News Feeds

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

Climate advocates warn against false solutions and urge governments to invest in waste prevention, reuse, and locally led zero waste systems.

ANTALYA, TÜRKİYE (November 11, 2026)– As world leaders gather at COP31 to advance climate action, climate advocates, researchers, youth leaders, and local government representatives are calling on governments and climate financiers to reject incineration and invest in real zero waste solutions.

At the press conference “Zero Waste COP – Incinerators Out. Zero Waste In.”, speakers highlighted why addressing the climate impact of waste requires moving upstream through waste prevention, reuse, repair, redesign, and composting—not expanding disposal infrastructure.

“Zero waste is climate action—but only when we address the problem at its source. We cannot solve the waste crisis by building more infrastructure to burn or dispose of what we produce,” said Mariel Vilella, Climate Program Director at GAIA. “Preventing waste, expanding reuse and composting organic materials are practical and proven solutions that can cut emissions while delivering benefits for communities.”

The climate impacts of waste extend beyond disposal. Plastic production is deeply tied to fossil fuels, with emissions occurring across its lifecycle. Mohamed Kamal, Coordinator, Climate Action Network Arab World (CANAW), emphasized: “We cannot tackle climate change while allowing plastic production to keep expanding. Reducing plastic production and scaling reuse must be part of any credible climate strategy.”

The growing promotion of waste-to-energy incineration is another concern. A new report by the GAIA Africa examines 15 incineration projects and proposals across 10 African countries, raising questions about their viability and long-term impacts.

“Incineration can lock municipalities into costly infrastructure, expose communities to harmful pollution, and divert resources from more inclusive zero waste alternatives,” said Weyinmi Okotie, Executive Director of Green Knowledge Foundation.“ Africa needs solutions that respond to its actual waste realities—not expensive technologies that create new problems.”

The financing imbalance is also a major barrier to the zero waste transition. Jacob Johnson Attakpah, Zero Waste Director of the Green Africa Youth Organisation, called for a shift in investment priorities: “Governments and climate financiers must correct this imbalance and make climate finance accessible to the communities and cities already delivering solutions.”

Cities are already demonstrating what practical action can look like. Shahriar Hossain from the Government of Bangladesh, highlighted the role of local governments. Cities are on the frontlines of the waste and climate crises, but they are also where many of the solutions can happen. What cities need is strong political support, consistent public investment and policies that make zero waste systems possible at scale.

Moderated by Yogi Tujuliarto of CNN Indonesia   the press conference will call for climate commitments to translate into implementation, with policies and financing that prioritize prevention over disposal.

The message to COP31 is clear: Incinerators out. Zero waste in.

ABOUT GAIA

GAIA is a global network working toward a just, zero waste world, where resources are conserved and communities are protected from pollution and harmful waste practices. no-burn.org

MEDIA CONTACT:
Sonia Astudillo | Global Climate Communications Lead, GAIA
sonia@no-burn.org | +63 917 596 9286

Carissa Marnce | GAIA Africa
carissa@no-burn.org 

The post Incineration Is Not Climate Action: Experts Call for Zero Waste Solutions at COP31 first appeared on GAIA.

By KAY MATTHEWS

The Tres Rios Watershed Coalition was founded in 2019 to identify priority areas for forest treatments that would protect communities from the danger of wildfire. Named for the three rivers that make up the greater Embudo Valley watershed—Rio Santa Barbara, Rio del Pueblo, and Rio de Las Trampas—the knowledge of local residents supported by county, state, and federal agencies would be essential in the thinning and restoration projects identified as a priority. The lead organizer was J.R. Logan of Taos County Wildland/Urban Interface, who was also instrumental in organizing the Taos Valley Watershed Coalition.

While The Tres Rios Watershed Coalition held public meetings to keep folks informed and sponsored several field trips to see the damage from the El Valle Fire and the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire, the coalition never formally organized as a non-profit or entity that could apply for funding for identified forest treatments. For the past few years the Coalition has been dormant.

But sometimes things don’t die, they evolve. Now, in 2026, the Tres Rios Watershed Coalition has sprung back to life under the leadership of Santa Barbara Land Grant and Acequia Association members in the Peñasco area. Gabriel Lopez, Antonio Gurule, and Michal Headerle invited community leaders and activists to a working group that would expand the focus of the Coalition to include restoration of all forest resources, especially the waters that feed our acequias. The working group meets monthly at the Peñasco Valley Historical Preservation Society.

To help introduce the Coalition to the wider public, a meeting was held at the Peñasco Community Center on November 6. Notice was sent out to all the names that were on the original Tres Rios Watershed Coalition listserve, and there was a good turnout of community people, forestry groups, forest workers, government agencies, and forest related non-profits.

Daniel Sam told the group that the Rio del Pueblo, its tributaries, and its springs  from Serpent Lake downstream are all sacred to Picuris Pueblo.

Speakers at the meeting provided some history, an overview of current projects in the valley, new projects on the horizon, and possible funding sources to fund these projects.

• Around 2015 a group of activists decided to give the Forest Service “a nudge” with identified projects ready to be treated. The Cerro Negro Forest Council initiated a leñero program for local people to earn money thinning one-acre units in a Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) thinning project near San Cristobal. Local contractors like Watershed Dynamics and Wood Sharks had crews ready to thin other WUI areas near Taos Valley communities. The Taos Valley Watershed Coalition was formed to help organize and help fund these projects.

