News Feeds

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

Recently there has been quite a debate online about the extent to which opposing near-term oil and gas infrastructure – pipelines, refineries, new production – is both necessary and politically effective as a strategy to reduce US emissions. These conversations have occurred in the context of a broader pivot toward affordability as a rallying cry of the left in the US, driven by concerns around the rapidly rising cost of housing, energy, and other goods.

Matt Yglesias had a provocative piece in the NYT arguing that liberals should be less opposed to oil and gas, arguing that it might help make energy more affordable and win more conservative states and labor (without which there would be no climate policy at all). He also noted that US oil and gas is generally lower carbon than foreign alternatives in a world that is still using vast amounts of the stuff. Policies, in his view, should focus on making production cleaner by more strictly regulating methane emissions, in-sector electrification, and other best practices rather than restricting supply. Other mitigation advocates like Jesse Jenkins and Ramez Naam chimed in to support the broad thrust of his argument.

This is, it is worth pointing out, not too far from the policies pursued by both the Obama and Biden1 administrations, where both clean energy and domestic oil and gas production boomed (while the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, saw a dramatic decline).

Representative Sean Casten (D-IL) posted a long rebuttal on BlueSky arguing that we’ve already overshot our climate goals, and the only way to turn things around is to keep fossil fuels in the ground. He noted that what is politically popular is not always what is right, and that sometimes politicians need to do what is necessary to meet the moment. He also notes that leakage from US gas “makes natural gas worse than coal from a global warming perspective.”

These responses broadly reflect two different schools of thought on how to best practically (and politically) achieve decarbonization goals: by reducing fossil fuel supplies, or by reducing fossil fuel demands.

The physical science is absolutely clear that to stop the world from warming we need to get global emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases to (net) zero. Every 220 gigatons (billion tons) of CO2 we emit warms the surface by around 0.1C, and the world is already at 1.4C above preindustrial levels today. But the specific path to limit warming – how much we focus on the reducing the supply of fossil fuels vs reducing their demand by accelerating the adoption of cleaner alternatives is very much an active debate. My personal view is that demand side policies are considerably more achievable at the moment – particularly given the new focus on affordability on the left.

I’d also note that this post is about the politics of mitigation rather than the physical science. There is no clear right answer to how to best reduce emissions, and there are many reasonable folks with differing views on the topic. We should generally try and extend grace to those we disagree with, as when it comes to policy there is no real arbiter of truth.

Demand vs supply-side decarbonization

Broadly speaking, there are two different schools of thought on how to best achieve decarbonization: supply side vs demand side policy.

Supply side policy focuses on making fossil fuels more expensive by restricting the supply or directly taxing the their sale. Examples include restrictions on fossil resource leasing and development, blocking transmission systems like pipelines, cap and trade systems, and carbon taxes.

Demand side policy aims to make cleaner alternatives more affordable and, in turn, reduce demand for fossil fuels. This generally involves subsidizing both the research, development, and deployment of clean energy technologies (renewable energy, nuclear, electric vehicles, heat pumps, etc.) and its supporting infrastructure (transmission, vehicle charging infrastructure)

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive; for example, some advocates of demand side interventions also support carbon taxes. But generally speaking, supply side policies impose more direct costs on consumers, while demand side policies involve more indirect costs (e.g. through higher government spending).2 There are also ways to make supply side policies less costly – such as the revenue neutral carbon taxes that Canada and Washington have experimented with – but even these have been hard to muster political support for.3

Most of the policies pursued by the Biden administration (and the Obama administration before it) have focused on demand-side mitigation policy. While we may wish otherwise, most of the general public in the US does not prioritize climate change above economic issues, and in the past when gasoline prices have spiked some politicians have quickly pivoted from “keep it in the ground” to “drill baby drill”. To be effective in changing consumer and commercial purchasing behavior at the scale needed to avoid dangerous levels of warming this century, supply side policies will necessarily need to impose a level of cost that will be politically challenging (to say the least).

Demand side mitigation can effectively reduce fossil fuel emissions. The large-scale phase down of coal in the US was driven by a combination of stricter conventional pollutant restrictions and – primarily – low cost fossil gas4 and renewable generation that made it not economically competitive.5 More broadly, the Global Carbon Project finds that emissions have declined over the past decade (2015-24) in 35 nations, which collectively account for 27% of global emissions, driven by faster installation of clean energy technologies and the retirement or curtailment of existing fossil fuel resources. This remains true even when emissions embodied in international trade are taken into account.

The challenge with demand side policies is that they are arguably a poor fit for meeting our most ambitious global climate targets. If countries want to limit warming to 1.5C by the end of the century (and minimize overshoot on the way there) it leaves us with a vanishingly small carbon budget. To meet these goals would require wartime style mobilization of the world to rapidly decarbonize, prematurely retiring vast amounts of infrastructure and rapidly curtailing fossil fuel production. In short, it would cost a lot of money – and in turn require significant political and public buy-in.

Is 1.5C increasingly a trap?

The 2015 Paris Agreement set an aspirational target of limiting warming to 1.5C. This came as a bit of a surprise to the climate science community; prior to Paris the most ambitious mitigation scenario that was widely modeled was RCP2.6, which limited warming to around 1.8C by 2100 (and had a ~66% chance of avoiding 2C warming). Following the Paris Agreement the UNFCCC requested that the IPCC write a special report on 1.5C as a climate target, which was published in 2018.

