth’s long-term warming, temperatures in any given year are strongly influenced by short-term variations to the Earth’s climate associated with El Niño and La Niña events. 

Global temperatures tend to lag the tropical Pacific by around three months, which means an El Niño peaking around the end of 2026 will have its largest effect on global temperatures in 2027.

Record heat across much of the world

In addition to high global average surface temperatures, the past three months have seen records broken across many parts of the planet. 

The map below shows July-September 2026 temperatures relative to the 1981-2010 average in the ERA5 reanalysis. 

Globally, temperatures were 0.96C above that 30-year period and 1.58C above the ERA5 1850-1900 pre-industrial average.

The El Niño is clearly visible as a band of exceptional warmth stretching across the eastern and central tropical Pacific, with temperatures more than 4C above average off the coast of Ecuador and Peru. 

Western Europe and the Mediterranean were also unusually warm, with temperatures around 3C above average over France and the western Mediterranean Sea. North-west Russia, the Canadian Arctic, south-central North America, eastern Africa and parts of west Antarctica were also exceptionally warm.

The most notable part of the planet that was colder than usual was the Weddell Sea sector of Antarctica, which came in at more than 2C below average for the season.

The map below shows how July-September 2026 ranked against every year in the ERA5 record (1940-2026) at each location. Areas in dark red saw their warmest July-September on record; blues show areas among the five coldest.

Areas where hot and cold records were set from July-September 2026 compared to the same period in all other years since the ERA5 dataset began in 1940. Share of global surface: 21.5% record warm, 49.9% top-five warm, 0.5% top-five cold and <0.1% record cold.

Around 22% of the world’s surface saw its warmest July-September on record and around half experienced one of its five warmest. By contrast, around 0.5% of the world saw one of its five coldest July-September periods.

Record warmth covered most of the El Niño region (including more than 90% of the Niño3 and Niño3.4 regions) along with sizeable parts of the south Atlantic (39%), the tropical Indian Ocean (34%) and the subtropical North Atlantic (25%, with 85% in its five warmest). 

On land, around 85% of France and Iberia saw a record-warm July-September.

In September alone, around 20% of the world’s surface saw its warmest September on record.

Overall, 55 countries set national records for September average temperatures, including Chile, Colombia, Italy, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, Portugal, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, US and Venezuela.

Europe had an exceptional summer, with the western part of the continent experiencing its hottest summer on record. 

Copernicus reported that western Europe’s summer averaged 21.7C – 2.5C above the 1991-2020 average – beating the previous record set in 2003. A record 52% of the continent was exposed to “very strong” heat stress by the end of the season. 

Europe as a whole had its third-warmest summer, behind 2024 and 2022.

France had its warmest July on record, at 3.8C above the 1991-2020 average. Switzerland had its hottest summer since records began, averaging 17.2C. 

The heat persisted into the autumn in south-west Europe. Spain had its warmest September on record, at 3.4C above the 1991-2020 average. This beat the previous record set in 1987 by a remarkable 0.7C.

Rivers across Europe saw their lowest summer flows since the European Flood Awareness System’s records began in 1992. By early September, the area burned across the EU was almost twice the 2006-25 average for the time of year, according to Copernicus, extending what had already been a severe fire season.

Elsewhere, the contiguous US had its hottest summer on record and its warmest September, with around 59% of the country in drought conditions. 

India’s monsoon, which tends to weaken during El Niño years, ended with 12.6% less rainfall than normal, the driest in 11 years.

This year’s El Niño event has strongly impacted the hurricane season, suppressing the formation of hurricanes in the Atlantic while contributing to a record-setting number of tropical cyclones in the Pacific.  

Good odds of being world’s warmest year 

Carbon Brief’s projection for average global temperature for 2026 combines observed temperatures through September with the latest forecasts of the strength of El Niño. It uses a statistical model trained on the historical relationship between year-to-date temperatures, El Niño conditions and annual temperatures.

The figure below shows the six-dataset average for each year since 1970 (dark blue), the year-to-date January-September 2026 average (blue circle) and Carbon Brief’s 2026 estimate (red circle) with its 90% likelihood range (vertical red line).