• The Tres Rios Watershed Coalition will explore various options on how to formalize: become a 501c3 non-profit; seek a fiscal sponsor; or form a Watershed District. Mark Schuetz of Forest Dynamics volunteered that under Community Wildfire Protection Plans the Coalition could better partner with county, state, and federal agencies. The Tres Rios Watershed Coalition is covered by the Taos County Wildfire Protection Plan, which will be updated in the next six months. The Coalition will also benefit under the Good Neighbor agreements between the Forest Service, Taos County, and Taos County Soil and Water Conservation District to work together on forest projects.

• Camino Real District Ranger Michael Lujan provided an overview of current Forest Service projects. In 2021 the Sangre de Cristos between Taos and Colfax counties were designated an Enchanted Circle Priority Landscape, one of the highest priority landscapes in terms of vulnerability to wildfire. The Carson National Forest, with state and county partners, began to develop plans to identity and prioritize areas within the Enchanted Circle for restoration. In a threatened landscape, if 20 or 40 percent has been thinned, there’s a better chance against wildland fire. By 2025, after funding became available, the Carson had thinned 20,000 acres, focusing on areas where water, access, and WUI are extant. Projects include: 850 acre Las Trampas Watershed Project (where the prescription was written by the partners, not the Forest Service); 10,000 acre Pueblo Ridge; and 30,000 acre McGaffey Ridge. The target for next year is 6,400 acres of mechanical treatment and prescribed burn. 8,000 cords of wood have been delivered to communities from the restoration project on the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire. The proposed Truchas to Costilla Headwaters Active Management Project will expand treatments to over 300,000 acres during a 10-year period. As sawmills close across the country, we need to innovate, and the next presenter is an example of that.

Orange is fires. Gray is completed treatments. Green and yellow are current/proposed treatments on Carson NF lands.

• Arnold Lopez, a member of the Tres Rios Watershed Coalition working group and treasurer of the Las Trampas Land Grant, discussed the land grant’s projects. In a MOU with Carson National Forest the grant will develop a 12-acre forestry woodlot on Forest Service land near Ojito. The land grant, pressed by the Forest Service to help distribute the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire firewood, decided to expand that into a larger project that will include pellet processing, a portable sawmill, and a mulcher. Another agreement, an MOA with the state, will allow the land grant to work on private land near Forest Service and BLM lands that need treatment. The land grant also oversees a leñero project near Vallecitos where over 40 leñeros are paid $1,200 upon satisfactory treatment of their acres.

If you’re interested in more information, you can contact Gabriel Lopez at gplopez@unm.edu; Michael Headerle at haederle@gmail.com, and Antonio Gurule at tgurule56.pena@gmail.com.

The post Ethylene Producers Don’t Have to Wait to Slash Their Large Carbon Emissions appeared first on ACEEE | American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Last week’s election results demand community-friendly data centers. Overlooking the role of diesel backup could create more pollution and noise for residents, write experts from Inlyte Energy.

International shipping along Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR) expanded during September, with Chinese and South Korean operators testing new container services between Asia and Europe. Yet the voyages also exposed persistent obstacles to commercial Arctic navigation, including unpredictable ice conditions, delays, high costs and limited demand from cargo owners.

Meanwhile, shipments of equipment from China could help Russia increase production at its sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project, while a Greek shipping company’s interpretation of European sanctions exposed persistent loopholes in restrictions on Russian energy exports.

Russia also launched the first oil shipments from its long-delayed Vostok Oil project, potentially opening another major source of tanker traffic along the Arctic coast.

China and South Korea test Arctic transit routes

Chinese shipping company Sea Legend continued its seasonal China-Europe Arctic Express service, planning eight container voyages through the NSR during the summer-autumn navigation season. The service represented a significant expansion from the company’s lone voyage in 2025. But the September schedule proved difficult to maintain.

Several departures were delayed, ships were substituted, and some voyages took approximately 30 days to traverse the NSR rather than the anticipated 20. Two vessels originally expected to reach European destinations instead called at Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg.

Sea Legend also brought forward its final departures because of forecasts of deteriorating ice conditions.

Another Chinese operator, NewNew Shipping, continued services connecting China with Russian Arctic ports. Its Xin Xin Hai 2 arrived in Arkhangelsk on September 22 carrying 880 containers of automobile components, becoming the first vessel to arrive under the Arctic Express No. 1 service.

However, Bellona’s shipping analysis found that only one of the 12 widely publicized voyages between China and Arkhangelsk had been completed by the time of its review.

South Korea also entered the market with an experimental voyage by PanStar Line’s PanStar Acro, which departed Busan on August 22 and reached Felixstowe, Britain, on September 12. The vessel completed the 21-day journey without icebreaker assistance, although dense drifting ice near Wrangel Island forced its crew to suspend nighttime navigation temporarily.

Its return voyage revealed another commercial obstacle: the operator failed to attract European export cargo and instead carried 1,743 empty containers back to South Korea.

Research by the Korea Maritime Institute suggests that transporting a container through the NSR can cost approximately 55% more than via the Suez Canal, largely because Arctic conditions restrict vessel capacity and increase insurance and operating expenses.

Bellona’s assessment is skeptical.

“Events surrounding the development of Arctic shipping in South Korea show that this is a political project rather than an economic one,” Bellona’s wrote. “There is no visible interest in shipping cargo through the NSR among Korean and European cargo owners or shipping companies.”