By the time that report came out, it was increasingly clear that actually limiting warming to 1.5C would be quite unlikely, with scenarios that avoided overshoot requiring all global emissions to start declining immediately and reach (net) zero emissions by 2050. By the time the IPCC 5th Assessment Report was published in 2021, the 1.5C target has been quietly redefined as an “overshoot” target where the world passed 1.5C before bringing global temperatures back down through large-scale deployments of net-negative emissions. In that report 206 of 230 the integrated assessment model (IAM) scenarios exploring 1.5C warming outcomes – a full 96% – involved overshoot on the way there, often reaching 1.7C or 1.8C by mid-to-late century.

As 2026 dawns, the world has already seen a year above 1.5C, and global emissions have yet to decline (even if they have plateaued), scenarios that limit warming to 1.5C by 2100 have become increasingly implausible. They are forced to rely on ever more rapid near-term emissions reductions – and ever larger amounts of carbon removal later in the century – to make the brutal math of the 1.5C target work.

For this reason many of us in the scientific community have been trying to make it clear that these targets never reflected a climate threshold – a point in the system where something particularly bad happens. Rather, they reflect an attempt to balance minimizing climate damages (and risks) given what is plausibly achievable. Climate targets are always inherently probabilistic given uncertainties in climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks. Its quite possible that we could end up closer to 3C even though we thought we were heading to 2C if we roll 6s on the proverbial climate dice. So these targets more about minimizing tail risks than ending up at a particular round number.

Similarly, there are no particular climate feedbacks or tipping points that occur at 1.5C that would not occur at 1.45C or 1.55C; rather, we try to emphasize that every tenth of a degree matters. 1.5C is lower risk than 1.7C, which is lower risk than 2C, etc. Its less “1.5C to stay alive” and more that we should try to mitigate as rapidly as practically possible to reduce the future damages to society and the natural world.

While targets can be useful as a focus for pushing countries to adopt more ambitious mitigation policy, they can also become counterproductive if they are unachievable. For example, a narrow focus on 1.5C today could lead folks to advocate to oppose policies that might be consistent with (or even help enable) a 2C world but would not be consistent with the vanishingly small remaining carbon budget under 1.5C. In other words, pursuing our most ambitious targets can lead us to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

The gas debate

In the US context the distinction between policies that would be inconsistent with a 1.5C world but might help us get close to 2C often involve fossil gas. The climate impacts of gas (and how it compares to coal) is a topic I’ve long been interested in; I published my first analysis back in 2011, and ultimately wrote two peer reviewed papers on the topic in 2015 and 2016 looking at the impacts of replacing coal with gas in the US.

This is relevant because in the US fossil gas has been the single largest driver of CO2 reductions, particularly in the power sector. Along with renewables it has led to a reduction of coal use by 60%. This progress remains fragile, as may coal plants have lowered their operation time (their capacity factor) rather than fully shutting down, and we see an uptick in US coal generation whenever gas prices rise.

From a carbon standpoint the comparison is relatively straightforward. Fossil gas is results in about 60% lower CO2 emissions per kWh generated, as shown in the figure below:

However, there has been quite a bit of controversy around the broader climate impacts of fossil gas, given that a portion (likely 2% to 3%)6 of fossil gas leaks as methane. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas with a lifetime of around 12 years in the atmosphere, but while it is in the atmosphere it has approximately 120x more warming impact than CO2. The different lifetime of the gases makes it difficult to directly compare the two, given that the results depend on the timeframe considered.

The figure below (from my 2015 paper) attempts to compare gas and coal climate impacts over time, using the change in radiative forcing of both (which is a reasonably proxy for temperature change). It compares a new gas plant in the US with 2% leakage (green line) to both new coal (black solid line) and existing coal (black dashed line). The grey area represents the uncertainty for gas across leakage rates from 1% to 6% and generation efficiencies (HHV) of 42% to 50%. This plot assumes that both the gas and coal plant would be operated for 30 years before being retired.

This implies that a leakage rate of 5.1% would be required to make gas worse than coal over a 20-year period (assuming new gas displacing existing coal – the most common occurrence) and 13.1% over a 100-year period. If we assume the gas and coal plants would both be operated for 100 years rather than just 30, the leakage rate required for 100-year forcing parity falls to 9.9%.

Some folks argue that a 20-year time horizon should be preferred given the near-term impacts of climate change and the risk of passing tipping points. But in my view such a short time horizon is misguided. Its equivalent to discounting the future by around 13% per year – saddling future generations with higher warming from CO2 in exchange for minimizing near-term warming today. The case for 20-year GWPs to avoid tipping points is also fairly weak; most proposed tipping points depend on the level of peak warming and the timeframe over which it is sustained. It is quite unlikely that the world will reach peak warming before 2070 or 2080 even in ambitious mitigation scenarios, which means that little of the methane emitted today will be warming the planet by then.

Of course, the argument that gas is“worse than coal” is an unnecessarily high bar in a world that needs to get to net zero emissions. But gas displacing coal is generally still a good thing today, provided there are no other viable cheaper options. Gas also is something of a Swiss army knife of the electricity system, able to be built quite cheaply but expensive to operate (e.g. low cap-ex and high op-ex). This makes it quite well suited to be a dispatchable resource; cost effective to shut down during periods when cheap renewable or battery storage is available, and able to run when extended low resource outputs makes it necessary. That is one of the reasons why deep decarbonization scenarios for the US generally have considerable amounts of fossil gas capacity remaining in a net-zero system in 2050, even if utilization rates are quite low (~5%).