The dark red dot marks Carbon Brief’s median projection for 2027, the bar the 50% range and line the 90% range.

The best estimate for 2026 is now around 1.52C above pre-industrial levels, with a 90% range of 1.50C to 1.55C. This is slightly higher – but effectively tied with – the prior record of 1.52C set in 2024.

It marks a slight increase from Carbon Brief’s previous projection of 1.51C, set out in its July’s “state of the climate” update.

There is an approximately 67% chance of setting a new record this year in the average of the six-datasets examined. 

The year 2026 also has a 93% chance of coming in above 1.5C in the six-dataset average (though not in every individual dataset), which would make it the second year above 1.5C, after 2024. 

However, a single year above 1.5C does not itself constitute a breach of the Paris Agreement goal, which reflects a longer-term average.

These odds also depend on assumptions that are hard to pin down. 

The El Niño forecast for October-December lies beyond any event in the record the model is trained on. The projection assumes the historical relationship between the strength of El Niño and its impact on global temperatures holds for an event this large. If the warming effect of this El Niño turns out to be no larger than that of the strongest past events, the odds of a record year for global temperature would be closer to 50%.

Datasets are split on whether 2026 is headed for a record

Different groups of scientific researchers around the world will announce their own results for 2026 in January. 

Across the six datasets that Carbon Brief explores there will likely be mixed results, with some datasets showing 2026 as the warmest year on record – and others showing it as the second warmest year.

Likelihood of a 2026 record in different datasets using Carbon Brief’s model. Carbon Brief’s projection is based on each dataset’s observations and record. Probability for HadCRUT5 is based on data through August, as September data was not available at time of publication.

Based on temperatures to-date and the current El Niño forecast, Carbon Brief estimates that a 2026 record is very likely in Berkeley Earth (97%) and likely in NASA GISTEMP (82%). It is about as likely as not in JRA-3Q (48%) and NOAA (34%) and unlikely in ERA5 (18%).

HadCRUT5 currently shows a 72% chance of a 2026 record, but this is based on data only through August. Plausible values for September – which the other datasets suggest was slightly cooler than August – would put its odds somewhere between around 50% and 80%.

The difference in odds comes down to how far each temperature group’s data for 2026 trails the prior record set in 2024. 

For example, over January-September, Berkeley Earth has 2026 around 0.03C cooler than the same months of 2024, so its final three months need to beat those of 2024 by around 0.08C. 

ERA5, by contrast, has 2026 around 0.09C behind 2024 over the same period, meaning October-December would need to run around 0.27C warmer than the last three months of 2024.

None of these datasets is “right”. They differ in how they fill gaps in regions where fewer observations are taken, such as the poles, and in which sea surface temperature records they use. 

The two reanalysis products, ERA5 and JRA-3Q, take a different approach altogether, using a weather model constrained by observations to estimate air temperatures everywhere, rather than combining land and ocean measurements.

There is precedent for a split decision. In January 2015, NASA and NOAA announced that the year 2014 was most likely the warmest on record, while the Met Office described it as tied with 2010. January 2027 could see something similar.

2027 very likely to be the warmest year on record

The biggest temperature effect of this year’s El Niño event will be felt next year. Just as the 2015-16 El Niño helped make 2016 the then-warmest year on record, an event peaking around the end of 2026 will have its largest influence on global temperatures in 2027.

Carbon Brief projects 2027 will end up at around 1.74C above pre-industrial levels, with a relatively wide 90% uncertainty range of 1.54C to 1.95C. 

This is based on the historical relationship between year-on-year temperature changes and El Niño conditions in the preceding autumn, factoring in the remaining uncertainty around where temperatures in 2026 will end up.

The figure below shows the six-dataset average for each year since 1970 (dark blue), along with Carbon Brief’s projections for 2026 (orange) and 2027 (red).

The dark red dot marks Carbon Brief’s median projection for 2027, the bar the 50% range and line the 90% range.

This gives 2027 a 96% chance of being warmer than any previous year, including 2026. There is a 98% chance that at least one of 2026 or 2027 will set a new record.

The estimate for 2027 is necessarily much more uncertain than for 2026. None of the year has been observed yet and the result depends on both the peak strength of the El Niño and how quickly it fades. 