Bellona argues that the disappointing commercial results undermine claims that Arctic container transit is becoming a viable alternative to established routes.

Chinese equipment and Greek shipping sustain Russian LNG

While container transit faces uncertainty, Russian LNG exports continue to benefit from Asian demand and foreign maritime services.

In September, two cargo vessels, Glory and Bright, departed China carrying the final two power-generation modules manufactured for the second production train of Novatek’s Arctic LNG 2 project. The modules were produced by China’s Zhoushan Wison Offshore and Marine, which was sanctioned by the United States in January 2025 for supporting the Russian project.

According to shipping publication gCaptain, Arctic LNG 2’s second train has been operating with incomplete power-generation equipment, limiting output to roughly half its designed annual capacity of 6.6 million tonnes.

The additional modules could therefore help increase production, although their delivery and installation had not been confirmed when Bellona completed its review.

Bellona’s experts believe the shipments point toward deeper Russian-Chinese energy cooperation.

“Developments surrounding Arctic LNG 2 suggest that Russia has managed to reach an agreement with China on long-term LNG supplies from the plant,” they wrote.

They expect Novatek may complete the second train and expand deliveries to China, although shortages of ice-class LNG carriers could constrain exports.

At the same time, Greek shipping group Dynagas LNG Partners expects to continue transporting Russian LNG despite European sanctions.

In its September financial report, Dynagas argued that exemptions covering contracts signed before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine would permit its Yenisei River and Lena River gas carriers to continue serving Yamal LNG customers outside the European Union.

The company acknowledged that regulators might interpret those exemptions differently. Separately, the Financial Times reported that British insurer NorthStandard continued providing coverage for three Dynagas LNG carriers sanctioned by the United Kingdom, exploiting distinctions between port restrictions and prohibitions on maritime services.

Bellona warned that such arrangements weaken sanctions enforcement.

“This situation reduces the effectiveness of sanctions and leaves Russia considerable opportunities to lobby for its interests in Europe,” its experts wrote.

Vostok Oil begins shipments despite doubts over expansion

On September 6, Russia formally launched commercial shipments from Rosneft’s Vostok Oil project, with the tanker Valentin Pikul receiving the first cargo at the new Bukhta Sever terminal on the Taymyr Peninsula.

Four shipments were recorded during September, including two vessels heading east along the NSR. Rosneft now projects production of 30 million tonnes annually by the end of 2027 and 50 million tonnes by 2030, although both targets fall short of earlier ambitions. The project’s expansion also threatens to intensify industrial pressure on the environmentally vulnerable Taymyr region.

Taken together, September’s developments reveal an increasingly divided future for the Northern Sea Route: uncertain prospects for international container transit, but growing Russian determination to expand fossil-fuel exports through the Arctic despite sanctions, logistical constraints and environmental risks.

The post Arctic shipping expands as Chinese and Korean transit ambitions collide with chilly realities appeared first on Bellona.org.

Registered nurses and health care workers at USC Arcadia Hospital in Arcadia, Calif. voted overwhelmingly in favor of ratifying their respective three-year contracts on Nov. 5 and 6, winning protections to improve patient safety and nurse and health care worker retention.

While local projects are fairly easy to trace back to a specific data center, regional system upgrades raise more complex questions about who benefits and cost allocation across jurisdictions, one expert told Utility Dive.

Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Does solar development eliminate more U.S. jobs than it creates?

Solar development creates more jobs per unit of energy than other modes of production, and projections indicate more jobs will be created by renewables than lost.

There are currently 1.84 times more jobs in solar than in coal, gas, and oil combined. Solar is relatively labor intensive, requiring workers for installation, maintenance, and project development, while fossil fuel production has become increasingly automated. Many solar jobs cannot be outsourced abroad.

A 2023 federal report predicted 3 million new solar, wind, and grid expansion jobs by 2050 in a scenario of widespread electrification, while fewer than 1 million fossil fuel jobs were projected to disappear.

The transition will require support for affected workers and communities. Research finds fossil fuel workers often have skills transferable to renewable energy jobs. However, programs supporting worker relocation and region-targeted incentives for development and manufacturing will be important for easing the transition in industry-dependent communities.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact

This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.

Sources

EFI Foundation Wages, Benefits, and Change

U.S. Global Change Research Program Fifth National Climate Assessment

U.S. Department of Energy UNITED STATES ENERGY & EMPLOYMENT REPORT 2023

IREC Solar Jobs Census

World Economic Forum How can fossil fuel workers be supported in transitioning to green jobs?

World Resources Institute Steps to Aid US Fossil Fuel Workers in the Clean Energy Transition 

Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

AGUAFIESTAS is a Spanish play on words, evoking both “spoiling the party” and “spilling the water” – water being the vital element synonymous with life itself. Drawing on a rural woman's recollections of her life in the city, the title reflects upon questions of resources and consumption. The ellipsis indicates that the title continues, while the original Spanish is retained to preserve its multiple meanings.tapestryalternatives

AGUAFIESTAS is a Spanish play on words, evoking both “spoiling the party” and “spilling the water” – water being the vital element synonymous with life itself. Drawing on a rural woman's recollections of her life in the city, the title reflects upon questions of resources and consumption. The ellipsis indicates that the title continues, while the original Spanish is retained to preserve its multiple meanings.tapestryalternatives

New books on Nuclear winter; Marx's ethics; Climate inequality; Human waste; Neoliberal health care

Source

Japan’s exports of clean energy technologies could more than double by 2035 as Asia accelerates its electrification, according to energy think-tank Ember, but it urged the government to abandon policies that support fossil fuels to maximise its clean-tech potential.

