News Feeds

With June’s UN climate talks inching towards gridlock, a group of diplomats calling themselves “Friends of Science” issued a stark warning: climate science was under attack in Bonn.

The coalition, spanning the world’s richest to its most vulnerable nations, pointed the finger primarily at those who think “science threatens their economic prospects” – a thinly-veiled reference to fossil fuel-dependent states accused of casting doubt on long-held scientific tenets in the UN climate process.

Fiji’s lead negotiator, Sivendra Michael, went still further. He denounced what he called “a very polluted narrative” taking hold outside the negotiating rooms and singled out ECO, a daily newsletter on the talks produced by Climate Action Network (CAN) International, for overlooking the issue. 

“They are representing developing countries, but they are not representing us,” Michael said. His words hinted at how a rift between governments over the science of global warming has created tensions inside the climate movement.

Watchers of the UN climate talks have told Climate Home News there is growing unease over where the world’s most influential coalition of climate NGOs stands in an increasingly heated debate about how scientific messages produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are crafted and turned into global climate policy. 

UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot

CAN’s international leadership has publicly backed a line of argument, championed by some big emerging economies including India, that questions how fair and equitable the models underpinning the work of the IPCC – the UN’s climate science body – are because they are dominated by research from the Global North. 

But some climate activists, including from nations on the frontline of the climate crisis in the Pacific, are increasingly disappointed by CAN’s silence in a connected row over whether the IPCC’s forthcoming assessment report should be finished in time to inform the next UN scorecard of global climate action.  

Over the last two years, India, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Kenya have pushed back against attempts by a large coalition of nations to align the IPCC’s AR7 report timeline with the second stocktake of national climate plans under the UN climate process. They claim this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and restrict their ability to provide scientific input into the process.

India flags bias in IPCC assumptions

CAN International Executive Director Tasneem Essop spoke at an online event last month in which panelists challenged the “Friends of Science” campaign launched at the Bonn talks. 

During the webinar, an Indian scientist and government negotiator set out her view that the IPCC’s way of working and scientific assumptions perpetuate inequity between developed and developing countries – and yet its reports have come to be treated as “scripture” that cannot be questioned. 

In her intervention, Essop did not comment directly on the Bonn science campaign nor on the IPCC timeline issue. But the participation of CAN’s leadership in an event where such criticism of the IPCC was aired has sparked concern in some parts of the NGO community.

“The way in which CAN International is playing into what could be the destruction of the IPCC inputs into the climate process is very concerning,” said Bill Hare, who was involved in CAN’s establishment nearly four decades ago and now runs think-tank Climate Analytics. 

Science ‘under attack’ from fossil fuel interests at UN climate talks

He added that it was a mistake for CAN International to align itself with arguments made by India and Saudi Arabia, when those countries are blocking the conclusion of the IPCC’s next key report on cutting emissions in time for it to feed into the next global stocktake, which is due to conclude in 2028.

Like other insiders Climate Home News spoke to, the veteran Australian climate scientist fears these tensions could hamper CAN’s widely recognised power to influence the talks.

“The CAN International voice has been very, very important in the process. That voice doesn’t need to be diluted at this moment in history – that would be a really bad move,” Hare said.

Dialogue to reconcile differing views

Over the last decade, CAN has been working to transform itself into an organisation that is more representative of, and responsive to, voices and needs in the Global South. In 2019, it appointed Essop – a South African expert on climate, energy, poverty and social justice – as executive director, shifting further away from its European and North American roots.

CAN International, which functions as the broader network’s secretariat, says it is discussing how to reconcile varying views on the IPCC and the science and equity question among its hundreds of member groups spread across 130 countries.

“We acknowledge that there are different perspectives within a global network of over 2,000 members on these issues,” CAN International’s Essop said in response to questions from Climate Home News. “Given this diversity, we have democratic processes to build internal agreements.” 

“Science and equity are both fundamental principles for effective climate action and are firmly embedded in CAN’s work,” she added in a written statement. “Putting these principles into practice in a painfully unjust world is not always straightforward, which is why we need continued dialogue across the network.”

Calls for “fair share” approach

The webinar in late August – which aimed to untangle what organisers described as “a growing narrative” that “treats science and equity as opposing priorities” – opened with a presentation by Tejal Kanitkar, a prominent Indian climate scientist who also serves on her government’s delegations at the IPCC and UN climate talks. 

Outlining the findings of a paper she co-authored, Kanitkar argued that the IPCC had used scenarios for future emission reduction trajectories based primarily on assumptions put forward by Global North researchers that are skewed against the world’s poorest nations. These, she noted, were then incorporated into the first UN review of global climate action in 2023 and turned into widely cited emissions-cutting targets for limiting warming to 1.5C – a goal the UN has now conceded will be breached, at least temporarily.

Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh

Kanitkar said the “Friends of Science” group included “some of the people who have over-consumed the carbon budget and now use science as a slogan”. When Climate Home News raised the participation of diplomats from vulnerable countries, she said they should be asked why they “accept outcomes that burden the poorest the most”.

Commenting on Kanitkar’s presentation, CAN’s Essop said everyone knows that “imbalances of power dictate who sits at the table, who designs the models and who determines the assumptions underlying them”.

Her wider intervention focused more generally on the need to ensure that emissions-reduction pathways follow an equitable approach and account for the “fair share” of action countries need to take based on their historical responsibilities for climate change. 

IPCC working to update models

Hare later acknowledged that most of the IPCC models used for 1.5C scenarios fail to account for the higher cost of capital and transition financing faced by developing countries. But as this is a “well-known” limitation, the IPCC gives a nuanced reading of the scenarios, and the next generation of models it uses is expected to include more consideration of equity, he added.

Echoing this, a climate scientist from a developing country currently involved in the IPCC process, who did not want to be identified, told Climate Home News that economic models inevitably contain biases and IPCC authors are already working to identify and correct them. 

• Sep 2, 2026 Science UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot Leading scientists say warming must peak at 1.8C to be able to reverse course this century, but current government climate policies are way off track Read more
• Sep 2, 2026 Comment Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot We need a strategy for navigating the huge risks to ecosystems and societies Read more

Despite criticisms of how IPCC scientific reports have been produced, all governments must sign off on every line of a key “summary for policy-makers” at a dedicated meeting. In 2023, the approved summary included the emissions reduction figures in question that informed the UN’s first global stocktake. 

Irrespective of this wider debate, Hare said the “Friends of Science” campaign, which he supports, is focused on the timing of the IPCC’s next assessment cycle rather than the equity of its models.

Unresolved row over IPCC report timeline

A political battle over that time-frame has dragged on for more than two years at successive meetings of the science panel, with governments repeatedly failing to find a solution. 

A large majority of nations have been pushing for a timeline that would ensure the next round of AR7 reports can feed into the UN’s global stocktake. But a group of countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, China, Russia and Kenya, have said at previous IPCC meetings that this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and have lobbied for a longer process.

Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

In Bonn this summer, the coalition that wants to align AR7 with the 2028 stocktake – which includes diplomats from Fiji, Nepal, the European Union, Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Panama – vowed to ensure that decision-making in the UN climate process remains based on the “best available science”, including the IPCC assessment reports. 

They pointed the finger at “the usual suspects” but stopped short of singling out any countries at the public press conference. Discussions in the previous week had seen Saudi Arabia and India play down the centrality of IPCC reports in the UN stocktake and oppose calls in draft texts to encourage scientific work on scenarios to limit an overshoot of the 1.5C warming goal.

Bonn upset fuels further tension

A campaigner with knowledge of internal discussions told Climate Home News that many civil society groups from some of the world’s most vulnerable nations, including the Pacific islands, had expected CAN International to back calls in Bonn defending the centrality of the IPCC in UN climate policy-making. 

Despite this, a day before the “Friends of Science” press conference, CAN published an ECO newsletter that did not mention the issue. Instead, it voiced surprise over the claims of an attack on science happening in the negotiations and accused some of the IPCC’s loudest-defending governments of hypocrisy for continuing to expand fossil fuels and not delivering “fair shares” of emissions cuts and finance to the developing world.

“We were really shocked we could not find a common position and then this jarring narrative was being pushed,” the campaigner added. 

After divisions hardened in Bonn, Hare said his organisation was approached by “very upset” CAN members from various regions about the stance taken by the network’s international leadership on the issue.

Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push

While Climate Home News understands that internal discussions have continued during the summer, including at a CAN leadership meeting in Nairobi in recent days, the campaigner said that CAN International’s endorsement of the recent webinar that directly challenged the “Friends of Science” coalition did not send a reassuring signal. 

Some observers said they feared it would inflame tensions over how climate science is defined and utilised for policy purposes, with consequences reaching well beyond Bonn.

In a statement to Climate Home News, Essop said that “at a time when communities are experiencing the most horrific impacts of climate chaos, our collective energy must turn to solutions such as filling the Loss and Damage Fund, the phasing out of fossil fuels led by the Global North, and justice for people who are least responsible for this climate emergency”. 

The post As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond appeared first on Climate Home News.

As education workers, students, parents and other community members in Ontario battle Doug Ford for a better education system, alliances are forming or expanding to...

The post Join parents’ fight for better public education first appeared on Spring.

Companies behind plans in East Yorkshire for a £2.5m lower-volume frack, well test and data centre study have given notice of preparation work.

The news came in a formal statement by the majority owner, Reabold Resources, released this morning (9 September 2026).

West Newton-A well site, East Yorkshire. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The work is planned for the West Newton-A well site in Holderness. Reabold, which holds an almost 80% stake, said:

“preparatory work for the planned recompletion, stimulation and test programme at the West Newton A-2 well will commence shortly”.

The site operator, Rathlin Energy updated its website yesterday (8 September 2026), saying:

• Plans were “being progressed” on the lower-volume frack and test plans
• Work was targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026 (as announced in June 2026) if well completion and test contractors were available
• A community benefit scheme would be set up

The local campaign group, West Newton Said No, said this morning:

“Our monitors will be keeping a close eye on anything that happens and will take any and all actions it deems necessary to protect our precious aquifer and local communities.”