More broadly, integrated assessment models used by the IPCC to assess mitigation options have a pretty clear “merit order” for phasing out fossil fuels: coal first, than oil, than gas. For example, here is unabated (without CCS) coal use in 2C scenarios (SSP1-2.6) in the SSP Database used in the IPCC 6th Assessment Report, showing rapid declines in global coal use after 2020 (something that, unfortunately, we have yet to see globally in the real world). Global unabated gas use is more of a mixed picture, with some models (WITCH) showing rapid declines but others showing flat (AIM) or even increasing (GCAM, MESSAGE, REMIND) global gas use through 2030 or 2040. As clean energy alternatives – particular solar and batteries – get cheaper they should undermine the economic case for fossil gas and help drive down usage and emissions. But in my view policies to restrict supplies today will be less effective than accelerating the deployment of more cost-effective alternatives to gas. Its the (political) economy

Effectively mitigating climate change will depend on a combination of technology and policy.7 But we live in a world where policy and politics are the art of the possible, and given the increasing focus on affordability it seems like a focus on making clean energy cheap will be considerably more viable than making fossil fuels more expensive. As Yglesias noted in the Times, for the Democrats to retake power and control the Senate requires winning places like North Carolina, Ohio, or even places like Texas, Alaska, and Kansas.

I do disagree with Yglesias that the left should actively “support” the oil and gas industry, but there are a wide range of effective mitigation policies that we can pursue that make clean energy cheaper without supporting or directly penalizing the oil and gas industry. I also think we need to double down on phasing out coal as rapidly as possible, both domestically and overseas.

This means that there is likely still some role for supply side mitigation, particularly in a world where demand side mitigation is succeeding. As demand for oil and gas peaks and declines, the cost of these fuels will fall, potentially undercutting the economics of cleaner alternatives. One option would be to effectively backstop the price of oil and gas with a carbon tax – at least up to an estimated social cost of carbon. This would have the advantage of helping stabilize fuel prices, and consumers would not experience any cost increases (though they would not benefit from declines).

Similarly, there are other non-climate damages associated with fossil fuel use – air pollution and water pollution – that also merit regulation, and restrictions on mercury, sulfur, and other conventional pollutants have played an important role in retiring coal plants in the US by making coal more expensive to operate. There is an important role for the government in regulating these – as well as implementing stricter restrictions on methane leakage. And it should go without saying that we should oppose the types of direct subsidies or mandates around fossil fuels or restrictions on clean energy production that tilt the playing field toward dirtier energy that the current US administration is pursuing.

Ultimately the costs of fossil fuel use need to be reflected in the costs of energy for decarbonization to succeed, and this can occur either through artificially reducing the cost of clean energy or increasing the cost of dirty energy. At the current political moment, the former seems far more likely to work.

I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ?? below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.

1 Outside of the short-lived Biden era restrictions on oil and gas leases on federal land, which were ultimately thrown out by the courts and were mostly symbolic given the relatively minor amount of production occurring on federal lands. 2 Economists will point out that taxing the bad is generally more efficient than subsidizing the good, all things considered, but (and apologies to economists in the audience) what is most economically efficient is not necessarily the most politically palatable in practice. 3 Canada’s carbon tax was more or less repealed in 2025, while Washington state’s tax has also struggled to get popular support at times. 4 I prefer the term fossil gas to natural gas, as “natural” is a weird anachronism originally used to differentiate geologically produced (e.g. natural) gas from gas produced from heating coal (“town gas”). 5 Though we don’t live in a purely economically-driven world; local activism such as the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign helped convince policymakers to prematurely retire plants in favor of lower cost cleaner alternatives. 6 Estimates in the academic literature are that actual leakage is around 50% to 100% larger than the ~1.5% that the EPA reports in official inventories. 7 And its worth noting that technological progress is not independent of policy, given the key role of government spending in RD&D.

These fires the predictable outcome of climate change layered onto a highly flammable landscape engineered by decades of political and economic decisions—decisions rooted in dictatorship, neoliberalism, and the violent dispossession of Indigenous Mapuche communities.

Headline News:

• “Meet The Athletes Calling Out The 2026 Winter Olympics’ Polluting Sponsors” • The 2026 Winter Olympics faces growing pressure over a trio of polluting sponsors. Scientists and athletes have joined forces ahead of the Games, which will be held in Italy, to highlight how deals with huge corporations are making its carbon footprint unacceptable. [Euronews]

Speed skating (adrian8_8, CC BY-SA 2.0)

• “Geoengineering The Ocean: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” • In a study published in the journal Advancing Earth And Space Sciences on January 14, a team of researchers examined all of the current geoengineering proposal to assess what their impact on the ocean would be. Every strategy has risks and rewards, and they have to be understood. [CleanTechnica]
• “Netherlands Plans 1-GW Offshore Wind Tender” • The Dutch government is preparing a 1-GW offshore wind tender in 2026 in response to mounting cost pressures and stalled progress in the country’s wider rollout of sea-based projects, a ministerial letter says. The cabinet said that only 1 GW can be opened within the available budget. [reNews]
• “China Starts Assembling Its ‘Great Wall Of Energy’ In The Desert” • China is breaking barriers in the world’s installed renewable capacity, especially with solar. It has started assembly of the ‘Great Wall of Energy,’ which will consist of eight million panels and 100 GW of capacity in the desert. The GWE will bring new life into the land. [Energies Media]
• “EV Sales Drop 2% in 2025, But Up 162% From 2021” • As we expected, 4th quarter US EV sales don’t look great. Sales dropped a ton in the 4th quarter after Republicans killed the $7,500 US EV tax credit. However, the 3rd quarter was a blockbuster quarter for sales as people rushed to buy EVs before the tax credit was eliminated. [CleanTechnica]

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

hambachforest.org – If you’re looking to spice up your gaming experience, then real money slot mahjong gambling might just be the ticket. This exciting fusion of classic mahjong strategy and thrilling slot mechanics offers players a unique way to win big while enjoying a game steeped in cultural history. With countless sites available online, it can be overwhelming to find the perfect platform that suits your needs.