The nation’s exports of batteries, electric vehicles (EVs) and motors, heat pumps and grid equipment could be even higher with the right policies in place to ensure it remains competitive and fully embraces the market for clean energy technologies, Ember’s analysis found.

Rapid electrification also means the country’s exports of combustion engine cars, engines, hybrid vehicles and other fossil fuel-powered equipment could more than halve by 2035, falling to about $70 billion from $161 billion in 2024 amid faster-than-expected EV adoption in the region.

Ember director Kingsmill Bond said Japan had the potential to become a leader in clean energy technologies due to its strong engineering base and some of the world’s lowest borrowing costs.

“It should be one of the big winners of the electric age,” he said. “Instead, public money is going into cheap fuel, ammonia for coal plants and new gas plants. Every yen spent propping up the old system is a yen not spent building the home market that Japan’s electrotech companies need to compete abroad,” he added.

Japan in the age of electricity

Ember’s analysis is based on its rapid-change scenario, in which clean energy technology exports keep rapidly winning market share. It also assumes that Japan keeps its share of export markets.

Japan is already the world’s fifth-largest exporter of clean-tech goods, following China, Germany, the US and Mexico. In 2024, it exported clean energy technologies worth $44 billion, driven by exports of EVs and grid equipment.

• Nov 5, 2026 Energy Clean power shields China from oil shock more than any other country Rapid clean power growth and electrification have boosted China’s energy resilience as well as its confidence in its energy policy pre-COP31, experts say Read more
• Sep 22, 2026 News COP31 electrification pledge leaves out clean power commitment Campaigners and experts say the goal’s effectiveness in reducing emissions may be limited unless countries agree to meet it using only clean energy Read more
• Nov 5, 2026 News COP31 Briefing: What to expect from the Antalya climate summit? Electrification, the fossil fuel transition, adaptation to rising impacts, climate science and trade are key themes as governments gather for COP31 in Türkiye Read more

At home, it is also one of the world’s most electrified countries, with electricity supplying 32% of its final energy use, according to the International Energy Agency, meaning Japanese buildings and factories already run on electricity more than those in China, the EU or the US. Yet, Japan’s electrification rate has barely increased in the past decade.

At COP31 in Türkiye this week, a coalition of countries is expected to back a global pledge to increase the share of electricity in final energy consumption to 35% by 2035.

In addition, Japan’s solar and wind potential, including on rooftops and offshore, could generate 13 times the country’s electricity demand every year, according to Ember. Despite this, Japan imports nearly all of the fuel it burns, having almost no fossil fuel reserves.

At the same time, its early manufacturing lead in areas such as batteries and EV drivetrains is slipping away, Ember said.

Falling behind

In Southeast Asia, where Japanese brands have long dominated, the energy supply crisis triggered by the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz sped up the uptake of EVs, and Chinese companies are pulling ahead.

In Thailand and Indonesia – two of the region’s largest car markets – more than 85% of EV sales came from Chinese brands in 2025, according to BloombergNEF’s latest EV outlook.

Nissan’s EV concept car is displayed during the Japan Mobility Show 2023 at Tokyo Big Sight in Tokyo, Japan, November 1, 2023. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon Nissan’s EV concept car is displayed during the Japan Mobility Show 2023 at Tokyo Big Sight in Tokyo, Japan, November 1, 2023. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

The shift illustrates the rapid transformation of a region which remains highly exposed to fossil fuel imports. Asia holds just 4% of the world’s oil and gas reserves but has become home to three-quarters of its clean-tech factories, according to Ember.

But Japanese carmakers bet on manufacturing hybrid vehicles rather than fully electric ones. Since 2019, the share of Japanese carmakers in global car sales has fallen from 31% to 26%.

“Unless Japan pivots fast to electric cars, it will cede one of its biggest industries to China,” said Sam Butler-Sloss, manager at Ember.

A way forward

Japan’s current energy policies favour fossil fuels and are holding back its potential to deploy electricity technologies, according to Ember.

Since 2022, Japan has spent about $86 billion on fuel and energy-bill subsidies intended to keep prices down, the report found. At the same time, the country has struggled with high electricity prices and slow electrification growth.

Meanwhile, the government has spent public money on technologies that rely on the old fossil-based system such as LNG, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

• Nov 9, 2026 News COP31 Bulletin Day 1: Agenda settled as COP urged to “supercharge solutions” An agenda row is averted at the opening session, where the UN climate chief said strong results are needed from the talks to boost “real-world outcomes” Read more
• Nov 5, 2026 News COP31 Briefing: What to expect from the Antalya climate summit? Electrification, the fossil fuel transition, adaptation to rising impacts, climate science and trade are key themes as governments gather for COP31 in Türkiye Read more

Ember called on the government to set an electrification target and to respond to the energy crisis with renewable power, EVs and batteries rather than fuel subsidies. It found the government can leverage the country’s industrial strength for producing electric technologies by building up its domestic market.

This could include putting an end date on sales of new petrol cars and coal power generation, providing funding for suppliers and regions to switch to clean power generation, shifting taxes from electricity to fossil fuels, and pivoting public funding to electricity technologies.

Rolling out clean energy technologies across the transport, electricity and heating sectors could also significantly reduce Japan’s dependence on fossil fuel imports.