See full statement below from West Newton Said No

Data centre plans

Previous Reabold statements said gas extracted from West Newton could be used to generate electricity to run a bitcoin mining operation.

For the first time, Reabold said today a feasibility study was underway for a data centre on the West Newton site.

It said:

“The Company believes that West Newton’s onshore location, scale and proximity to existing grid and transport infrastructure make it well suited to such applications, and further updates will be provided as this work progresses.”

Stephen Williams, Reabold’s co-chief executive, said:

“It is particularly exciting that a study is underway to assess the feasibility of co-locating data centre infrastructure at site, which would be powered by West Newton’s natural gas, offering a uniquely positioned “behind-the-meter” development solution for digital infrastructure in the UK.

“The UK is experiencing a significant acceleration in demand for digital infrastructure, driven by AI and the growing digital economy for which securing and scalable, affordable and reliable power has become a key constraint.

“We believe West Newton has the potential to provide reliable power generation, creating an additional value pathway alongside the project’s existing traditional natural gas development plans.”

Other details

Rathlin Energy said plans were “being progressed” for the proposed lower-volume frack, described as a well stimulation, and the well test, due to last up to a year

The West Newton-A project also requires the construction of passing places on the access road, Pasture Lane.

Rathlin confirmed that Pasture Lane would be closed for about four weeks from mid-September 2026.

Reabold said in its statement that authorities for expenditure had been issued for the highways work and procurement of long-lead items, including speciality chemicals.

It also said final engineering activities and award of contracts were currently underway. It said:

“Subject to the completion of these preparatory activities, the well will be recompleted, followed by a period of testing.”

Rathlin Energy said the North Sea Transition Authority had approved its applications for the lower volume frack and well test.

The company also restated that the hydraulic fracture plan had been approved by the NSTA and Environment Agency (EA).

The EA’s decision to permit the fracture operation is the subject of a legal challenge by local campaigner, Peter Lomas.

• At the time of writing, there has been no statement today on West Newton from Union Jack Oil, the other investor in the operation. Union Jack is the subject of a takeover bid from Reabold Resources. Union Jack shareholders recently voted to remove the entire board . The new directors are due to make a statement this week. Union Jack issued a statement at 10.50am.

Reaction

The campaign group, West Newton Said No, issued a statement this morning:

“Today’s RNS [regulatory news service statement] from Reabold comes as no surprise, following the rebuttal by shareholders over at Union Jack Oil for a takeover of their company. We see this as just another can kicking excercise by the industry and an attempt to bully UJO [Union Jack] into selling up.

“This farcical story has continued for years, and what’s even more farcical is that now Reabold are talking about using the gas, which has never been proved to flow at any rate, let alone commercial rates to power AI data centres, a change from its originally proposed bitcoin mining farms.

“The planning condition to construct passing places on Pasture Lane where originally planned for construction in August, these were scrapped.

“West Newton Said No will be actively campaigning for the liaison group to reject any community fund. It’s just another bribe to placate the local communities and has been used as a weapon worldwide, take the money and if anything untoward happens your gagged.

“A question needs to be answered here, if they plan on constructing a data centre, and if they ever get permission, which is highly doubtful , do they plan on abstraction of our clean fresh drinking water from our irreplaceable chalk aquifer to cool it ?

“Our monitors will be keeping a close eye on anything that happens and will take any and all actions it deems necessary to protect our precious aquifer and local communities.”

Delta Coalition decries Voluntary Agreements framework as unreliable and ecologically destructive to an already fragile Delta Estuary

For Immediate Release:

September 9, 2026

Contact:
Ashley Castaneda, ashley@restorethedelta.org

SACRAMENTO — The Bureau of Reclamation and the Westlands Water District have indicated they will not participate in the Voluntary Agreements (VAs) if the State Water Board approves the updated San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan (“Bay-Delta Plan”), prompting renewed criticism from the Delta Tribal Environmental Coalition (DTEC)—consisting of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Little Manila Rising, and Restore the Delta.

DTEC has long raised concerns about the Bay-Delta Plan’s reliance on VAs, privately negotiated deals allowing powerful water districts to offer limited flow commitments and funding in exchange for exemptions from stronger, enforceable regulatory requirements. The coalition has criticized the VA framework as scientifically inadequate and lacking enforceable protections needed to safeguard threatened fish species and address harmful algal blooms (HABs). 

The coalition has also consistently warned that the federal government cannot be relied upon as a partner in complying with state laws and regulatory decisions designed to protect Delta ecosystems, Tribes, and Delta communities. The Bureau of Reclamation’s decision to pull out of the agreements in this late stage, DTEC says, is further evidence of that pattern.

DTEC is calling on the State Water Board to prioritize strong, science-based, and enforceable protections for Delta water quality and ecosystems—and to abandon the failing Voluntary Agreements framework. The coalition emphasizes that the current outcome is a direct consequence of a broken process that excluded key voices, including Tribes and environmental justice communities.

The State Water Board is accepting comments on the plan through September 18, before considering adoption at a hearing scheduled for October 28-29.

STATEMENTS FROM COALITION MEMBERS:

Malissa Tayaba, Vice Chair, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians:

“California tribes were deliberately excluded from the development of agreements that maintain unsustainable water deliveries and frustrate our ability to maintain our culture and traditions. Now, parties that negotiated those agreements are threatening legal action unless they are allowed to operate with zero accountability. There is seemingly no limit to their greed and unwillingness to respect tribal sovereignty and culture. This is why we need a regulatory approach that protects tribal beneficial water uses and ecosystem health.”

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director, Restore the Delta:

“Collectively we have wasted eight years since 2018 on a water scheme that will never satisfy powerful water contractors. They will never volunteer to help solve the water needs of the Delta. Tribes, communities along the watersheds, fishing interests, and many other parties, including ratepayers, who will be footing the bill for the water buybacks, have all been left out of the secret negotiations. There is nothing here to save. It is time to enact science-based Bay-Delta standards rather than promoting a fantasy to fill the Delta Conveyance Project.”

###

The soft body of the turtle Channel Comment brendan 9th September 2026 Teaser Media

Dua pemain membuka permainan serupa dengan nilai transaksi berbeda. Satu memakai nominal kecil, sementara pemain lain memasang angka lebih besar. Ketika hasil keduanya bertolak belakang, muncul dugaan bahwa sistem sengaja menaikkan tingkat kesulitan berdasarkan jumlah dana. Dari sinilah anggapan mengenai hubungan Nominal Situs Slot Maxwin dengan algoritma mulai berkembang.

Dugaan tersebut terdengar masuk akal apabila hanya dilihat dari pengalaman singkat. Namun mekanisme permainan digital tidak sesederhana membaca jumlah transaksi lalu mengubah peluang secara otomatis. Algoritma Slot Maxwin pada permainan berbasis RNG bekerja melalui proses perhitungan hasil setiap putaran sesuai konfigurasi game. Nilai taruhan dapat memengaruhi jumlah uang pada hasil tertentu, tetapi bukan berarti tingkat kesulitan otomatis berubah.

Nominal Situs Slot Maxwin Sering Disalahartikan sebagai Pengatur Peluang

Nominal menjadi elemen paling mudah diamati pengguna. Angka terlihat jelas pada layar, berubah setiap putaran, serta langsung berkaitan dengan saldo. Tidak heran apabila bagian ini kerap dianggap sebagai faktor utama saat hasil permainan berubah. Padahal ada perbedaan antara nilai taruhan dan probabilitas. Taruhan menentukan besarnya nilai finansial pada satu putaran. Probabilitas berkaitan dengan struktur matematika permainan, kombinasi simbol, tabel pembayaran, volatilitas, serta konfigurasi sistem. Situs Slot Maxwin pada dasarnya menjadi medium akses menuju permainan dari provider. Jika game memakai sistem RNG, hasil putaran tidak semestinya ditentukan hanya karena pemain menaikkan atau menurunkan nominal.

Nominal Besar Membuat Perubahan Saldo Terlihat Lebih Dramatis

Ada alasan psikologis mengapa nominal tinggi terasa lebih sulit. Ketika nilai per putaran meningkat, perubahan saldo juga berlangsung lebih cepat. Beberapa hasil tanpa pembayaran bisa menciptakan penurunan cukup besar dalam waktu singkat. Situasi tersebut mudah diterjemahkan sebagai peningkatan kesulitan. Padahal mekanisme dasarnya dapat tetap sama. Sebaliknya, nominal kecil membuat perubahan saldo tampak lebih lambat. Durasi bermain dapat terasa panjang sehingga pengguna memperoleh lebih banyak kesempatan melihat variasi hasil. Perbedaan pengalaman ini sering membentuk persepsi keliru mengenai Algoritma Slot Maxwin.

Bagaimana Algoritma Slot Maxwin Membentuk Hasil Putaran?

Permainan slot digital umumnya menggunakan Random Number Generator untuk menghasilkan keluaran secara acak sesuai parameter permainan. Sistem tersebut berjalan pada setiap putaran dan menentukan susunan simbol berdasarkan aturan internal game. Di sisi lain, ada RTP teoretis serta volatilitas. RTP menggambarkan persentase pengembalian secara matematis dalam simulasi jangka sangat panjang, bukan janji hasil pada satu sesi. Volatilitas menjelaskan karakter distribusi pembayaran. Game bervolatilitas tinggi dapat memiliki rentang hasil lebih lebar, sedangkan volatilitas rendah cenderung menghasilkan distribusi berbeda. Karena itu, membahas Algoritma Slot Maxwin hanya melalui nominal transaksi mengabaikan banyak variabel teknis lain.