But fear not! In this post, we’ll explore the best real money slot mahjong gambling sites in Indonesia right now. Whether you’re new to the scene or an experienced player, we’ve got tips and insights to enhance your gameplay and boost your chances of winning. So grab your lucky charms and get ready for an adventure into the world of slot mahjong!

The Top Real Money Slot Mahjong Gambling Sites In Indonesia

When it comes to real money slot mahjong gambling in Indonesia, a few sites stand out from the crowd. One of the top contenders is **SlotMahjong88**, known for its user-friendly interface and an extensive selection of games. Players rave about their attractive bonuses and promotions that keep the excitement alive.

Another favorite is **GamblingPalace**. This site offers a mix of traditional mahjong gameplay with modern slots, making it appealing to diverse players. Their customer support team is always ready to assist with any queries.

For those seeking a vibrant community, **LuckyMahjongLand** provides interactive features where players can connect while enjoying their games. The site also hosts regular tournaments with enticing prizes.

Each platform brings something unique to the table, ensuring that every player finds their ideal gaming experience in this thrilling niche.

Tips For Playing And Winning On Real Money Slot Mahjong Gambling Sites

To maximize your chances of success on real money slot mahjong sites, start by familiarizing yourself with the game rules. Understanding how symbols interact and what combinations yield payouts is crucial.

Set a budget before you begin playing. Knowing your limits helps you stay in control and avoid overspending. Stick to this budget regardless of wins or losses.

Take advantage of bonuses and promotions offered by gambling sites. These can provide extra playtime or even risk-free opportunities to win without losing your own money.

Practice makes perfect, so consider trying free versions of slot mahjong games first. This allows you to hone your skills without financial pressure.

Remain patient and composed during gameplay. Emotional decisions often lead to poor choices that can affect both enjoyment and winnings.

Introduction To Real Money Slot Mahjong Gambling

Real money slot mahjong gambling has become a popular choice for players in Indonesia. This exciting blend of traditional Mahjong and modern slot gameplay offers a unique experience. Players are drawn to its vibrant graphics, engaging soundtracks, and the thrill of spinning reels for cash prizes.

The appeal lies not only in the potential winnings but also in the social aspect that Mahjong represents. Many enjoy playing with friends or participating in online communities dedicated to this game. It fosters camaraderie while providing an entertaining escape.

For those new to this realm, getting started is simple yet rewarding. Most sites offer easy registration processes, various payment methods, and enticing bonuses that attract beginners and seasoned gamblers alike. There’s no better time than now to explore what real money slot mahjong has to offer.

Embracing technology means you can play anytime, anywhere on your mobile device or computer. With plenty of options available, it’s essential to choose reputable platforms ensuring fair play and security for all users.

As you venture into this captivating world of gaming combined with classic elements from Mahjong, keep expanding your knowledge about strategies and tips discussed earlier in our guide. Your path towards fun experiences filled with excitement awaits!

The post The Best Real Money Slot Mahjong Gambling Site Indonesia Right appeared first on HAMBACHFOREST.

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, January 11, 2026 thru Sat, January 17, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (10 articles)

• As a climate scientist, I know heatwaves in Australia will only get worse. We need to start preparing now "During black summer, my daughters were too young to know what was happening. Now, amid another Australian heatwave, they deserve answers" Comment is Free, The Guardian, Opinion by Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Jan 8, 2026.
• Ocean Warming Breaks Record for Ninth Straight Year "Scientists warn the ocean’s accumulation of energy is fueling extreme weather patterns and destabilizing marine ecosystems." Science, Inside Climate News, Johnny Sturgeon, Jan 9, 2026.
• The western US is in a snow drought, raising fears for summer water supplies CNN, Andrew Freedman, Jan 9, 2026.
• ‘Profound impacts’: record ocean heat is intensifying climate disasters, data shows "Oceans absorb 90% of global heating, making them a stark indicator of the relentless march of the climate crisis" Environment, The Guardian, Damian Carrington, Jan 9, 2026.
• Himalayas bare and rocky after reduced winter snowfall, scientists warn BBC News, Navin Singh Khadka, Jan 11, 2026.
• New Climate Reports Show ‘Unprecedented Run of Global Heat’ "Data from multiple international agencies shows the reality of a rapidly warming world." Inside Climate News, Bob Berwyn, Jan 13, 2026.
• 2025: The fourth warmest year in U.S. history was full of deadly weather extremes "It was the first year in a decade without a U.S. hurricane landfall – but it still ranked third for billion-dollar disasters." Yale Climate Connections, Bob Henson, Jan 13, 2026.
• WMO confirms 2025 was one of warmest years on record "The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has confirmed that 2025 was one of the three warmest years on record, continuing the streak of extraordinary global temperatures. The past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record, and ocean heating continues unabated." World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Press Release , Jan 14, 2026.
• Copernicus: 2025 was the third-hottest year globally and in Europe - with two main drivers "The past 11 years have been the warmest on record globally. Europe is warming significantly faster than the global average." EuroNews, Servet Yanatma, Jan 14, 2026.
• World warming faster than forecast as pollution cuts remove hidden cooling effect "Experts have sounded the climate alarm after discovering that global temperatures are accelerating faster than predicted." EuroNews, Liam Gilliver, Jan 15, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (10 articles)