Noriaki Oba, energy analyst and founder of the Japan-based Post-Oil Strategy Institute, said contributing Japanese technology to Asia’s electrification “would offer Japan a major opportunity for both its industrial competitiveness, as well as its diplomatic and economic security”.

The post Japan urged to ditch fossil fuel support to maximise clean-tech exports appeared first on Climate Home News.

Die rechtsextreme „Alternative für Deutschland“ (AfD), eine Partei mit offen antidemokratischen Positionen, hat sich in bundesweiten Umfragen zur stärksten Kraft entwickelt, insbesondere in Ostdeutschland. Jana Hensel, Autorin von „Es war einmal ein Land“, argumentiert, dass der Aufstieg der AfD zwar einem breiteren europäischen Trend entspricht, aber nur dann wirklich verstanden und bekämpft werden kann, wenn man die Erfahrungen der Ostdeutschen begreift und auf ihre Missstände eingeht. Um dem erfolgreich entgegenzutreten, dürfen die pro-demokratischen Parteien nicht einfach so weitermachen wie bisher. 

Green European Journal: In der internationalen Presse wird Ostdeutschland oft als der problematische Teil des Landes dargestellt. Zunächst wurde es durch „Ostalgie“ definiert, dann durch den Rechtsruck. Was bedeutet Ostdeutschland für Sie?

Jana Hensel: Ich beschäftige mich seit über zwanzig Jahren mit Ostdeutschland. Ich habe viele Bücher dazu veröffentlicht und natürlich ist der Osten meine Heimat. Ich komme aus Leipzig und war 1989 mit meiner Mutter bei den Montagsdemonstrationen dabei. Das ist für mich immer noch eines der allerwichtigsten Erlebnisse meines Lebens. Ostdeutschland bedeutet also sehr viel für mich. Es ist eine gesellschaftliche, eine persönliche und eine politische Heimat für mich. Ich fühle mich den Ostdeutschen sehr verbunden und bin natürlich sehr traurig darüber, was aus dem Osten geworden ist.

Sie sagen aber, dass es keine ostdeutsche Identität gibt.

Ich arbeite mit diesem Identitätsbegriff nicht mehr. In meinem neuen Buch fällt das Wort nicht, denn Identitäten sind fluide und wechseln je nach Gegenüber. Natürlich bin ich Leipzigerin, aber ich bin mittlerweile auch Berlinerin. Ich bin Deutsche und werde ab und zu zu einer Ostdeutschen, kann aber auch eine westdeutsche Perspektive einnehmen. Mit dem Identitätsbegriff kommen wir also nicht weiter; mir geht es stattdessen um die Frage der Erfahrung. In meinem Buch versuche ich, eine politische Geschichte der ostdeutschen Gesellschaft von 1990 bis heute zu erzählen und die Frage zu beantworten, wie es dazu kommen konnte, dass sich wesentliche Teile der ostdeutschen Gesellschaft – wie ich glaube – von der Demokratie verabschieden.

Wann wurde Ihnen eigentlich klar, dass die Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands doch keine eindeutige Erfolgsgeschichte sein könnte?

Das ist eine schwierige Frage, denn ich habe immer versucht, aus ostdeutscher Perspektive Dinge zu erzählen, die meiner Meinung nach nicht gut liefen. Wir haben ein hohes wirtschaftliches und ökonomisches Gefälle, eine hohe Abwanderungszahl und eine wirklich mangelhafte Repräsentation von Ostdeutschen in Führungspositionen. Wir haben also sehr viele Probleme. Ich habe immer versucht, darüber zu sprechen, in der Hoffnung, dass wir diese Probleme aus demokratischer Perspektive lösen werden. Aber jetzt haben wir eine Situation, in der viele dieser ungelösten gesellschaftspolitischen Probleme bei der AfD auflaufen und nun dazu führen, dass unser gemeinsames demokratisches System nicht mehr verbessert, sondern eigentlich sogar zerstört wird. Das hat für mich eine große Tragik, weil ich sehe, dass die AfD viele der von mir und anderen angesprochenen Probleme aufgreift und zur Motivation für ihre destruktive Politik nutzt. Wenn der Spitzenkandidat der AfD in Sachsen-Anhalt, Ulrich Siegmund, sagt: „Wir holen uns unser Land zurück“, schwingt das Gefühl, Bürger zweiter Klasse zu sein, natürlich mit.

Die Montagsdemonstrationen von 1989 waren ein Zeichen des ostdeutschen Strebens nach Freiheit und Demokratie. Was genau verstanden die Bürgerinnen Ostdeutschlands damals – also 1989 – unter Demokratie?

Das waren zwei Dinge. Die Leute sind damals für bürgerliche Freiheitsrechte auf die Straße gegangen. Da hat man auch Erfolge gesehen, zum Beispiel bei der Wahlfreiheit, der Pressefreiheit, der Meinungsfreiheit, der Versammlungsfreiheit und natürlich der Reisefreiheit. Das waren sehr wichtige zentrale Forderungen von 1989.

Mit Blick auf die bundesrepublikanische Nachkriegsgeschichte erschien Demokratie aber natürlich auch immer als ein Wohlstandsversprechen. In der bundesrepublikanischen Nachkriegsgeschichte ging mit wachsendem Wohlstand eine sich immer stärker festigende und erstarkende Demokratie einher.