Perubahan Nilai Taruhan Tidak Sama dengan Perubahan Mesin

Saat pemain berpindah dari Rp1.000 menjadi Rp10.000 per putaran, efek paling nyata terdapat pada nilai uang. Jika kombinasi memberikan pembayaran 20 kali taruhan, hasil finansial tentu berbeda. Namun peningkatan tersebut tidak otomatis membuktikan bahwa sistem masuk ke mode lebih sulit. Pengecualian bisa muncul pada permainan dengan fitur, jackpot, atau syarat tertentu berdasarkan level taruhan. Informasi semacam ini seharusnya tercantum pada aturan permainan. Karena setiap produk memiliki konfigurasi berbeda, pengguna perlu membaca paytable serta informasi fitur daripada menganggap semua game memakai pola identik.

Mengapa Mitos Nominal Mengubah Algoritma Mudah Menyebar?

Pengalaman pribadi memiliki pengaruh besar terhadap cara pemain membaca pola. Seseorang mungkin menaikkan taruhan lalu mengalami beberapa putaran tanpa hasil. Kejadian tersebut kemudian dianggap sebagai bukti hubungan sebab-akibat. Masalahnya, sampel beberapa putaran terlalu kecil untuk menjelaskan sistem probabilitas. Cerita komunitas juga memperkuat kesan tersebut. Pengalaman unik lebih sering dibagikan dibanding sesi biasa. Akibatnya, pengguna melihat kumpulan cerita ekstrem dan merasa pola serupa terjadi secara konsisten pada Situs Slot Maxwin. Bias konfirmasi ikut berperan. Setelah seseorang percaya nominal besar membuat permainan sulit, setiap kekalahan setelah menaikkan taruhan terasa seperti pembenaran. Hasil berbeda sering justru terlupakan.

Situs Slot Maxwin Perlu Memisahkan Fakta Sistem dari Persepsi

Transparansi menjadi bagian penting ketika sebuah platform menyajikan informasi permainan. Situs Slot Maxwin idealnya memberikan akses jelas terhadap aturan, tabel pembayaran, batas taruhan, fitur khusus, serta informasi RTP apabila tersedia dari provider. Informasi tersebut jauh lebih berguna dibanding klaim mengenai nominal tertentu sebagai angka “aman”, “panas”, atau dianggap mampu membuka peluang khusus. Tanpa data teknis dari pengembang, klaim semacam itu tidak cukup kuat untuk dijadikan kesimpulan.

Nominal Situs Slot Maxwin pada akhirnya lebih tepat dipahami sebagai pengaturan nilai finansial per putaran. Besar atau kecilnya angka dapat mengubah kecepatan perubahan saldo dan persepsi risiko, tetapi tidak otomatis menjadi tombol rahasia untuk menaikkan atau menurunkan tingkat kesulitan.

Algoritma Slot Maxwin tetap perlu dibaca melalui mekanisme game, RNG, volatilitas, paytable, fitur khusus, serta parameter dari provider. Memisahkan unsur tersebut membantu pengguna melihat perbedaan antara sistem matematika dan pola semu hasil pengalaman singkat. Dengan begitu, nominal tidak lagi dianggap sebagai bukti bahwa algoritma diam-diam berubah setiap kali angka taruhan dinaikkan.

• Plug-in hybrids emit six times the amount of greenhouse gases than official testing suggests, according to a new European Union study. The auto industry is opposed to regulations that would bring those figures into line with reality. (Transport & Environment)
• Density makes cities more productive, but traffic congestion eats up a lot of those benefits. (Brookings)
• West Coast states are leading the way in exploring new sources of transportation funding to account for more fuel-efficient vehicles and declining gas tax revenue. (Government Technology)
• House Republicans’ proposed five-year transportation funding bill could result in 25 percent cuts for Milwaukee County transit. (Urban Milwaukee)
• In response to outrage from transit advocates, the Houston Metro cut jobs and restructured debt rather than cutting rail and bus service as previously planned. (Chronicle; paywall)
• A new design for Boston’s Blue Hill Avenue keeps a controversial center bus lane while adding more parking, more trees, new sidewalks and a bike path. (WBUR)
• A Montreal study says that investing in transit brings greater economic development benefits than investing in car infrastructure. (Global News)
• A small group of Seattle property owners is out to stop a monorail project by disingenuously asking for expensive “improvements” that drive up the cost and demanding more studies. (The Stranger)
• Amtrak will suspend Virginia-to-D.C. service next month to make critical track upgrades. (Mercury)
• Fort Worth Report lists the most dangerous intersections in the city.
• Drivers killed two pedestrians in Wilmington last week, prompting renewed interest in Vision Zero. (WWAY)
• Darrell Owens delves into the drama over a bike lane in Berkeley that’s been a hot topic on Bluesky. (The Discourse Lounge)
• If you’re in Toronto and want to gawk at some celebs this week, take the King Street streetcar. It’s being rerouted effective Thursday to pass by an international film festival. (blogTO)

Eirini-Erifyli Tzekou

What if food systems were designed not to maximize sales and accumulation, but to meet needs fairly within ecological limits? In Thessaloniki, Greece, a range of grassroots food initiatives have emerged over the last fifteen years, shaped by …

For small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs, the right financing can make all the difference. Unfortunately, not all lenders have your best interests in mind. 

Online lenders often promise fast cash and easy approvals, but those offers can come with high costs and long-term financial stress. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) like Mountain Association take a different approach, focusing on your long-term success while still delivering financing decisions quickly. 

Predatory Lending vs. Community Lending 

Predatory lenders often market themselves as a solution for businesses that don’t qualify for traditional bank financing. They advertise same-day approvals and minimal paperwork, but those conveniences can come at a steep price. Many charge extremely high interest rates, add hidden fees, or require daily or weekly payments that put pressure on cash flow. 

We’ve seen annual percentage rates (APRs) ranging from 40% to more than 350%. In some cases, business owners end up repaying several times what they originally borrowed, making it harder to invest in growth and build financial stability. As an example, a small business in Leslie County was having to pay $1,300 per week to a predatory lender. 

At Mountain Association, we believe financing should create opportunity, not become a burden. As a CDFI, we work with entrepreneurs who may not qualify for conventional financing and help strengthen local economies across Eastern Kentucky. 

Our loans range from $1,000 to more than $1 million, with interest rates typically between 5% and 9.75% and flexible repayment terms. We also offer solar financing at a fixed 4% interest rate with terms up to 20 years. For loans under $50,000, decisions are often made within 2 to 10 business days once all required information is received. 

More Than a Loan 

One of the biggest differences between Mountain Association and many online lenders is the relationship we build with borrowers. 

While predatory lenders often rely on automated systems and provide little support after approval, our team takes the time to understand your goals, challenges, and opportunities. Whether you’re starting a business, purchasing equipment, expanding operations, or strengthening working capital, we’ll help identify the financing option that best fits your needs. 

Our lending process is transparent and supportive. We’ll explain the terms, answer your questions, and make sure you’re comfortable before moving forward. We also connect entrepreneurs with free business coaching, technical assistance, and additional resources to help build a stronger foundation for success. 

Financing Designed for Growing Businesses 

We also structure loans differently than many traditional and online lenders. 

For larger equipment purchases, we typically pay vendors directly. For smaller purchases, borrowers can submit receipts for reimbursement. This approach often benefits businesses because they only make payments on funds that have actually been disbursed, rather than on the entire loan amount from day one. 

We also prioritize accountability and flexibility. While we offer working capital loans when appropriate, many of our loans are structured around specific business investments. 

Another important difference is our approach to collateral. We work hard to separate business and personal assets and avoid using personal assets as collateral whenever possible. To address collateral gaps, we may utilize a collateral support fund through the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky or share risk through lending partnerships. 

Work With Us 

We’re proud to offer financing that helps people build businesses, create local jobs, and strengthen their communities. 

If you have a business idea or are ready to grow an existing business, choosing the right lender matters. Mountain Association is committed to providing fair, affordable capital along with the guidance and support entrepreneurs need to succeed. 

Learn more at mtassociation.org/lending 

The post Avoid the Business Debt Trap: Know the Difference Between Predatory and Community Lenders  appeared first on Mountain Association.

Open Letter to the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution

Your excellency, Amb. Julio Cordano,

The release of the Aid to Negotiations marks a key step in the process to develop a legally binding international instrument to end plastic pollution. Unfortunately, rather than bringing the Parties closer to delivering the ambition mandated by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14, the document raises profound concerns about both its substance and the process by which it was developed.

Your Aid to Negotiations is not a neutral facilitation document. It is a political document that makes choices. These choices consistently favor the lowest common denominator – about what is prioritized, what is sidelined, and what is left unresolved. And time and again, sacrificing the ambition mandated by governments in Resolution 5/14.

The result is deeply troubling: rather than facilitating progress towards an ambitious, fit-for-purpose treaty supported by a majority of countries, as demonstrated in previous rounds of negotiations, the Aid to Negotiations text is an insidious attempt to compromise on the wishlist of a small group of petrostates. 

Rather than helping Parties conclude a treaty capable of truly ending plastic pollution, the document renders ineffective the core elements needed to achieve its objective. It systematically removes obligations to address upstream measures, weakens the financial mechanisms necessary to ensure effective implementation of the instrument, and excessively relies on voluntary, non-binding, nationally determined measures whilst sidelining binding ones. It gives disproportionate weight to positions advanced by a small group of countries that have consistently sought to delay, dilute, and derail negotiations, while disregarding proposals supported by broad majorities of Parties.