• Senate Climate Hawks Aren't Ready To Stop Talking About It “We need to talk about it in ways that connect directly to voters’ lives right now,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a top environmentalist, said of global warming. HuffPost, Igor Bobic, Jan 6, 2025.
• Trump taking ‘drill, baby, drill’ plan to Venezuela ‘terrible’ for climate, experts warn " ‘Everybody loses’ if production supercharged in country with largest known oil reserves, critics say" The Guardian, Dharna Noor & Oliver Milman, Jan 6, 2026.
• Trump assails 'windmills' and wind energy as junk: 'They're losers' USA TODAY, Dinah Voyles Pulver, Jan 9, 2026.
• Damn the torpedoes! Trump ditches a crucial climate treaty as he moves to dismantle America’s climate protections The Conversation US, Gary W Yohe, Jan 10, 2026.
• Richest 1% have ‘blown through’ their carbon budget for 2026 in just 10 days - experts warn "Governments are being pressured to ban carbon-intensive luxury items and tax fossil fuel profits to meet climate targets." euronews, Liam Gilliver, Jan 10, 2026.
• Pulling out of 66 international organizations, Trump turns his back on science, facts, reason The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Benjamin Santer, Jan 12, 2026.
• US carbon pollution rose in 2025 in reversal of previous years’ reductions "Study from research firm finds that US greenhouse gas emissions grew faster than economic activity last year" The Guardian, AP, Jan 13, 2026 .
• Trump’s EPA is setting the value of human health to $0 "The agency’s new math to favor polluters, explained."Trump’s EPA is setting the value of human health to $0 Vox, Umair Irfan , Jan 14, 2026.
• Prof Ben Santer: Trump administration is `embracing ignorance` on climate science The attacks on climate science by the Trump administration means the US is now “part of the problem” on global warming and “not part of the solution”, says Prof Ben Santer. Carbon Brief, Robert McSweeney, Jan 15, 2026.
• Spain’s meteorologists subjected to ‘alarming’ rise in hate speech, minister warns "Environment minister says attacks on social media affect perceptions of meteorology and denigrate researchers’ work" The Guardian, Sam Jones, Jan 15, 2026.

Miscellaneous (4 articles)

• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #02 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, January 4, 2026 thru Sat, January 10, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler, John Hartz & Doug Bostrom, Jan 11, 2026.
• Photos Capture the Breathtaking Scale of China’s Wind and Solar Buildout Yale Environment 360, Unknown, Jan 13, 2026.
• Analysis: Coal power drops in China and India for first time in 52 years after clean-energy records " Coal power generation fell in both China and India in 2025, the first simultaneous drop in half a century, after each nation added record amounts of clean energy." Carbon Brief, Lauri Myllyvirta, Jan 13, 2026.
• Trump’s freeze of an offshore wind project faces scrutiny from a judge he appointed AP News, Michael Phillis & Jennifer McDermott, Jan 14, 2026.

International Climate Conferences and Agreements (2 articles)

• Climate Cooperation Will Suffer as the U.S. Disengages From International Commitments "Experts say pulling the U.S. out of more than 60 global organizations will weaken international governance structures and lead to further fragmentation of global power." Inside Climate News, Bob Berwyn, Jan 10, 2026.
• Australia’s Cop31 chief negotiator plans to lobby petrostates on fossil fuel phaseout "Exclusive: Chris Bowen says key to next UN climate summit will be ‘engagement, engagement, engagement’ with countries such as Saudi Arabia" The Guardian, Dan Jervis-Bardy, Jan 10, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (1 article)

• Climate Variability Emerges as Both Risk and Opportunity for the Global Energy Transition "Climate variability and long-term climate change are increasingly shaping the performance and reliability of renewable energy systems worldwide, according to the WMO–IRENA Climate-driven Global Renewable Energy Resources and Energy Demand Review: 2024 Year in Review, released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)." World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Press Release, Jan 13, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Solutions (1 article)

• Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent? No - Clearing trees to build solar farms does not negate their climate change benefits, because one acre of solar panels prevents far more CO2 emissions than an acre of forest absorbs. Skeptical Science, Sue Bin Park, Jan 13, 2026.

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!

This is a guest article written by Jean McLean, Director of Engagement at the Green Economy Coalition (GEC), a global movement for green and fair economies.

With the cost of living spiralling out of control, affordability is now the key factor determining whether climate action gains public support or faces opposition.

Zohran Mamdani’s recent successful mayoral campaign in New York was based on concrete affordability pledges to make life more affordable to New Yorkers: rent freezes, fare free buses, city owned grocery stores, raising the minimum wage, baby baskets for newborns and no-cost childcare. The UK and Australian governments have taken note of this success and have prioritised addressing the cost of living and affordability as key to electoral success. Climate leaders need to take note. 

This success can be replicated! We know that the money exists to prioritise affordability for the general public, what we need is political will. Leaders must urgently switch to cleaner energy alternatives as they are proven to be cheaper than fossil fuels, bringing down energy costs for everyone. Taxing big polluters, the ultra-rich and using those funds towards public investment is a popular and necessary action.

For years, climate misinformation has tried to convince people that a green transition is a luxury not an inevitability. Despite the millions spent on disinformation, public opinion tells a very different story. Across countries and political contexts, people increasingly understand that clean energy is not the cause of rising costs — it is one of the most powerful solutions to them.

Our latest Global Green Attitudes polling shows a remarkably strong global public consensus: 

• 82%  per cent of respondents believe investment in clean energy should be a top government priority, even if it requires significant public spending. 
• An even larger share — 88%— agree that stronger laws are needed to support renewable energy like solar and wind.