Und genau da weichen dann die Ost- und West-Erfahrungen voneinander ab. Die Demokratie wurde von den Ostdeutschen selbst erkämpft und führte von Anfang an zu großen sozialen und ökonomischen Ausnahmesituationen für viele von ihnen. So hatten bereits Ende 1991 drei Millionen Ostdeutsche ihren Arbeitsplatz verloren, 85 % aller Ostdeutschen haben in diesem Transformationsprozess ihren Arbeitsplatz gewechselt. Das sind Erfahrungen, die die westdeutsche Gesellschaft nicht kennt.

Ich finde, die Ostdeutschen halten lange durch, aber irgendwann beginnt wegen des sich nicht in gleichem Maße einstellenden Wohlstands der Rückzug von der Demokratie.

Die AfD hat als neoliberale Partei angefangen und ist nach wie vor das Gegenteil einer Wohlfahrtspartei. Warum denken dann viele Leute, dass sie eine Antwort auf die wirtschaftlichen Sorgen der Bürger sein kann?

Das ist wirklich widersprüchlich. Betrachten wir nur Sachsen-Anhalt, den momentan konkretesten Fall. Wenn wir uns die Nachwahlanalysen ganz genau anschauen, dann sehen wir, dass der überwiegende Teil der Menschen, die die AfD gewählt haben, dies wegen der sozialen, ökonomischen und finanziellen Probleme getan hat. Man sieht, dass gerade Menschen mit niedrigem Einkommen in ländlichen Räumen kein Vertrauen mehr in demokratische Parteien haben. Aber löst die AfD diese Probleme? Natürlich nicht. Sie ist eine sehr stark ideologisch geprägte Partei, die sich immer weiter radikalisiert und extrem radikale Ansätze in der Bildungs-, Kultur-, Migrations- und Medienpolitik vertritt. Wir können bereits jetzt erkennen, dass zwischen den Beweggründen der Wählerinnen und Wähler in Ostdeutschland und den Versprechen der AfD eine große Kluft besteht. Und genau da liegt die Chance, die AfD zu besiegen, denn die eigentlichen Probleme eines großen Teils der Menschen in Sachsen-Anhalt muss die politische Mitte lösen. Mit der AfD versammelt man sich, um ein Disruptionsmoment herzustellen, also um das System, in das man keine großen Hoffnungen mehr setzt, zu schädigen.

Sie schreiben, dass Hartz IV (die umstrittene Sozialreform der rot-grünen Regierung im Jahr 2005) die eigentliche Ursache für den Vertrauensverlust waren. Können Sie das näher erläutern?

Bis 2013 wählen die Ostdeutschen bei allen Bundestagswahlen stärker linke Parteien als die Westdeutschen. Das heißt, wir müssen von einer Gesellschaft ausgehen, die noch ein gewisses postsozialistisches Erbe in sich trägt. Das war nicht sofort offensichtlich, denn 1990 haben sie natürlich zuerst für Helmut Kohl gestimmt, da er die schnelle Einheit wollte.

Die „Kleine-Leute-Gesellschaft” des Ostens ist arbeiterlich geprägt. Das ist eigentlich eine typische Klientel für linke Parteien, für Sozialdemokraten, für die Linkspartei und vielleicht in Teilen auch für die Grünen. Bis 2013 gilt außerdem, dass die Ostdeutschen die Grünen immer ordentlich mitgewählt haben.

Eine weitere wichtige Erkenntnis ist, wann der Abschied der Ostdeutschen von der Demokratie begonnen hat. Die meisten Kommentare gehen davon aus, dass dies 2015 geschah: mit Merkels Flüchtlingspolitik und dem Erstarken von Pegida und der AfD. Betrachtet man die Zahlen jedoch ganz genau, so zeigt sich, dass die erste große Zäsur mit der Einführung von Hartz IV einherging, also der größten Reform der sozialen Sicherungssysteme in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik. Hartz IV passte nicht auf den damals schon von extremer Arbeitslosigkeit geprägten ostdeutschen Arbeitsmarkt. Dennoch wurde es von der rot-grünen Koalition durchgesetzt. Wir können klar erkennen, dass die Wahlbeteiligung im Osten danach signifikant zurückging.

In der Zwischenzeit versucht die AfD, den Eindruck zu erwecken, sie stehe für wahre Demokratie oder den wahren Freiheitswillen.

Ja, das glauben ihre Wählerinnen und Wähler, genauso wie andere Gruppen glauben wollen, dass wir eine wehrhafte Demokratie sind – obwohl ich mir gar nicht mehr sicher bin, ob wir das eigentlich noch sind. Seit Jahren debattieren wir über ein AfD-Verbotsverfahren, kommen aber nicht weiter. Das hat zur Folge, dass Menschen in Deutschland aktuell durch freie demokratische Wahlen eine antidemokratische, rassistische und rechtsextreme Partei wählen können, die dann ins Parlament einzieht. Das haben wir jetzt in Sachsen-Anhalt erlebt: Diese Partei wurde zwar mit demokratischen Mitteln legitimiert, steht aber keinesfalls mehr für demokratische Politik. Diese Erfahrung kennen wir aber aus sehr vielen anderen Ländern – sei es Ungarn oder Amerika. Das ist eine Erfahrung, die jetzt auch in Deutschland, oder besser gesagt im Osten Deutschlands, ankommt.

Bedeutet das, dass die AfD gar kein ostdeutsches oder deutsches Phänomen ist? Schließlich ist der Aufstieg der extremen Rechten ein Trend, den wir in ganz Europa und sogar weltweit beobachten.