Since your assumption of the Chairmanship, observers—particularly those representing the communities most impacted by plastic pollution—have repeatedly been denied access to the process. This has effectively turned what should be an inclusive, transparent, and fair multilateral process into almost a year-long series of closed-door meetings, under the pretext of an informal Member State-led process. The ambiguity in the Rules of Procedure regarding observer participation in informal meetings has been repeatedly invoked to justify our exclusion.  Such restrictions undermine the transparency, inclusivity, and legitimacy of the process. Those living on the frontlines of the plastics crisis cannot be expected to accept decisions being made about their lives, livelihoods and communities from behind closed doors. Yet, we remain attentive, engaged and determined to achieve an ambitious, fit-for-purpose treaty that protects human health and ensures environmental justice to all. The Aid-to-Negotiations text carries a conscious choice. Specifically:

• Conference Room Papers supported by large numbers of ambitious governments on key upstream measures have been ignored, while weaker downstream options championed by a handful of spoiler countries are prioritized
• The text regress us  instead of building on progress achieved over the past five negotiation sessions
• The interpretation of “balance” consistently result in lower ambition
• Texts that have been officially rejected by the International Negotiations Committee at INC-5.2 are considered as references
• Low-ambition text that has not been previously negotiated in the formal INC process, has been introduced

These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the heart of whether this process is still serving the mandate governments agreed to in Nairobi in 2022.

UNEA 5/14 Is Not Open for Renegotiation

There is no legitimate disagreement about the treaty’s purpose. Governments agreed that this instrument must end plastic pollution through a comprehensive approach addressing the full lifecycle of plastics. Yet, the document repeatedly treats upstream obligations as optional, secondary, or politically unrealistic while upending the waste hierarchy and prevention principles.

Plastic pollution does not begin at the waste stage; it begins with fossil fuel extraction, petrochemical production and ever-increasing plastic production. No amount of geopolitical influence can override the prevailing scientific evidence when it comes to reordering the stages of the plastics lifecycle. The science is clear: the plastics crisis must be addressed across its full lifecycle, and no political maneuvering can change that reality. 

Three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions from primary plastic production occur before polymers are even manufactured. Waste management systems cannot solve a crisis driven by unchecked production. Only around 9% of all plastics ever produced have been recycled. A treaty that does not address production cannot end plastic pollution if  it ignores its primary driver.

Consensus cannot become a Veto

The document also perpetuates another false narrative: that consensus at any cost is necessary for success. It is not.

More than 115 countries support maintaining the ability to adopt decisions by voting after all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted. This reflects a standard and widely accepted practice under international law. Without this safeguard, an impasse shaped by a handful of minority countries seeking to delay or weaken the treaty could render any progress or achievement supported by the overwhelming majority of governments meaningless.

The climate regime offers a clear warning: overreliance on consensus has delayed, weakened, and postponed critical decisions for decades. The plastics crisis cannot afford to wait 30 years for urgent action. 

Consensus should be the preferred outcome, not a permanent veto for those most invested in preserving the status quo. Consensus is not interchangeable with unanimity.

The document points toward a Framework Convention

The most worrying feature of the Aid to Negotiations is its overall direction. Throughout your communications, you have emphasized that the treaty should be “concise”, “adaptable,” and capable of evolving over time. Taken together with the removal of substantive obligations throughout the document, this suggests a deliberate shift toward a framework convention. A treaty that establishes broad aspirations today while postponing binding and urgent measures until future protocols is spineless. That is not what governments mandated in the UNEA 5/14 Resolution.

Framework conventions delay action, postpone difficult decisions, and require years, sometimes decades, of additional negotiations before meaningful obligations exist, if they are ever achieved. The world does not have that time.

The plastics treaty must include binding global control measures from the outset, supported by annexes that can be strengthened over time by independent, science-based evidence. This is how a treaty can both evolve and remain relevant and effective.

Transparency has been replaced by Opaqueness

The concerns extend far beyond the text itself. The process through which this document has been developed has lacked transparency from the outset – and this deficit has become increasingly pronounced since you assumed the Chairmanship of the Committee.

Governments, rights-holders and observers have no clear understanding of how negotiating advances were discarded, why widely supported proposals disappeared, or on what basis competing options were selected.

A Chair’s document should faithfully reflect Parties’ positions; it should not quietly rewrite them. When choices consistently favor those seeking weaker obligations, confidence and trust in the neutrality of the process inevitably erode.

With a document so consistently aligned with the agenda of countries seeking the weakest possible treaty, it is reasonable to ask: Whose positions is this document actually reflecting and representing?

At every stage of this process, meaningful civil society and rightsholders participation has been systematically sidelined, increasingly reduced to the margins and, in practice, denied altogether. Governments face language barriers that prevent meaningful participation from any non-English-speaking delegation. Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers, frontline communities, women, youth, scientists, and public health experts have repeatedly been prevented from fully and effectively engaging in this process.

In your 4th letter to the Committee, you proposed a new multi-stakeholder action agenda. Observers are not asking for another forum; we are asking to participate in the negotiations and to have the right to engage with our country’s representatives present at the negotiations.

We also reject the false equivalence implied by the term “Observers.” Communities living with plastic pollution are rights-holders. Corporations whose business models depend on expanding plastic production are not. The Tobacco Convention recognized this distinction and succeeded in solving the problem it was intended to address. The Plastics Treaty must do the same.

Leadership requires Upholding the Mandate, not Lowering It

The Committee won’t succeed by producing a document that everyone dislikes equally. Your responsibility is not to protect the comfort and interests of the least ambitious Parties. It is not to make a treaty that is politically convenient for spoiler countries. It is to facilitate negotiations that allow governments to deliver the treaty they were mandated to negotiate.

The Aid to Negotiations does the opposite: it narrows ambition. It privileges obstruction. It weakens obligations. And it risks steering this process toward a treaty incapable of ending plastic pollution.

A Note to Ambitious Countries

We, Observers, recognize that this process has been intense, demanding, and frustrating. Yet, we have not come this far to agree to a text that does not fulfill the mandate of Resolution 5/14. We request that Governments reject any negotiating text that retreats from the agreed mandate.

The world did not launch these negotiations to produce another framework for future discussions. It was launched to end plastic pollution. That remains the benchmark by which this process should be judged.

Civil society will stand with ambitious countries that reject a weak treaty. Your leadership is needed to avoid a catastrophic outcome. No treaty remains a better option than a bad treaty.

We also encourage you to consider negotiating a treaty outside the UN. The UNEP umbrella has consistently failed to deliver a fair process, and unfair processes do not result in strong outcomes. A treaty driven by the ambitious majority, guided by a genuine desire to end plastic pollution and by the power and experience of countries that have demonstrated commitment to the process has a winning chance to deliver the needed outcomes. If you decide to move in the direction of a Coalition of the Willing, civil society will stand firmly alongside you applauding  your braveness, supporting your decisiveness and ready to work with you. 

The post GAIA Response to the Aid to Negotiations first appeared on GAIA.

President Donald Trump and his recently appointed U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Aitkins are proposing to rescind the pay-to-play rule. The rule prohibits investment advisers and their officers from making or soliciting campaign contributions above a small threshold to government officials responsible for awarding investment contracts to those advisers for two years prior or during the contracting period. Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, released the following statement:

“In a stunning and completely out-of-the-blue new proposal, President Trump and SEC Chair Aitkins are seeking to overturn a highly successful and decades-old anti-corruption rule. Trump’s proposal comes on the heels of – nothing. There have been no new problems with the rule and no new reasons for its repeal, though investment advisers have never particularly cared for it. The effort to rescind the pay-to-play rule is simply the latest extension of the Trump administration canceling ethics rules, especially those that get in the way of the rich getting richer.

“Back in 1994, then-SEC Chair Arthur Levitt grew fed up with repeated scandals in which investment advisers appeared to be buying government contracts by making large campaign contributions to those responsible for awarding the contracts. Levitt cracked down on this corrupt practice by banning anything but small de minimis contributions from advisers and their associates to those responsible for awarding government investment contracts, which quickly became known as the ‘pay-to-play’ rule.

“The pay-to-play rule remains on the books today because it works. Repealing it is nothing but the most brazen corruption.”

Will Open Piles of Coal in Oakland Replace Open Piles of Coal in Richmond? New Details of Developers’ Plan Emerge

After sitting on a 231-page “feasibility study” of a West Coast coal terminal for more than a month, the eight-county Rural Utah Infrastructure Coalition (RUIC) finally released the engineering and economic analysis on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend, just five days before a public hearing on RUIC”s proposal to invest $40-45 million of Utah public money in the Oakland export facility and another $10 million in a more distant facility in Longview, Washington. 

In February of this year, RUIC commissioned Norda Stelo, a giant Canadian-based engineering firm, aided by Wood Mackenzie, a Scottish energy consultancy, “to identify replacement export capacity for Utah coal following the planned closure of the Levin-Richmond terminal at the end of 2026.” (1) The consultants were paid $488,000 to compare three possible locations: Oakland, Longview, and Guaymas, Mexico.

Guaymas was dismissed without much fanfare, and the competition between frontrunner Oakland and also-ran Longview served mainly as a distraction from the question barely addressed in the report: will the Oakland coal export terminal sink under the weight of economic, regulatory, and political risks. If Utah antes, will any other investors come to the table?

The answer is nowhere to be found in the report. The report gave the Oakland terminal project an overall weighted score of 2.85 on a scale of 1 to 5. The grading considered many detailed requirements  where 1 indicates the facility does not meet the requirement and 5 indicates it fully meets the requirement. If 5 is an A and 4 is a B, an overall grade of 2.85 is a ho-hum C, not a strong argument for investment. Nonetheless, Norda Stelo recommends that RUIC invest approximately $43 million in Oakland.

The report brings new clarity to what developers have been up to since the project emerged from a decade of litigation in September 2025. Last Thursday, RUIC presented a vague overview of the plan to funding decision makers at Utah’s Community Impact Board and said they would be back as soon as October 1 to apply for the money, but, first, RUIC plans to hold a public hearing in Provo, Utah and online on Thursday, September 10.

As developers seek financial support from Utah for their private coal export scheme, the Norda Stelo report presents a mixture of revelations, questionable claims, and concessions to reality.  

Revelations

The developers have no intention of designing a state-of-the-art terminal that will prevent any leakage of coal dust. Coal will be stored in two 150,000-ton open air stockpiles (190), not in “[c]overed bulk material storage buildings” described in the Basis of Design and pictured in the conceptual drawings filed with the City in 2015 and 2018.  