Notably, this support has held steady despite inflation and increasing economic anxiety.  

As cost-of-living pressures deepen, people are judging energy choices on a simple test — will this lower my bills? As routine household bills become the main source of financial stress, renewable energy offers both an economic solution and a political opportunity for governments prepared to act.

Crucially, public perceptions are already shifting in clean energy’s favour. Many people already see clean energy as cost‑competitive or cheaper than fossil fuels. In the United States, a majority now believe clean energy costs the same or less than oil and gas. Globally, renewable electricity is routinely 30–50 per cent cheaper than new fossil fuel generation. 

In this context, this year’s polling data reveals an interesting dynamic between public support for environmental action and the perception of government performance: 

• People want lower bills and place responsibility for this squarely on governments. 
• The public wants transformative government action, such as public investment, fair rules, and accountability for polluters while also holding low trust in political leaders to deliver this. 
• Many are feeling  deeply frustrated  at political inaction as inflation and economic anxiety increase.

What is missing from climate action is not public backing then, but policy creativity. Clean energy can deliver affordability, good jobs, and energy security — if leaders choose to act. 

From free or discounted solar power programs to large‑scale investment in grids, storage, and clean industries, the solutions exist. Renewables already save countries trillions in avoided fuel imports and shield households from price shocks.

The choice facing leaders is stark. Continue delaying in service of fossil fuels  or unlock a future where clean energy is understood for what it truly is: clean, common‑sense, and cheap. The public is ready. The question is whether governments are willing to listen.

The post Affordability is the defining climate issue of 2026 appeared first on 350.

Headline News:

• “Data Center Energy Demand Provokes Federal Response” • According to Bloomberg, the administration and several state governors will direct PJM to hold an auction for tech companies to bid on fifteen-year contracts for new electricity generating capacity. PJM was not consulted, and the auction reportedly favors fossil fuels and nuclear. [CleanTechnica]

Transmission system (Andrey Metelev, Unsplash)

• “Trump’s Plan To Make Data Centers Pay For Power Plants Has Big Flaws” • The National Energy Dominance Council and some governors of PJM states released an agreement that presses PJM to speed up construction of over $15 billion worth of ​baseload power plants, making data centers pay “whether they show up and use the power or not.” [Canary Media]
• “PJM’s Power-Starved Grid Will Get A Big Battery” • Developer Elevate Renewables is tackling the dire need for reliable energy in the PJM region with something unheard of in the area: a really big battery. The company announced that it had acquired a 150-MW, 600-MWh battery project in northern Virginia that it will complete by mid-2026. [Canary Media]
• “Court Issues Major Ruling In US Nuclear Power Plant’s Legal Battle With Residents” • A nuclear power plant in Massachusetts has been barred from disposing of radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay. Community advocates who have been fighting against the power plant said it was important for officials to reach this verdict in case there are more lawsuits. [The Cool Down]
• “Iberdrola Powers Up US-Canada Link” • Iberdrola has put the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission network into commission through its US subsidiary Avangrid. Iberdrola said the 233-km high-voltage line has a 1200-MW capacity. It is now carrying hydroelectric power from Quebec supplying nearly 10% of electricity used in Massachusetts. [reNews]

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

A climate deadline has arrived absurdly early this year. New research from Oxfam shows that by 10 January 2026, the world’s richest 1% had already used up their entire annual carbon budget. The budget is the amount of pollution they could generate over the whole year so that global heating stays below 1.5°C, the limit to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. 

The richest 0.1% blew past their limit even earlier, on 3 January. Oxfam calls this moment Pollutocrat Day. It puts a timestamp on a reality that’s impossible to ignore: a small, wealthy minority is driving the climate crisis, while everyone else pays the price.

The scale of inequality in emissions

To stay within the 1.5°C. limit, each person’s annual carbon allowance works out to about 2.1 tonnes of CO₂.

For the richest 1%, that fair share is exhausted almost immediately. Oxfam finds they emit 75.1 tonnes per person per year, or 0.206 tonnes per day, meaning it takes just 10.2 days for someone in the richest 1% to burn through an entire year’s carbon budget. In fact, this 75 tonnes of CO₂ per person each year is over 35 times the level compatible with 1.5°C.

The inequality becomes even more glaring at the very top. More data from Oxfam shows that a person in the richest 0.1% produces more carbon pollution in a single day than the poorest 50% emit in an entire year. If everyone polluted at the rate of the richest 0.1%, the global carbon budget would be used up in less than three weeks.

The consequences of this unchecked pollution are deadly. Emissions from this group in a single year are expected to cause 1.3 million heat-related deaths by the end of the century. Over time, this excess pollution is projected to cause $44 trillion in economic damage in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

To stay within 1.5°C, the richest 1% would need to cut their emissions by 97% by 2030. Meanwhile, those who have contributed least to the crisis — including communities in climate-vulnerable countries, Indigenous Peoples, and women and girls — are already facing the harshest impacts, from deadly heat to food insecurity, floods, and displacement.

This is about power and profit

Beyond their own lifestyle emissions from private jets and super-yachts, the super-rich are also bankrolling climate breakdown through their investments. Oxfam finds that the average billionaire’s portfolio is tied to companies producing 1.9 million tonnes of CO₂ every year, locking the world into fossil fuel expansion.

That economic power is reinforced by political influence. The wealthiest individuals and corporations are able to shape rules in their favour, ensuring polluting industries remain protected. At the most recent UN climate talks, COP30, in Brazil, for example, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered every national delegation except the host country, with around 1,600 lobbyists in attendance. This level of access makes it far easier to delay action and weaken climate commitments.