Sie ist absolut Teil eines globalen Trends, aber sie hat eine ostdeutsche DNA. Ich glaube, dass wir in jedem Land genau hinschauen müssen, um zu verstehen, was dort passiert ist. Der Aufstieg Orbáns in Ungarn muss aus ungarischer Perspektive erklärt werden, und Trump ist auch Teil einer amerikanischen Geschichte.

Ich mache diese Sache nicht zu einem ostdeutschen Problem, aber ich versuche, sie aus ostdeutscher Perspektive zu erklären. Wir müssen immerhin anerkennen, dass die AfD im Osten flächendeckend doppelt so stark ist wie in Westdeutschland. Eine Woche nach der Wahl in Sachsen-Anhalt, bei der die AfD 43,6 Prozent der Stimmen erhielt, fanden in Niedersachsen Kommunalwahlen statt, bei denen die AfD 15,9 Prozent erreichte. Dieses enorme Gap müssen wir erklären, da wir es nur so schließen können. Davon bin ich fest überzeugt. Wenn wir die AfD sozusagen leichthin als gesamtdeutsches Phänomen abtun, packen wir sie nicht an ihren verschiedenen Wurzeln.

Auch wenn die AfD im Westen zu viele Sympathisant*innen hat, sollte man sagen, dass sie eine ostdeutsche DNA hat?

Ich glaube nicht, dass die Partei ostdeutsche Gründe hat, sondern dass ihr Erfolg in Ostdeutschland ostdeutsche Gründe hat. Im Westen sehen wir, dass die Partei erst seit kurzer Zeit wächst und vor allem unter dem aktuellen Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz massiv zugelegt hat. Dieser massive Zuwachs im Westen setzt sich aber auf ein langjähriges, schleichendes Wachstum im Osten eben noch mal obendrauf. Deswegen befinden wir uns jetzt an einem der schwärzesten Momente der deutschen Nachkriegs- und Wiedervereinigungsgeschichte. Und dennoch habe ich das Gefühl: Je genauer wir hinschauen, desto genauer können wir auch Lösungen aufzeigen. Da bin ich gar nicht so skeptisch.

Wir sehen gerade an den Ergebnissen in Sachsen-Anhalt eine genaue Handlungsanleitung, auch dafür, wie wir die AfD bekämpfen können. Das ist jedoch das Gegenteil von dem, was Friedrich Merz und Teile der Union machen, die sich die Politik der AfD zu eigen machen. Es braucht stattdessen eine konkrete Politik für den überalterten, entleerten und in großen Teilen weniger wohlständigen Osten, der in vielen gesellschaftspolitischen Fragen anderer Ansicht ist als der Westen. Das war so in der Migrationskrise, bei Corona und auch in Bezug auf den russischen Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine.

Wir haben als Gesellschaft die Debattenräume massiv verengt. Da fällt es mir schwer, die Perspektive derer einzunehmen, die nicht für Angela Merkels Flüchtlingspolitik sind. Ich nehme nicht die Perspektive der Impfgegner ein. Aber wir müssen schon klar zugeben, dass wir in Deutschland in den letzten zehn Jahren vor allem materielle Probleme zu Haltungsfragen gemacht haben. Wir haben sehr stark danach entschieden, anstatt zu sehen, dass es Teile der Bevölkerung gibt, die Migration und auch Krieg unter materiellen Gesichtspunkten betrachten.

Hat das auch damit zu tun, dass in der ehemaligen DDR in den letzten drei Jahrzehnten – abgesehen von der Partei Die Linke – hauptsächlich Parteien zur Wahl standen, die in Westdeutschland entstanden sind?

Die Linke war lange Zeit die Ostpartei. Und man kann sehr genau sehen: In dem Moment, in dem sie versucht, eine gesamtdeutsche Partei zu werden – nämlich in den Jahren nach 2007 – hört sie auf, im Osten erfolgreich zu sein. Im Jahr 2007 vereinigte sich die damalige Linkspartei mit der Partei Arbeit & soziale Gerechtigkeit – Die Wahlalternative (WASG). Die AfD tritt ein bisschen an deren Stelle.

Kann man also sagen, dass die AfD zurzeit die einzige ostdeutsche Partei ist?

Man kann sagen, dass die AfD die einzige ostdeutsche Partei mit Volksparteistärke ist, weil sie in allen ostdeutschen Flächenländern mittlerweile Umfragewerte von 35 bis 40 % erreicht. Aber gleichzeitig haben wir in allen ostdeutschen Flächenländern natürlich starke Ministerpräsidenten. Michael Kretschmer (CDU, Sachsen) hat die AfD besiegt. Auch Manuela Schwesig (SPD, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) und Dietmar Woidke (SPD, Brandenburg) ist das gelungen. Diese Leute ziehen jeweils ihre Parteien nach oben. Das ist mal die SPD, mal die Union. Wenn wir uns jedoch anschauen, welche Partei flächendeckend noch eine große Identifikation hat, dann ist es die AfD. Ist sie dadurch eine ostdeutsche Partei? Da bin ich mir nicht sicher. Es kann gut sein, dass die AfD im Osten die gleichen Fehler wiederholt wie die anderen Parteien. Es ist möglich, dass die AfD die Ostdeutschen bloß benutzt, um ihr radikales, rassistisches und nationalistisches Programm auszurollen, ohne auf die Interessen der Wählerinnen und Wähler zu achten.