.stk-6kxoqxe .stk-img-figcaption{text-align:left !important;font-size:16px !important;line-height:1em !important;}@media screen and (max-width: 1023px){.stk-6kxoqxe .stk-img-figcaption{font-size:16px !important;}} This drawing was submitted to the City of Oakland in 2015 as part of OBOT’s Basis of Design. “Commodity A” was the euphemism for “coal” that the developers adopted when they were concealing their ongoing business relationship with a Utah-based coal mining company.

The developers need to raise a lot more cash than they admit. Based on comparable coal terminals of similar throughput and material type, Norda Stelo estimates the cost to build the terminal at $430 to $625 million, not the developers’ cost estimate of $250 million.  Norda Stelo notes, without comment, that the developer provided no basis for its estimate “beyond some budgetary vendor quotations.”  (18)

If engineering got underway immediately, the terminal might take until 2031 to begin operations. “The overall project duration is estimated at approximately 53 months from the start of engineering to first cargo. As highlighted in Section 4, the OBOT proponent’s October 2028 first-cargo target is not consistent with this schedule.” Apparently, Donald Trump’s boast is false:  “Starting this summer, the West Gateway project will break ground, and by summer 2028, over 12 million tons of clean beautiful coal per year will be shipped to countries all around the world.” The West Gateway project does not have a building permit, much less a shovel in the ground, and Norda Stelo estimates it will take more than double the President’s timeline to get a terminal up and running.

The “multi-commodity terminal” is no more; it’s all about coal. OBOT’s developers appear to be quietly ditching their oft-repeated (and contractual?) commitment to build a multi-commodity terminal. The only sharing of the terminal discussed by Norda Stelo is between two varieties of coal: Utah coal and Wyoming Powder River Basin coal. Wood Mackenzie provides a pro forma analysis of other commodities – copper, soda ash, and oil and gas – but serious interest in building a multi-commodity terminal is belied by the report’s sharp focus on coal.  

Savage Companies, a large Utah-based logistics firm, has signed up to operate the terminal. Savage has contributed an “OBOT Terminal Project Design Basis” document to the Norda Stelo report along with drawings by Millcreek Engineering. 

Delusions and questionable claims

“A coal handling permit is reportedly in place” (19)  There is no such thing as a “coal handling permit.” This is a good reminder of Norda Stelo’s warning that their report is based on whatever the developers fed them: “The evaluation of the two facilities is based on information provided by each facility proponent, supplemented by site visit observations and publicly available documentation. No independent verification or detailed condition assessment was performed by Norda Stelo as part of this study.” (8)

“No pending legislative or regulatory changes are identified.” (22) Based on Norda Stelo’s caveat, it is fair to read this as a statement about what Phil Tagami disclosed or failed to disclose to Norda Stelo. As widely reported, on June 15, 2026, six weeks before the Norda Stelo’s report was finalized, Assm. Mia Bonta introduced the Communities First Coal Review Act (AB40) which would require an Environmental Impact Report for any major new coal terminal. The California Legislature has overwhelmingly passed Bonta’s bill and it is awaiting signature on Gov. Newsom’s desk. Moreover, the Bay Area Air District has been in the process of revising its fugitive dust regulations for many months, including specifically those governing “bulk material handling and storage.” Both AB40 and the new Air District regulations may significantly impact the future of the project. Failure to capture these major developments calls into question the reliability of Norda Stelo’s assessment of regulatory risk.

“Oakland [Bulk & Oversized Terminal[ … has substantial public funding support.” (28) “Approximately USD 315 million in public funding has been identified (USD 75 million federal and approximately USD 240 million state).” (19) This is deeply misleading. The $242 million Transport Corridor Improvement Money grant to the City and Port of Oakland covered  horizontal redevelopment of the 360-acre Oakland Army Base. It was spent long ago on a rail yard, roads, cleanup, soil compaction, new utilities, and the like. None of this government money was ever available to any of the private developers leasing land from the City or the Port for private benefit. Thus, Norda Stelo’s conclusion that the project has already lined up $315 million dollars of public money is nonsense. That leaves Donald Trump’s pledge to contribute $75 million under the Cold War era Defense Production Act. Trump’s diktat appears legally shaky given the lack of a nexus between shipments of Utah coal to Asia and a legitimate national defense interest. 

Silences That Speak Louder Than Words

No interest from private investors is mentioned.  In 2015, the pitch to the CIB was done by Jeffrey Holt, an investment banker with Bank of Montreal who suggested that, if Utah would seed the project with $50 million of public money, pension funds could be persuaded to make $200 million of non-recourse loans to fund the project. Now, with as much as $625 million to be raised, the report that is supposed to convince the Community Impact Board to open Utah’s pursestrings provides no assurance that there will be any private investors prepared to close the enormous gap between what public sources might provide and the amount needed to get the project off the ground.

Wood Mackenzie’s economic analysis obscures the secular decline of the overseas coal market. The economic analysis consists of 116 densely packed presentation slides without a coherent narrative to tie them together. There is very little information or analysis of the long-term trends or country-by-country risks that may sink any coal export terminal built at this late point in the world’s transition away from coal. 

The study does not show that the market for Utah coal exports “should be profitable for at least 20 years.” Neither does it “confirm” that a West Coast bulk commodities terminal is “a sound and prudent investment for Utah.”  These representations by RUIC prior to its visit to the Community Impact Board last Thursday are not supported by the report.

Redactions cover up key facts. Utah law allows agencies to redact trade secrets and other confidential business information from public documents before releasing them, but some of RUIC’s redactions appear designed to cover up inconvenient facts. For example, the list of approvals that “may” be needed by the West Oakland terminal begins with a four-inch black stripe. (20) The developer may dispute one or more items on Norda Stelo’s list, but this does not make it a business secret entitled to be kept from disclosure. The answer to a simple question about what site preparation and demolition work would be required prior to construction is half-redacted. (33) Hardly a trade secret or confidential business information that could lead to competitive harm.

Concessions to reality

“Significant community, permitting, environmental, and schedule risks have been identified” for the Oakland terminal. (27)

“Very strong opposition is documented from community and environmental organisations including No Coal in Oakland, Sierra Club, San Francisco Baykeeper and Earthjustice, with a demonstrated history of litigation and regulatory intervention. A letter dated 13 May was issued by No Coal in Oakland to the Coalition, Norda Stelo and Wood Mackenzie, stating a commitment to oppose the project by ‘every feasible means.'” (20)

The site remains constrained by its geometry.  A loop track is the most efficient way to unload a mile-long train. The train pulls in from Utah, enters a loop, dumps its load a couple of cars at a time into a below-grade dumping station, and heads back to Utah without reconfiguration and consequent delay. Here’s the plan for Oakland:

“Railcar movements are based on switching and segmented handling of unit trains using a dedicated switching locomotive. Coal is delivered in 116-car unit trains and, for yard operations, trains are assumed to be broken into two 58-car segments and then further divided into 29-car cuts for unloading. Two parallel tracks are provided at the in-motion bottom-dump system, with one track designated for active dumping while the adjacent track is used for switching and train set-up.” (190)

Notably, there is no room for expansion to service other commodities that do not share the physical characteristics of coal, none of which are identified in the report. “[T]he limited site area provides little opportunity to accommodate additional commodity-specific storage or handling infrastructure.” (15)

Image at top: Aerial view of the Richmond-Level coal terminal, which will retire from coal shipment at the end of 2026. Image credit: SF Baykeeper.

Note: Up to page 28, the page numbers in the text are those shown at the bottom of each page of the Study Report. Higher page numbers refer to the page location within the PDF.

 

Center for International Policy Executive Vice President Matt Duss issued the following statement in response to new measures announced by the United Kingdom and other US allies in response to Israeli settlement expansion:

“Banning the import of settlement goods and sanctioning those who facilitate settlement expansion are welcome, if long overdue, steps toward upholding international law, protecting Palestinian national rights, and advancing regional security. Several countries have announced that they will join the United Kingdom in adopting such measures, which we urge them to consistently enforce. We also applaud the UK’s recognition that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful.

“American lawmakers who seek to uphold the rule of law and pursue a non-violent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should welcome these efforts by some of our closest allies. They should call on the US government to adopt these and similar measures, instead of resisting them.

“The decades-long approach of urging Israel to halt settlement expansion, while failing to impose any consequences for it, has been a catastrophic failure. By effectively granting Israel impunity from international consequences, the US has fueled an annexationist movement that openly terrorizes Palestinian communities, forcibly displaces them, and steals their land in full partnership with the Israeli government and armed forces. Make no mistake: Those trying to undermine or penalize the lawful steps rightly taken in response to the occupation are actively abetting this deadly, illegal conquest.”

With prices down, costs up, and trade barriers potentially loosening further, peasant farmers across several provinces are mobilizing in South Korea.

The post South Korea: Peasant Unions Take to the Streets Over CPTPP trade pact and Collapsing Crop Prices appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Print article Share Article Contents Expand menu

• What happened?
• How did bedrock collapse trigger the flash floods?
• How have temperatures risen in the affected region? 
• How have rising temperatures affected mountain stability?
• How have glaciers retreated in the affected region?
• Can the event be attributed to climate change?

On the morning of 26 August, flash floods surged through a Himalayan border region of Nepal and the Chinese region of Tibet, killing more than 1,300 people, with thousands still missing.

In the days since the floods, scientists have examined satellite imagery, drone footage and seismic data in order to understand and explain the forces behind the event.

While initial theories pinned the flood on a glacial collapse, scientists now understand the event as a “multi-hazard cascade”, which began with a bedrock collapse. 

Some climate sceptics have tried to use this to falsely claim that human-caused climate change had no impact on the event. 

Yet, scientists have noted that, while no formal attribution study has been carried out thus far, warming is making such ice-rock avalanches in the region more likely.

Researchers have highlighted how rapid warming is dramatically reshaping Asia’s high-mountain region – and identified rising temperatures, glacier retreat and permafrost thaw as factors that may have all contributed to the disaster. 