As noted above, this year’s El Niño strength is currently projected to peak well beyond the strongest event in the record on which Carbon Brief’s model is trained. Carbon Brief predicts a rise in temperatures between 2026 and 2027 of around 0.2C due to El Niño – larger than the jump that followed any previous El Niño events. The projection assumes the historical relationship between El Niño and global temperatures will hold for an event this large, but it remains to be seen whether this is the case.

Nevertheless, even an average global temperature on even the low end of the range (1.54C) would exceed 2024 and, while Carbon Brief’s central estimate of 1.74C would beat it by more than 0.2C. 

If these projections bear out, the 2020s will have delivered new records in 2023, 2024, 2027 and, quite possibly, 2026.

Earth’s energy imbalance has more than doubled

The rise in global temperatures is a symptom of Earth’s rising energy imbalance. This is the difference between the energy the planet absorbs from the sun and the energy it radiates back to space. 

As long as this energy imbalance is positive, the Earth system accumulates heat, around 90% of which ends up in the oceans.

Earth’s energy imbalance has more than doubled in recent decades. This growing imbalance means the planet is accumulating heat ever faster and that global warming is accelerating. 

NASA’s CERES satellite instruments have tracked changes in this imbalance at the top of the atmosphere since March 2000. 

The figure below shows the Earth’s energy imbalance from 2000 to August 2026, with monthly values (faint line), 12-month averages (dark blue), calendar-year averages (dots) and the linear trend (red dashes).

Earth energy imbalance measured by NASA’s CERES satellites.

The Earth’s energy imbalance rose from an average of around 0.53W/m2 over the first decade of the record (March 2000 to February 2010) to around 1.25W/m2 over the most recent decade (March 2016 to February 2026) – a 2.4-fold increase.  

The highest annual energy imbalance recorded to date was in 2023 at 1.79W/m2, while the most recent 12 months (September 2025 to August 2026) averaged at 1.59W/m2.

Several studies, including 2026 research covered by Carbon Brief, have noted that the imbalance appears to have risen faster than most climate models simulate, though the reasons remain unclear.

The measurements also come with some caveats. CERES tracks changes in the imbalance well, but its absolute level is anchored to ocean heat content measurements. Changes to satellite orbits over time add a further uncertainty of around 0.1W/m2 per decade to the trend.

A 2021 study found that independent satellite and in situ observations “each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases” in the imbalance between 2005 and 2019. 

Over longer periods, CERES shows more energy being accumulated than ocean heat estimates set out by Institute for Atmospheric Physics data and by the authors of the Indicators of Global Climate Change report. 

The imbalance typically dips as a strong El Niño peaks and the ocean releases heat to space, as it did in 2024. Next year’s energy imbalance may be slightly lower.

Arctic sea ice minimum tied for 10th lowest, Antarctic near record lows

Around mid-September of each year, Arctic sea ice drops to an annual low, whereas Antarctic sea ice grows to its largest area of the year.

On 12 September, Arctic sea ice reached its annual minimum extent, at 4.60m square kilometres (km2) on the five-day average used by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 

The 2026 minimum shares the 10th lowest spot – alongside 2008, 2010 and 2025 – in the nearly 48-year satellite record and was 1.21m km2 above the record low set in 2012, according to NSIDC.

That represents a modest recovery from earlier in the year, when Arctic sea ice set, or tied, record daily lows on 39 days between January and 2 July, following a joint-lowest winter maximum. 

Arctic sea ice extent has not set, or tied, a daily record low since 2 July and has been within the 1979-2010 range for the time of year since the start of August, though still well below the long-term average. 

(As Carbon Brief has previously explained, conditions earlier in the year are a poor predictor of the September minimum).

In the southern hemisphere, Antarctic sea ice reached its winter maximum on 14 September, at 17.59m km2. This was the third lowest on record, behind only 2023 and 2024. It recently fell sharply and hit record daily lows for much of the period since early October. 

The figure below shows daily Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent in 2026 (solid lines), compared with the 1979-2010 range (shading) and the record low for each day (dotted line).