Extreme wealth does not just mean higher emissions, it sustains a system built around fossil fuels and profit. This moment calls for more than outrage. It raises a deeper question: whose interests are governments choosing to protect? 

Governments need to act, now

As the year unfolds and climate impacts like heatwaves and wildfires continue to intensify around the world, governments must be willing to challenge systems that reward pollution and individuals that hoard extreme wealth. 

Instead of doubling down on and expanding fossil fuels, and competing for control over oil, gas, and other critical resources, there is another, clearly better option. Oxfam points the way forward for our governments to:

• Make the richest polluters pay through higher taxes on extreme wealth and income
• Impose excess-profit taxes on fossil fuel corporations
• Ban or heavily tax carbon-intensive luxury items such as private jets and super-yachts
• Shift investment toward renewable energy and people-centred solutions

Pollutocrat Day is a warning. The climate crisis will not be solved by asking everyone to do the same while a small elite continues to pollute without limits. Real action means ending fossil fuel expansion, confronting extreme wealth, and putting people and the planet before profit.

The post Pollutocrat Day appeared first on 350.

COP 30 Opening Plenary Statement International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate ChangeCOP 30 Opening Plenary Statement Belém do Para, Brazil  November 10, 2025   Respectful Greetings [in Indigenous language of presenter] We celebrate this first COP held in the Amazon. However, the lack of commitment and ambition from Parties has brought us to irreversible tipping […]

The post International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change COP 30 Opening Plenary Statement first appeared on Indigenous Environmental Network.


English subtitles available

The Biodiversity Festival, held on June 1st at the Articulturae farmers’ market in Manziana (Rome), marked another significant milestone in the journey of Terrae Vivae. This initiative aims to nurture ecological communities centered on local, wholesome food, biodiversity and environmental protection, regenerative agriculture, and the well-being of both humans and animals.

The Festival also served as the occasion to launch the short film “Biodiversity is Life“, which documents a deep and participatory learning process on biodiversity, agroecology, and earth care. Though rooted in a specific territory, this process aspires—through its holistic dimension—to establish a replicable model in other regions, countries, and continents.

Across the world, a movement is underway to reclaim control over our food and distribution systems. Local economies are being overtaken by globalization, while biodiversity is systematically eroded in favor of monocultures and industrial livestock systems that scar landscapes, pollute soil and water, and produce food lacking in nutrients and contaminated with pesticides and herbicides. The impact of this system on the environment and society is both profound and destructive.

Una rete internazionale per rispondere alle sfide delle multinazionali e delle economie globalizzate

E’ proprio per rispondere alle molteplici sfide che il modello produttivo industriale globalizzato lancia ai territori di tutto il mondo, che Navdanya International ha avviato Terrae Vivae, un programma che intende coinvolgere attivamente cittadini e produttori locali nella scelta dei processi produttivi e di distribuzione. La produzione di cibo di qualità diviene, in se stessa, un atto di condivisione e di socialità. Democratizzare i sistemi alimentari è un passo essenziale per invertire il processo totalitario e distruttivo messo in atto dalle lobby industriali.
Terrae Vivae mira a condividere l’esperienza di oltre trent’anni accumulata da Navdanya in termini di difesa dei diritti della natura e di tutela e valorizzazione del patrimonio di biodiversità e di conoscenze locali contro le sfide della globalizzazione e dei monopoli delle multinazionali.

Photo cr.:Erika Santoro

Da questo punto di vista, il programma si inserisce e agisce in armonia con tutti le istanze bottom up che negli ultimi decenni si sono sviluppate organicamente sui territori di tutto il mondo. Distretti ecologici del cibo, biodistretti, eco villaggi, consigli del cibo, gruppi di acquisto solidale, mercati contadini etc. Rispondere alle sfide dell’economia globale guidata dagli interessi della finanza, significa tornare a rilanciare i processi democratici, a rigenerare le comunità, a favorire le economie circolari, ridurre gli sprechi, riciclare i rifiuti, azzerare le emissioni climalteranti, rigenerare il suolo , purificare le falde acquifere, reclamare i beni comuni, far fronte alla crisi sanitaria, assicurare il benessere animale. Sono queste alcune delle battaglie più importanti intorno alle quali il tessuto sociale e culturale si può risanare attraverso processi democratici e inclusivi.

Terrae Vivae opera dunque come una rete vivente che promuove la transizione verso l’agroecologia intrecciando ricerca, istruzione, politica e azione dal basso per co-creare comunità rigenerative. L’agroecologia non è solo un insieme di tecniche agricole ma una trasformazione sistemica ad alta intensità di conoscenza, che rimodella le pratiche agricole e le strutture di governance verso la resilienza sociale ed ecologica. E’ dunque essenziale abbracciare un approccio relazionale e co-creativo in cui ricercatori, agricoltori, politici e comunità collaborano per sviluppare, testare e perfezionare le pratiche agroecologiche in contesti del mondo reale. Collegando la conoscenza scientifica con la saggezza tradizionale e locale, si garantisce che le transizioni agroecologiche siano sensibili al luogo, culturalmente radicate e adatte al clima.