Balendra Shah, Nepal’s prime minister, has called the floods a “serious signal that…the risks we must bear in the Himalayan region are increasing” due to climate change.

Here, Carbon Brief unpacks what scientists currently know about the causes of the catastrophic event and what they can – and cannot – say about the role of climate change. 

• What happened?
• How did bedrock collapse trigger the flash floods?
• How have temperatures risen in the affected region?
• How have rising temperatures affected mountain stability?
• How have glaciers retreated in the affected region?
• Can the event be attributed to climate change?

What happened?

A report published on 28 August by the HiRisk scientific consortium of high mountain experts detailed the events that led to the flash floods.

It said that events were set in motion on 26 August when a mass of bedrock, as well as the glacier ice on top of it, broke off a slope of Langtang-Lirung mountain in the Nepalese Himalaya, plunging from approximately 5,200 metres above sea level to the valley floor at 3,000 metres. 

The landslide shook the ground hard enough that, at 8:37am Nepal local time, the US Geological Survey (USGS) initially reported a magnitude 4.4 earthquake. Later that day, it clarified the shaking was caused by glacier collapse and debris flow, equivalent to a magnitude 5.2 earthquake.

On the valley floor, the melting ice, water and debris slammed into the Lhende Khola river, a high-altitude river that runs along Nepal’s border with China. 

Known downstream as the Bhote Koshi river in Nepal and the Poiqu or Poqu in China, the Lhende Khole feeds a network of rivers across Nepal and the Chinese region of Tibet, including the Trishuli river. (In China, the Lhende Khola is known as the Donglin Tsangpo.)

The designations employed and the presentation of the material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Carbon Brief concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Credit: Carbon Brief.

A large “debris” lake was briefly formed on the valley floor. When this lake burst, a wall of water and rock travelled downstream, killing more than a thousand people and destroying settlements, roads, bridges, hydropower plants and border posts across Nepal and Tibet.

HiRisk said that the floodwave travelled down rivers as fast as 30km an hour (around 19 miles per hour) and reached Mugling – a Nepalese town more than 130km downstream – at around 1pm local time.

A separate report from the Center for Land Surface Hazards in the US noted that the flood moved “exceptionally fast, was sediment-laden and extreme in scale”. For example, in the Nepalese municipality of Galchhi, the Trishuli river rose by nine metres in 30 minutes, it said.

Writing in the Conversation, Dr Umesh Haritashya, a glaciologist at the University of Dayton in Ohio, explained that the disaster “wasn’t finished when the first wall of water passed [on 26 August]”. 

#gform_wrapper_5[data-form-index="0"].gform-theme,[data-parent-form="5_0"]{--gf-color-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-secondary: #fff;--gf-color-secondary-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-secondary-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-secondary-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-secondary-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-secondary-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-color-in-ctrl: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-radius: 3px;--gf-font-size-secondary: 14px;--gf-font-size-tertiary: 13px;--gf-icon-ctrl-number: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='8' height='14' viewBox='0 0 8 14' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M4 0C4.26522 5.96046e-08 4.51957 0.105357 4.70711 0.292893L7.70711 3.29289C8.09763 3.68342 8.09763 4.31658 7.70711 4.70711C7.31658 5.09763 6.68342 5.09763 6.29289 4.70711L4 2.41421L1.70711 4.70711C1.31658 5.09763 0.683417 5.09763 0.292893 4.70711C-0.0976311 4.31658 -0.097631 3.68342 0.292893 3.29289L3.29289 0.292893C3.48043 0.105357 3.73478 0 4 0ZM0.292893 9.29289C0.683417 8.90237 1.31658 8.90237 1.70711 9.29289L4 11.5858L6.29289 9.29289C6.68342 8.90237 7.31658 8.90237 7.70711 9.29289C8.09763 9.68342 8.09763 10.3166 7.70711 10.7071L4.70711 13.7071C4.31658 14.0976 3.68342 14.0976 3.29289 13.7071L0.292893 10.7071C-0.0976311 10.3166 -0.0976311 9.68342 0.292893 9.29289Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-select: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='10' height='6' viewBox='0 0 10 6' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M0.292893 0.292893C0.683417 -0.097631 1.31658 -0.097631 1.70711 0.292893L5 3.58579L8.29289 0.292893C8.68342 -0.0976311 9.31658 -0.0976311 9.70711 0.292893C10.0976 0.683417 10.0976 1.31658 9.70711 1.70711L5.70711 5.70711C5.31658 6.09763 4.68342 6.09763 4.29289 5.70711L0.292893 1.70711C-0.0976311 1.31658 -0.0976311 0.683418 0.292893 0.292893Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-search: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='640' height='640' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='M256 128c-70.692 0-128 57.308-128 128 0 70.691 57.308 128 128 128 70.691 0 128-57.309 128-128 0-70.692-57.309-128-128-128zM64 256c0-106.039 85.961-192 192-192s192 85.961 192 192c0 41.466-13.146 79.863-35.498 111.248l154.125 154.125c12.496 12.496 12.496 32.758 0 45.254s-32.758 12.496-45.254 0L367.248 412.502C335.862 434.854 297.467 448 256 448c-106.039 0-192-85.962-192-192z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-label-space-y-secondary: var(--gf-label-space-y-md-secondary);--gf-ctrl-border-color: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-size: var(--gf-ctrl-size-md);--gf-ctrl-label-color-primary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-label-color-secondary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-choice-size: var(--gf-ctrl-choice-size-md);--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-border-color-secondary: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-file-btn-bg-color-hover: #EBEBEB;--gf-field-img-choice-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-card-space: var(--gf-field-img-choice-card-space-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size-md);--gf-field-pg-steps-number-color: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.8);}

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

Free fortnightly newsletter

.preheader p{ margin-top: 0; font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; font-weight: var(--type--3--font-weight--bold); color: var(--button--color); font-size: var(--button--font-size, inherit); } .newsletter-inline{ display: flex; border: solid 1px #333333; padding: 1em; background: #ffffff; } .inline-email{ display:inline-block; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0 !important; margin-bottom:0.5em; } #field_submit{ display:inline-block; margin-top:0 !important; } .gform_wrapper .gfield+.gfield{ margin-top:0 } Email gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 5, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery('#gform_ajax_frame_5').on('load',function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find('*').html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf('GF_AJAX_POSTBACK') >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_5');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_5').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_5').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_5').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_5').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gform_wrapper_5').offset().top - mt); }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_5').val();gformInitSpinner( 5, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [5, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_5'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery('#gform_wrapper_5').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gf_5').offset().top - mt);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [5]);window['gf_submitting_5'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_5').text());}else{jQuery('#gform_5').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_pre_post_render", [{ formId: "5", currentPage: "current_page", abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_wrapper_5" ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( "span" ); visibilitySpan.id = "gform_visibility_test_5"; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( "afterend", visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_visibility_test_5" ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 5, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === 'attributes' && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ 'style', 'class' ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );

He continued that a new “barrier lake” – estimated to hold a few million cubic metres of water – had developed in a location where two rivers meet in Tibet before crossing into Nepal. This lake burst on 28 August and the river rose again, he said. 

On 4 September, the chief of Nepal’s National Disaster ​Risk Reduction and Management Authority, told Reuters that property and infrastructure worth “at least” $2.5bn (£1.9bn) had been lost. Dharma Raj Upreti estimated the cost to build roads and temporary shelters, provide drinking water and ⁠restore power would be around $53m (£39m). 

How did bedrock collapse trigger the flash floods?

In the immediate aftermath of the floods, initial reports suggested that the trigger was a collapsing glacier or earthquake in the high mountains of Nepal.

After confirming that a seismic tremor was as a result of falling rock and ice, the USGS said the trigger was likely a “glacial collapse and debris flow”. This was widely picked up by the media. 

Subsequently, satellite imagery revealed that an “enormous chunk of the mountainous bedrock” beneath the glacier had also given way, reported the New York Times. 

Dr Kristen Cook, a geomorphologist at the Université Grenoble Alpes in France, told the newspaper:

“The rock that the glacier was sitting on collapsed…It was a much larger collapse than we were initially able to see in the satellite imagery.”

The result was a “deluge of rock and ice, which pulverized into mud and water as it surged down the mountainside”, the newspaper said.

Dr Jakob Steiner a geoscientist at the University of Graz in Austria, tells Carbon Brief:

“It was not a glacier that collapsed. It was the mountain below the glacier that collapsed and the glacier had no other chance but to go with it because it was sitting on top of it. 

“The trigger for that is something that we are not 100% certain about, but, in the end, it very much looks like simply a mechanical failure of the rock material because of stressors that have built up over a long period of time.”

Failures of “bedrock” – the hard, solid rock that sits below looser rocks and soil – are an “increasingly common occurrence”, says Prof Bethan Davies, a professor of glaciology at Newcastle University. She tells Carbon Brief:

“These massive landslides occur in mountain regions, commonly following rapid deglacierisation [the melting away of a glacier]. Similar events happened in the Chamoli event in 2021 [in the Indian Himalaya] and in the Blatten landslide last year in Switzerland. They’ve also occurred recently in Alaska.”

With a shift in focus from the failure of a glacier to the bedrock underneath, some climate sceptics seized on the development to falsely claim that climate change had not played any role in the disaster.

These include Dr Matthew Wielicki, recently appointed by the Trump administration to lead the US Global Change Research Program, on Twitter, as well as former Conservative peer and climate-sceptic commentator Matt Ridley in the Spectator. 

However, scientists have highlighted the likely contribution of rapid warming in the region. These factors include the thawing of permafrost and glacier retreat. (For more, see sections below).

Fundamentally, “this would have been a much less significant tragedy if it had been just a rock-slope failure”, notes Davies.

The initial landslide took a mixture of rock and ice into a valley that “contains buried ice” as well, she says, providing the water that “resulted in the hyperconcentrated flow, which took so many lives”.