Daily Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent in 2026 compared to the prior record low and the 1979-2010 historical range. 2026’s data runs until 17 October. Arctic minimum and Antarctic maximum calculated using NSIDC’s five-day mean. related Experts: How are climate scientists using artificial intelligence? 22.10.2026 Climate modelling UNEP: Opportunity has ‘been lost’ to meet 1.5C warming limit without ‘overshoot’ 21.10.2026 Climate pollutants Guest post: Why tough methane cuts are crucial for keeping warming ‘well-below’ 2C 01.09.2026 Climate pollutants Explainer: The CMIP7 emissions scenarios – and how they explore future climate change 01.09.2026 Climate modelling

The post State of the climate: 2026 likely to tie with 2024 as the warmest year on record appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Canada and the European Union’s commitment to strengthen cooperation on energy security and the energy transition lays the foundation to put clean growth and climate priorities at the heart of their alliance, according to experts.

In a seven-page joint statement agreed at the end of a two-day summit in Montreal on Friday, both sides committed to work more closely on investment in critical minerals, green grids, energy sources, battery storage and the protection of energy infrastructure. 

They agreed to assess opportunities for long-term energy connectivity across the Atlantic, including through a feasibility study on liquefied gas (LNG) exports to Europe. The statement also includes a pledge to “deepen targeted industrial cooperation” on technology value chains and “address bilateral trade barriers”.  

“Canada and the European Union have sent a clear and unwavering signal that closer cooperation on decarbonisation and climate resilience will be central to their new strategic alliance,” said Canadian Climate Institute president Rick Smith. “The task now is to turn talk into action.” 

Foundation for climate action  

The EU and Canada’s “alliance for the future” aims to deepen their partnership across investment, trade and economic security to weather geopolitical tensions and global threats, including “the existential threat of the interdependent crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean and land degradation, and pollution”. 

These threats are “increasingly impossible to ignore as the impacts of extreme heat, wildfires, floods, and other disasters become more disruptive and expensive,” Smith said.  

• Oct 7, 2026 News New Zealand accused of breaching EU trade deal over climate rollbacks The EU’s climate trade rules face their first major test after a green group alleged New Zealand violated binding environmental provisions under its trade deal with the bloc Read more
• 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
• Sep 15, 2026 Business International trade linked to 20% of global emissions – but imports ignored Researchers say governments should discuss how to tackle emissions linked to globally traded goods and services, especially in large importing countries Read more

The statement reaffirms existing commitments established by the Canada-European Union Green Alliance, which both parties described as “our compass for advancing decarbonisation while also strengthening competitiveness, affordability, and economic security”.  

Investment in critical minerals  

During the summit, the European Investment Bank (EIB) announced a “new chapter” for its presence in Canada, beginning with accelerated investment in critical minerals. 

“At a time when both sides of the Atlantic are working to reduce strategic dependencies, we want to turn our partnership into investment in real projects, from mining and processing to recycling,” EIB Vice-President Nicolas Beer said in a statement. “That is how we build supply chains that are not only more secure, but more competitive too.” 

Joanna Kyriazis, director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, welcomed the EIB announcement as a “bright spot of the summit” and “one of the few tangible actions”.  

“As the EU and Canada seek to advance a partnership anchored in ensuring mutual security and navigating an uncertain world, it is essential that electrification remains a north star… one of the greatest ways we can advance both short- and long-term affordability, competitiveness, and energy security,” she said.  

Feasibility of Canadian LNG exports to the EU  

In addition, the agreement calls for a joint long-term feasibility study on LNG exports to Europe, although no immediate investment was announced to support this.  

A media briefing circulated by climate advocacy groups in advance of the summit had warned that a call for such a study would support Canada’s efforts to rebrand gas, a highly polluting fossil fuel, as a reliable, low-carbon energy source.  

Yet, the agreement was interpreted by some observers as a Canadian concession following more than a year of rhetoric predicting a boom in Canadian gas exports to the EU and elsewhere.   

• Oct 27, 2026 News National climate plans now promise half the emission cuts expected by UN The US exit from the Paris Agreement and weak new pledges leave 2035 emissions just 6% below 2019 levels, against 12% projected last year 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

“What is clear is that the EU is reducing its gas consumption drastically,” Adrian Hiel, director of the Brussels-based Electrification Alliance, told the Globe and Mail. “The long-term trend is clear and by the middle of the next decade, Europe should be out of the LNG game.” 