Non si tratta, però, esclusivamente di ripristinare ciò che è stato degradato, ma di creare nuovi percorsi affinché le relazioni tra comunità, culture ed ecosistemi possano prosperare insieme. Le comunità rigenerative sono infatti ecosistemi dinamici e co-creativi in ​​cui tutti gli attori, umani e non solo, partecipano attivamente alla formazione reciproca e del proprio ambiente condiviso. La rigenerazione è vista come un processo attivo e relazionale in cui le comunità non sono semplicemente sostenute ma continuamente reimmaginate e rimodellate dalla reciproca influenza di tutti i partecipanti, umani e non-umani. È un impegno per una trasformazione a lungo termine, in cui coltivare, mangiare, apprendere e acquistare cibo locale vengono intesi come atti di cura, collaborazione e interesse.

Comunità in formazione

L’istruzione è un aspetto vitale della transizione agroecologica. Attraverso l’apprendimento esperienziale, basato sul territorio e sul luogo, è possibile promuovere una connessione con gli ecosistemi locali, i sistemi alimentari e le pratiche sostenibili, garantendo che l’istruzione non sia uno sforzo astratto e meramente cognitivo ma un’esperienza relazionale coinvolgente e pratica. Interagendo attivamente con la terra, i partecipanti acquisiscono un profondo rispetto per la complessità della natura e la resilienza dei sistemi agroecologici, riconoscendo il loro ruolo personale e collettivo nella gestione ambientale.

Il programma di educazione ecologica di Terrae Vivae è dunque molto più di un semplice percorso di apprendimento prevedendo la creazione di legami tra le persone, la terra, la comunità, le fattorie e gli ecosistemi complessi che ci sostengono. La partecipazione attiva dei membri della comunità rende questo processo un’esperienza condivisa e viva. Grazie a questo approccio inclusivo, chi partecipa riscopre il proprio legame con il territorio in modo autentico e significativo attraverso il metodo del “imparare facendo” che prevede uno scambio continuo di conoscenze tra generazioni. Così, i giovani diventano custodi di un sapere ecologico prezioso e protagonisti attivi del cambiamento nelle loro comunità, attraverso un rapporto diretto e concreto con la terra.

L’educazione ecologica è allora uno strumento imprescindibile per costruire futuri sostenibili, in cui il rispetto per la complessità e la resilienza della natura si traduce in pratiche quotidiane di cura e rigenerazione. Questi percorsi promuovono non solo la conoscenza, ma anche la capacità di agire come agenti di cambiamento, riconoscendo nei giovani non semplici destinatari, ma protagonisti attivi della trasformazione sociale ed ecologica. Non si tratta solo di acquisire informazioni, ma di coltivare un rispetto profondo per la complessità della natura e per la resilienza dei sistemi agroecologici e di riconoscere alle nuove generazioni il loro ruolo fondamentale di custodi dell’ambiente.

E’ allora essenziale ispirare e dotare la prossima generazione delle competenze, delle conoscenze e dell’alfabetizzazione ecologica necessarie per sostenere comunità resilienti eque, eque ed ecologicamente consapevoli per incoraggiare una transizione verso pratiche di vita sostenibili che privilegino la resilienza ambientale, la conoscenza locale e l’esperienza globale. Attraverso pratiche rigenerative, l’educazione ai principi dell’ecologia profonda e l’azione guidata dalla comunità, è possibile costruire comunità resilienti che siano consapevoli dal punto di vista ecologico e siano in grado di intraprendere azioni significative per il pianeta.

Celebrare la biodiversità per avviare processi rigenerativi

La Festa della Biodiversità celebra il lavoro collettivo con la comunità e rappresenta la sintesi concreta del nostro approccio pedagogico e politico. Questo evento, che si svolge solitamente al termine di ogni ciclo didattico, rafforza i legami tra produttori, studenti e famiglie, mettendo al centro i giovani e costruendo una rete di relazioni sempre più forte e vitale. Laboratori, scambi di semi, dialoghi intergenerazionali, momenti di riflessione collettiva e di gioco diventano strumenti concreti per esercitare la democrazia alimentare e per costruire sistemi alimentari più equi, resilienti e sostenibili.

 

E’ quanto si racconta nel cortometraggio “Biodiversity is Life“, presentato in occasione della Festa della Biodiversità. Il cortometraggio racconta l’esperienza dell’educazione ecologica attraverso un percorso di scoperta e apprendimento sui temi della biodiversità, dell’agroecologia e della cura della terra. Un percorso che inizia in India, presso l’Università della Terra di Navdanya che, da oltre vent’anni, accoglie piccoli agricoltori e studenti da tutto il mondo per trasmettere pensieri e pratiche dell’agroecologia. E’ proprio Vandana Shiva, presidente di Navdanya, a spiegare il legame fra la tutela della biodiversità e il nostro benessere fisico e spirituale. Attraverso immagini e testimonianze, il cortometraggio documenta le attività svolte sui territori: dall’osservazione diretta degli ecosistemi alle pratiche agricole sostenibili, dai laboratori didattici alle esperienze collettive, sottolineando il ruolo attivo delle nuove generazioni come custodi di un sapere ecologico che coniuga tradizione e innovazione. “Biodiversity is Life” restituisce il senso e l’impatto di un’esperienza che ha saputo andare oltre la semplice trasmissione di conoscenze, promuovendo una cultura della responsabilità condivisa e un legame autentico con il territorio.

La Festa della Biodiversità è, finalmente, un invito permanente a unirsi al movimento di trasformazione di Terrae Vivae, a diventare protagonisti del cambiamento e a difendere il diritto di tutte e tutti a un cibo sano, locale e prodotto nel rispetto della terra e delle persone. Coltivare consapevolezza ecologica significa coltivare la capacità di agire insieme per rigenerare i nostri territori, restituendo consapevolezza, dignità e resilienza alle comunità.