How have temperatures risen in the affected region? 

Global temperatures have risen by roughly 1.4C since the pre-industrial period. However, this increase is not uniform across the planet, with some regions warming faster than others. 

A study published in Global and Planetary Change in June 2026 investigated changes in the Langtang catchment – a river basin in central Nepal, in which the Langtang-Lirung mountain is located, which eventually drains into the Ganges. Around one-quarter of the area is made up of glaciers.

The paper found that glacial areas of the catchment – found at 4,000 metres above sea level – warmed at 0.31C per decade over 1960-2023. This was “more than three times” the rate observed at a lower elevation weather station, the authors said.

Looking in more detail at the site of the glacial collapse, Dr Robert Rohde, chief scientist for Berkeley Earth, used ERA5 reanalysis data to show how temperature has changed at the 5,200-metre elevation site where the mass of ice and rock broke loose. 

Rohde’s analysis found that June-to-August temperatures have been rising at the site of the glacier collapse since the year 1940, with 2026’s summer the fourth warmest on record, behind 2024, 2025 and 2022. This is shown in the graph below.

Average summer (June-August) temperature at the ice-rock avalanche site over 1940-2026. Data source: Rohde, Bluesky (2026)

Rohde also found that the days leading up to the disaster recorded the hottest August temperatures ever experienced at the site. This is shown in the graph below.

Daily average temperature, from 1 June-1 September, at the ice-rock avalanche site. 2026, 2025 and 2024 are shown in dark, mid and light blue. All other years from 1940-2023 are shown in grey. Source: Rohde, Bluesky (2026)

On social media, Rohde stated:

“Given the warming trend, this Nepali glacier had probably been thinning and weakening for years, or even decades. But it ultimately failed during the warmest week in one of its warmest years on record. It would be a hell of a coincidence if global warming wasn’t at least partially to blame.”

How have rising temperatures affected mountain stability?

Many experts have linked warming temperatures in the region to thawing permafrost – ground that has been frozen for at least two consecutive years, whose thickness ranges from less than one metre to more than a kilometre. 

Steiner is part of a research team that has been using sensors to monitor permafrost in the region since 2014. He tells Carbon Brief that it is “pretty clear” the permafrost has been thawing “very actively” at elevations as high as 5,200 metres above sea level “for many years”. He adds:

“This means that the ground has, over the last decades, moved from being in a solid state into – at least, periodically during the warm season – patchy ground where some is frozen and some isn’t…

“If you have frozen ground next to non-frozen ground, you have dynamics happening between that because there are different densities and there’s movement happening, which is conducive to interventional failure – and that we know from many other cases.”

Davies also points to the “degradation” of perennially frozen ground as a factor in the disaster:

“This permafrost acts as a glue to hold together the rocks and, as it melts, the rock can become weakened.”

Permafrost thaw can also result in saturated ground, says Davies, which adds “pressure in the joints” of rock and can “facilitate” failure. She continues:

“Sources of the water include melting permafrost and meltwater from the overlying glacier. We know that this event happened during a period of warmth, but in the absence of heavy precipitation, pointing to ice melt as the source of water.”

A 2025 study of rock and ice avalanches in High Mountain Asia found that more than two-thirds started in areas “where permafrost is probable”.

How have glaciers retreated in the affected region?

Glaciers – frozen rivers of ice holding three-quarters of the global freshwater supply – are extremely vulnerable to climate change.

In the Himalaya, the rate of glacier retreat has doubled since the late 20th century, according to a 2019 study in Science Advances.

The Global and Planetary Change study found that glacier area loss rates in the Langtang catchment increased more than fourfold from 1964 to 2023 – with melting accelerating after 2000.

It added that glaciers in the region also experienced “fragmentation” and “widespread thinning” over this period.

The study noted that this loss “coincided with elevation dependent warming”.

The figure below provides an overview of glacier loss in the Langtang catchment over 1964-2023, with orange, red and dark red indicating areas of retreat.

In addition, green dots note points of glacier fragmentation, while blue dots show separation and pink show disconnection.

Glacier loss in the Langtang catchment over 1964-2023. Orange, red and dark red indicate areas of retreat. Green dots note points of glacier fragmentation, while blue dots show separation and pink show disconnection. Credit: Silwal et al. (2026)

In comments released by the University of Reading, Prof Maria Shahgedanova, a climate scientist researching climate impacts on mountain glaciers, said that the glacier involved in the floods had “retreated by approximately 450 metres between 1990 and 2020”.

She adds that this “potentially reduce[d] the mechanical support provided by the glacier to the underlying rock slope”.

Speaking to Carbon Brief, Davies reiterates that the retreat of the glacier is “potentially a contributing factor” to the bedrock collapse and subsequent disaster.

This is because the removal of the glacier from the lower slopes leaves the “upper rock slopes less stable”, she says.

The most recent assessment by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development said that glaciers in the Hindu Kush Himalaya region are “rapidly shrinking” as a result of climate change. (This region extends 3,500km over Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan.)

It said this loss is threatening the safety of the nearly two billion people, including by increasing the risk of “glacial lake outburst floods” (GLOFs). A GLOF is a sudden and catastrophic release of meltwater from a glacial lake. 

Although this disaster was not caused by a GLOF, it is known that climate change is making such events more likely.

Can the event be attributed to climate change?

In the wake of the flash floods, climate campaigners, media outlets and Nepalese politicians have linked them to human-caused climate change.

However, many climate scientists have cautioned that it is too early to say precisely how climate change impacted the disaster. 

Davies tells Carbon Brief:

“These events happen so quickly that the exact causes and drivers can take a little time to uncover, especially if the event was a surprise and there had been no monitoring system in place.”

When trying to determine the role human-caused climate change played in the intensity or likelihood of extreme weather, scientists turn to the field of “attribution science”. 

To date, no formal rapid attribution study has been produced that attempts to quantify whether – and how – climate change contributed to the event.

Scientists have noted that climate attribution of ice-rock avalanches – which are typically driven by a variety of factors – remains limited, in part because of the lack of a long-term observational record of previous collapses in high mountain areas.

Meanwhile, the studies that do exist stop short of directly linking such disasters to climate change. For example, the authors of a 2021 study into the Chamoli ice-rock avalanche concluded that “we cannot attribute this individual disaster specifically to climate change”. 

However, they added, the “possibly increasing frequency of high-mountain slope instabilities can likely be related to observed atmospheric warming and corresponding long-term changes in cryospheric conditions (glaciers and permafrost)”.

In the aftermath of the disaster, many researchers have similarly highlighted that climate change could not be singled out as the cause of the disaster, even if warming likely increased the probability of its occurrence.

On the Climate Brink substack, Carbon Brief’s climate science contributor Dr Zeke Hausfather noted that a “definitive single-event attribution” of the more recent disaster “may never be possible” due to the “messy causality of rock-ice avalanches”.

However, he added that both the existing scientific literature and “essentially every scientist working on these hazards point in the same direction” – namely, that warming is making such events more likely in the Himalaya.

Steiner tells Carbon Brief it might be possible to attribute different factors that played a role in the disasters to climate change – for instance, the recession of the glacier – but it would be more difficult to do so for the event as a whole.

Part of the reason for this, he says, is that rock failures in this region of the Himalaya have occurred for millennia, well before humans started altering the climate. 

However, he continues:

“The physics of it is not something that has been made possible by climate change. This could have happened without it. But the chance of it happening – and the likelihood of it happening five years after a previous, similar event [in Chamoli] – we, as the scientific community, can be pretty confident about that [being increased because of a changing climate].

“This is because so many of the changes that we know are related to climate change can potentially drive the build-up to eventual failure.”

Ultimately, says Davies, a “careful attribution study is needed, but it is hard to argue that the rapidly warming climate is not having an effect in these regions”. She adds:

“A single event may have multiple drivers, but we are seeing an increase in these events and are likely to see more as the permafrost and glacier melt continues.”

Related Revealed: England’s June 2026 heatwave sparked record demand for ambulances 14.09.2026 Health and society El Niño: Indonesia fire emissions in 2026 ‘on track’ to match record for this century 11.09.2026 El Niño and La Niña Revealed: More than 1,000 NHS operations cancelled due to record UK heatwaves 11.09.2026 Health and society Guest post: How extreme heat is ‘creeping’ from summer into autumn and spring 10.09.2026 Heatwaves

The post Q&A: What can – and cannot – be said about global warming’s role in the 2026 Himalayan floods appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Comandante Tacho, headquarters of the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation), La Realidad, Lacandon Jungle, Chiapas, México (1996) Photo: Orin Langelle/GJEP

The outbreak of multiple regional wars, the global increase in military spending, and the fractious trade wars in response to Trump’s tariffs are all signs...

The post Canadian nationalism won’t save us from Trump’s aggression; working class struggle will first appeared on Spring.

On Tuesday evening next week – September 15, 2026 – the Berkeley City Council will vote on the adoption of a resolution “in opposition to the handling, storage, and transport of coal and petroleum coke in the San Francisco Bay Region, urging stringent regulation of such facilities by the Bay Area Air District, and in support of Assembly Bill (AB) 40.” Starting at 6:00 pm outside the City Council meeting, the Keep Coal Out of the East Bay campaign will stage a rally and – we hope – a celebration of the resolution’s passage (event details here). 

Join us!

Berkeley’s resolution is prompted by the threat of coal shipment through the proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversize Terminal (OBOT). Local developer Phil Tagami and his partners have been angling for more than a decade to build OBOT as a coal export terminal. The proposed terminal would be located at the foot of the Bay Bridge in West Oakland, near the toll plaza. President Trump and the State of Utah plan to contribute millions of dollars in public funds toward the (private) terminal’s construction. The proposed terminal would ship coal from Utah (and perhaps Wyoming) to buyers in Asia, most likely Japan and South Korea.

In July, the City of Richmond passed a resolution similar to the one on Berkeley’s City Council agenda next week. Other cities along the rail route are also being asked to weigh in against the proposed coal terminal.