Last year, The Energy Mix and Berlin-based Clean Energy Wire reported on mounting doubts that serious European demand for additional gas supplies would ever materialise after Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson touted LNG exports to Germany in “as little as five years”. 

Rapprochement on a ‘trade irritant’ 

In the lead-up to the summit, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that Canadian iron, steel, fertiliser and aluminium would not be exempt from carbon tariffs under the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), as it moves toward full implementation in 2034. 

The CBAM is a trade tool designed to protect the continent’s domestic industries from competitors in countries with less stringent carbon controls. 

Unlike other non-EU members like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and the UK, Canada is unlikely to be exempted from the CBAM because there are no plans to link its carbon market to Europe’s.  

However, at the end of the Montreal summit, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told a press conference they had made progress on finding joint solutions to the issue, which von der Leyen described as a “trade irritant”.  

Canada’s EU ambassador, Jonathan Wilkinson, formerly the environment and climate minister, said Canada sees it as a problem that the CBAM “did not acknowledge Canadian producers were doing their part to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint by paying an industrial carbon price”.  

He “confirmed diplomatic talks are heading in the right direction but not resolved”, CBC reported. 

A longer version of this story was originally published by The Energy Mix as part of its partnership with Small Change Fund. 

The post Canada, EU agree deeper cooperation on energy and cleantech supply chains appeared first on Climate Home News.

The call came from a home in Hyde County, a rural expanse of coastal farmland and marsh in North Carolina. Paramedic Quinn Reece jumped into an electric aircraft with one seat, two wings, and eight propellers. It is called a BlackFly, and at about 14 feet long it looks like an oversized drone. Moments later it rose like a helicopter, then flew like an airplane.

As she raced toward the emergency at about 60 mph, a dispatcher described the location. Reece quickly realized that the app the county uses for emergency response had given the wrong location. Because she had flown over the area before, Reece had an idea of the correct location. She zipped over in the aircraft, confirmed where the call had come from, and relayed the information to paramedics headed that way. She was on the scene and administering care 20 minutes before they arrived.

That is exactly what Brook Cox, the county’s emergency medical services chief, hoped to see. She launched the six-month trial with a company called Pivotal in March to see if its BlackFly could help medics more quickly reach patients in a county that covers 1,459 square miles of land and water. The county conducted more than 300 training flights prior to using the aircraft for two 911 calls.

Air taxis and flying cars have long defined the promise of electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, or eVTOLs. This is the vision the Federal Aviation Administration has highlighted through the eVTOL Integration Pilot Program, which works with manufacturers to test the emerging aircraft in real-world settings. Last week, Archer Aviation announced plans for aerial taxi services in three Texas cities and Joby Aviation began demonstrations in Florida.

Hyde County is among those exploring more immediate uses for these machines. The FAA program considers emergency medical response an important application, particularly in rural areas. Similar aircraft powered by the sun that can stay aloft for weeks are being developed to monitor climate threats like wildfires, methane emissions and ice melt.

The great promise of electric aviation is to help decarbonize flight. These developments point to a fast-approaching future for electric aviation. It just might not arrive in the form we expected.

Pivotal’s BlackFly can take off like a helicopter and fly like an airplane, making it a promising tool for emergency response in rural areas, where it can launch quickly, fly directly to an emergency, and land close to the scene. Courtesy of Pivotal

Kristina Menton, Pivotal’s vice president of flight, points to a December 2024 flight as proof the technology could be a boon to EMS. A BlackFly took off from a Los Angeles County fire station and landed in a backyard in Malibu, demonstrating it could fly directly to a private address.

Menton acknowledged that single-seater aircraft are a new approach for a field that has typically employed separate crews for flight and EMS operations. BlackFly’s simplified controls allow one person to serve as both pilot and medic. “The aircraft is a breeze,” Cox said. “It really takes the guesswork out of it because you have a screen and you have all these prompts that you have to go through.”