But why would a coal export terminal in West Oakland be any of Berkeley’s business? Here are a few top-shelf reasons:

1. There’s the existential and moral interest Berkeley has about mining and export to Asian markets of ten to twelve million tons per year of the dirtiest, most polluting fossil fuel: coal that would otherwise be left in the ground. Burning coal anywhere in the world in quantities developers propose to ship through West Oakland would generate over 25 million tons of CO2 emissions every year the terminal operates … adding to emissions humans must radically reduce in order to mitigate the evolving climate crisis.
2. Then there’s the neighborly interest Berkeley has about what happens in Oakland. If a toxic, polluting coal terminal threatens to become operational in West Oakland, severely impacting the health of Berkeleyans’ neighbors, friends, and families, how could such a looming travesty not be a concern to the City and people of Berkeley?
3. Additionally, there’s self-interest. Coal will not be magically teleported to West Oakland. It will be transported by multiple, daily, mile-long trains in uncovered coal cars. The most likely route those massive trains will take – spewing greasy, grimy, disease-inducing coal dust all along the way –  hugs the East Bay shoreline from Martinez to Richmond to West Oakland … and cuts right through the City of Berkeley.

All in all, the proposed coal facility is a textbook example of an axiom central to Berkeleyans’ civic identity: think globally, act locally.

The image (map) at the top of this article suggests the nuts-and-bolts impact of multiple, mile-long coal trains passing through Berkeley every day. Zooming in on a map that illustrates a peer-reviewed study in the journal Environmental Research, shown in the lower left corner of the image above, it makes clear just who and what will be poisoned in Berkeley by coal dust shed from those trains.

• Schools and medical facilities, including Centro Vida Preschool, Ecole Bilingue, Rosa Parks Elementary School, and Kaiser Berkeley.
• Playgrounds and parks, including Adventure Playground, Aquatic Park, the Berkeley Marina, Cedar Rose Park, McLaughlin Eastshore Park, San Pablo Park, Shorebird Park, Strawberry Creek Park, and the Tom Bates Sports Complex.
• Places we live and shop for groceries and grow our own food, including Berkeley Bowl West, the Gill Tract Community Farm, University Village (where thousands of UC Berkeley students and their families live, and whose community garden is right next to the train tracks), and all homes within a half-mile or so of the train tracks.
• Businesses and commercial districts, including Ashby Lumber, Bayer, Berkeley Ironworks, the Fourth Street shopping district, Meyer Sound, and REI.

These are only partial lists. But they make clear that the proposed West Oakland coal terminal is of paramount interest to the City of Berkeley and all its residents … for all kinds of reasons.

That’s why next week’s City Council vote to adopt a No Coal resolution matters. A lot.

Please come out Tuesday evening, 6:00 to 8:00 pm, to rally while the City Council votes, and to celebrate the hoped-for passage of the resolution. The City Council meets at the BUSD Boardroom, at 1231 Addison St. between Bonar and Curtis (map). Event details can be found here.

After a summer of heatwaves, wildfires and record-breaking temperatures, new polling has revealed the UK public want Burnham’s government to take strong climate action to protect people in schools and hospitals.

The More in Common polling, commissioned by investigative climate non-profit Global Witness, revealed high levels of concern about how extreme heat impacts the NHS’ ability to treat patients (75%) and schools’ ability to teach pupils (63%).

When it came to support for targeted climate interventions, 75% of people supported the installation of solar-powered AC in schools and hospitals.Over two thirds (69%) backed a new legal maximum indoor working temperature of 30 Celsius, while 65% thought councils should be required to open free, cool public spaces with air conditioning during heatwaves (65%).

NHS doctors have told Global Witness that hospital temperatures became so high during this summer’s heatwaves that MRI scanners and CT machines cut out, with waiting times and patient flow affected. Teachers told Global Witness that staff and students fell sick during the extreme heat this summer and reported a lack of clear guidance on school closures or maximum working temperatures.

Global Witness says Andy Burnham should foot the bill for climate adaptation and mitigation by fairly taxing the oil and gas industry, who raked in big windfalls from the Iran war this year, after bumper profits following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Key polling findings

• 75% of the public were concerned about high temperatures’ impact on the NHS's ability to treat patients
• 63% were concerned about high temperatures’ impact on schools' ability to teach pupils
• 75% support the installation of solar-powered air conditioning in schools and hospitals
• 69% support a new legal maximum indoor working temperature of 30 Celsius
• When asked who should foot the bill to protect Britain from climate change, the two most popular answers were: government and taxpayers, closely followed by multinational oil and gas corporations

Global Witness senior campaigner, Flossie Boyd said:“Our schools and hospitals should be keeping people safe, but this summer many of us lost sleep worrying about our loved ones in baking hot classrooms and wards.

“MRI scanners cut out in the heat, teachers reported classrooms hitting 40 degrees and kids have fallen sick in sweltering school buildings.

“It’s scandalous that as people’s lives were put at risk this summer, the oil giants turbo-charging extreme heat were raking in sky-high profits, pushing for more dirty drilling and lower taxes.

"The climate crisis is here, and bold action is needed to keep people safe. If Burnham wants to stand up for families and working people, he should stand up to oil giants, tax them fairly and use the proceeds to fund the climate preparedness Britain desperately needs – like solar-powered AC to protect the most vulnerable.”

UNISON head of policy Sampson Low said:

"Paramedics, cleaners and other public sector workers have no choice but to carry on when the mercury rises.

"Extreme heat not only brings a rise in demand for care but can also affect the health of staff. What's needed are thresholds based on evidence. This is for jobs where work can't simply stop when a temperature is reached.

"Such an approach would allow employers to bring in measures such as extra breaks, more water and ways to cool the work environment."

Earlier this year, Global Witness sent thermometers to teachers across the UK to measure excess heat in school classrooms during the mid-June heatwave. Several teachers reported temperatures between 30 and 38 degrees - well above the recommended maximum classroom temperature of 26°C set by the National Education Union.

The TUC reignited calls for government to introduce a maximum working temperature this summer, after amber heat alerts in the South of England. They say workers should have the right to stop work if workplace temperatures reach 30C, or 27C for those doing strenuous jobs.

An increase in civilian deaths and injuries caused by cluster munitions should trigger united action among the 124 countries that are members of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Human Rights Watch said today on the release of the “Cluster Munition Monitor 2026” by the Cluster Munition Coalition. Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the coalition and contributed to the report.

The 150-page report assesses all countries’ adherence to the 2008 convention. Cluster munitions killed or injured at least 1,063 people globally in 2025. This figure is among the highest annual totals recorded by the Cluster Munition Coalition. The actual number is most likely higher as many casualties go unreported. New casualties were recorded in nine countries in 2025: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Myanmar, Russia, Syria, and Ukraine. Cluster munitions continued to disproportionately affect civilians, whether from direct attacks or the remnants they leave behind. Civilians accounted for 87 percent of casualties recorded for 2025, where the civilian status was recorded.

“It’s critically important for countries to renew their commitment to the international treaty that seeks to rid the world of the scourge of cluster munitions,” said Verity Coyle, deputy crisis, conflict and arms director at Human Rights Watch. “The clearest way to do that is for all convention member states to condemn continued production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions.”

In recent months, both the United States and Türkiye have disclosed plans to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine have used cluster munitions during the war in Ukraine. Lithuania’s withdrawal from the treaty, the first member state to do so, became final in March 2025.

The country delegations meeting at the convention’s Third five-year Review Conference in Vientiane, Laos on September 14-18, 2026, should condemn the production, transfer, and use of cluster munitions by other countries and reaffirm their commitment to pressing for universal support for the ban treaty. Laos hosted the first meeting of states parties to the treaty in 2011.

There has been no confirmed use of cluster munitions by any state party since the convention was adopted in May 2008. Cluster munitions were used by non-state parties Iran, Myanmar, Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine during the reporting period of mid-2025 to mid-2026. Iran repeatedly used cluster munitions in Israel in 2026, while Thailand used them in Cambodia in 2025 in the context of their border conflict. Cluster munitions were used in northern Mali in May 2026, but it was not possible to confirm who used the weapons.

Cluster munitions can be fired from the ground by artillery, rockets, missiles, or mortars, or they can be dropped by aircraft. They typically open in the air, dispersing multiple explosive submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. Due to their wide area effect, the weapon cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants, especially when they are used in populated areas. In addition, many submunitions fail to explode on initial impact, leaving unexploded duds that can indiscriminately injure and kill—like landmines—for years, until they are found and destroyed.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions and requires the clearance of explosive remnants. The Third Review Conference will address the potential for expanding treaty membership, closing funding gaps for explosive ordnance clearance programs, and providing assistance to affected communities.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions has 112 states parties and 12 signatories. The most recent country to accede to the treaty was Vanuatu in September 2025. Prior to that, South Sudan and Nigeria were the last countries to become parties, joining in 2023.

During the current reporting period there was evidence of cluster munition production in China, India, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, and South Korea. Eighteen countries outside of the treaty actively produce cluster munitions, maintain the capacity to do so, or have not formally committed to never producing them.

Approximately US$116 million in international and national funding was provided in 2025 to address the impact of cluster munition contamination in states parties to the convention. The US foreign assistance freeze in February 2025 disrupted the clearance of cluster munition remnants in several regions, notably in Southeast Asia. Subsequent grant terminations reduced clearance capacity in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Sudan. Other major donors have also begun to reduce allocations and narrowed their geographic focus in response to changing political priorities.

“In the face of the continued use of cluster munitions and rising civilian casualties, member countries to the convention need to send a clear message that they will stand firm in their commitment to end all use of these indiscriminate weapons,” Coyle said.

The Cluster Munition Monitor 2026 is the 17th annual monitoring report by the Cluster Munition Coalition, the global coalition of nongovernmental organizations co-founded by Human Rights Watch in 2003. The report will be presented to countries attending the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Vientiane, Laos on September 14-18.