Carl Dietrich, who founded Jump Aero in 2019 to build electric aircraft for EMS, sees Pivotal’s work as proof of concept rather than competition, something that can only help the sector grow. “It shows that other organizations believe that this is a real opportunity,” he said.

Jump Aero is building a different kind of aircraft, the JA1 Pulse, which has been in development for seven years. Dietrich expects it to reach 288 mph, compared with 63 mph for the BlackFly. He said eVTOLs aren’t necessarily replacing helicopters or ambulances, but adding something new to emergency response: an aircraft that is easy to fly and can launch almost immediately without warming up.

“It’s ideal for rapid response missions because you don’t pay any maintenance penalty for going to full power instantly,” he said. This is particularly important in a field that aims to arrive within eight minutes of a call, while rural response times average nearly 15 minutes.

There are, of course, limitations, including battery range and weight capacity. The BlackFly can travel 20 miles on a charge and carry 200 pounds, while the JA1 Pulse is good for 70 miles and 350 pounds. The aircraft clearly aren’t meant to transport patients; their utility lies in being able to quickly reach an emergency and stabilize a patient until an ambulance arrives. Reece carried a cardiac monitor, airway supplies, and a “primary response bag” of essential gear that would allow her to assess a patient and begin treatment immediately.

Rural areas may present an easier path to introducing the technology, said April Zhang, director of advanced air mobility at the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research. “In the urban area, it’s probably more challenging to find the right landing and takeoff sites,” she said. Menton said other counties are already looking at Hyde County’s experience and considering similar programs. 

Zhang points to the eVTOL Integration Pilot Program as a way for manufacturers and public agencies to collaborate on applications. Beyond EMS, she sees traffic surveillance and cargo deliveries as other potential uses.

FAA policy may also give public agencies an easier path to using eVTOLs than commercial operators. Andrew Mearns, a commercialization consultant at Multicopter Aerospace Consulting, said EMS organizations can often operate under the FAA’s public aircraft rules, which could allow them to fly without the credentials required of a commercial pilot.

Cost is another appeal. Pivotal’s model sells for $190,000, while Mearns said helicopters can cost from $500,000 to $10 million. Operating costs will vary with the specific model, but generally speaking an electric aircraft might be about 80 percent cheaper than a similarly sized machine that burns fossil fuels, Mearns said.

Emergency response is one avenue where electric aviation is beginning to find a practical use. Another is taking shape much higher in the atmosphere.

Unmanned stratospheric aircraft can reach altitudes of 65,000 feet, about twice as high as commercial aircraft. Solar-powered versions can remain aloft for weeks or months, making them well suited to long-term environmental monitoring.

“If you imagine these solar-powered aircraft just circling the L.A. County area, collecting soil moisture, vegetation moisture data, with complex math models and deep learning mapped to that, you can have improved risk profiles better than the models that are currently there,” said Craig Mascarenhas, an aerospace researcher at Harvard University. The aircraft could also spot fires more quickly and help map them for first responders.

Mascarenhas leads engineering research for Harvard’s branch of the Stratospheric Airborne Climate Observing System, where he is helping develop and deploy solar-powered electric aircraft with Electra.Aero, MIT and others. He said their applications go beyond wildfires.

“It’s hurricane monitoring and tracking, methane emiss monitoring, understanding ice dynamics across the world,” he said. “The instruments will be swapped, but the topology of the aircraft will remain the same.”

The aircraft themselves could offer environmental benefits too. Mascarenhas said eVTOLs could reduce greenhouse gas emissions when they replace fuel-burning helicopters, but the climate case is less clear when they replace efficient ground transportation.

“Vertical flight is inherently energy-intensive, and an electric aircraft is not necessarily more energy-efficient or lower-carbon per passenger-mile than an electric car, bus, or train,” he said.

For Pivotal, EMS in Hyde County is just the beginning. Menton said the company’s broader vision is to “revolutionize transportation” by making short electric flights accessible to more people.

But for now, some of the technology’s most immediate uses may be the specialized applications already being tested in places like Hyde County and high above it.

Correction: This story originally underestimated how much cheaper an eVTOL aircraft might be to operate.

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 Electric aviation is taking off in unexpected ways on Nov 3, 2026.