Es wird noch ein paar Jahre dauern, bis sich zeigt, ob diese Wählerinnen und Wähler tatsächlich bei der AfD bleiben oder ob sie bei der Wahl eine Zweckgemeinschaft zur Sprengung des Systems gebildet haben und danach wieder auseinanderfallen.

Es gibt eine Partei, Die Linke, die jetzt zum Beispiel in Berlin mit den Wähler*innen zu räsonieren scheint. Aber auch dort beklagen viele, dass es sich dabei um eine antidemokratische und antisemitische Partei handle. Sollte man da wirklich besorgt sein?

Das ist eine der absurdesten Debatten, die wir gerade erleben. Ich bin fassungslos darüber, wie viele Leute auf die Idee kommen, die Linkspartei und die AfD gleichzusetzen. Vor nicht allzu langer Zeit hat der Ministerpräsident von Rheinland-Pfalz, Gordon Schnieder (CDU), ein Verbot der Linkspartei zur Prüfung gefordert. Das ist eine Eskalationsspirale, in die wir uns da hineinbewegen. Die Linkspartei hat in Teilen ein Antisemitismusproblem, das muss sie lösen. Aber wir können ganz genau sehen, dass der Großteil der Wählerinnen und Wähler, vor allem die jungen Leute in Berlin, die Linkspartei aus sozialen Gründen gewählt haben. Diese Leute jetzt alle in ein ebenfalls extremistisches Spektrum abzuschieben, finde ich fatal. Friedrich Merz ist jemand, der diese Entwicklung noch anfeuert.

Den Grünen ist es gelungen, sich bei den beiden letzten Landtagswahlen über Wasser zu halten. Was wäre nötig, damit sie auch in Ostdeutschland an Stärke gewinnen?

Der Osten bleibt sozioökonomisch und demografisch ein schweres Pflaster für die Grünen. Gerade in den ländlichen Räumen mangelt es an akademischen Milieus und Besserverdienenden. Wir haben aber bei allen Wahlen gesehen, dass die Grünen in urbanen Räumen erfolgreich sein können, in denen das sozioökonomische Gefüge, das Durchschnittsalter und die Institutionendichte ähnlich hoch sind wie im Westen. So war es in Dresden, Leipzig, Potsdam, Greifswald und auch anderen Städten. Interessant ist auch, dass die Grünen in Sachsen-Anhalt ein außerordentlich starkes Ergebnis erzielt haben – mit einer sehr starken Spitzenkandidatin: Susan Sziborra-Seidlitz. Sie ist von ihrem biografischen Zuschnitt her keine typische Grüne. Sie ist ausgebildete Krankenschwester, hat lange in der Pflege gearbeitet und kommt ursprünglich aus dem Umfeld der Linkspartei. Mit knapp 9% hat sie natürlich auch von einer massiven Zweitstimmenkampagne profitiert. Ich glaube aber, dass sie auch als Persönlichkeit überzeugt hat. Auch hier zeigt sich, dass die Grünen mit überzeugenden Persönlichkeiten, die nicht in erster Linie für das akademische Milieu stehen, überraschend stark sein können.

Ich habe nie zu den Leuten gehört, die den Grünen pauschal attestieren, den Osten nicht zu verstehen. Das stimmt einfach nicht, denn in den ostdeutschen Ländern gab es immer sehr engagierte Grüne. Die Grünen haben originär ostdeutsche Wurzeln, die ja auch im Namen Bündnis 90/Die Grünen zum Ausdruck kommen (Bündnis 90 war ein Zusammenschluss von Oppositionsgruppen in der DDR), und ich habe schon lange nicht mehr das Gefühl, dass die Grünen über diese Wurzeln nicht Bescheid wissen würden. Auch Robert Habeck und Annalena Baerbock haben in ihrer Zeit den Osten bereist und versucht, die Perspektive einzunehmen. Als Partei, die sich auf das revolutionäre Erbe von 1989 beruft, hat sie eine sehr wichtige Funktion im Osten. Das gilt auch, wenn sie im Osten nur 6 % erreichen, und es gilt umso mehr, je erfolgreicher sie sind.

Im Jahr 2027 finden in Westdeutschland fünf Landtagswahlen statt. Was erwarten Sie?

Ich schaue schon sehr sorgenvoll auf Nordrhein-Westfalen. Dort gibt es ein stabiles rot-grünes Bündnis, aber wir sehen, dass die AfD in den Transformationsregionen ebenfalls sehr stark ist. Man kann nur hoffen, dass ihr in NRW jetzt kein großer Achtungserfolg gelingt. Es wäre schön, wenn die AfD im Westen nicht stärker als 15 % wäre.

Was wäre eine gute Strategie gegen die AfD, jenseits von Verbot und Brandmauer?

In Sachsen-Anhalt ist der gordische Knoten durchschlagen, da mit dem BSW ein zweiter politischer Akteur auf der Bildfläche erscheint, der ebenfalls disruptive Politik machen will.1 Dennoch glaube ich, dass die Brandmauerpolitik erfolgreich sein könnte, wenn es um mehr als nur symbolische Distanzierung von einer sehr radikalen Partei ginge. Das haben wir in den letzten zehn Jahren erlebt. Wir alle – auch ich eingeschlossen – haben sozusagen diese Brandmauer hochgezogen und gleichzeitig den Status quo beschworen. Wir haben aber viel zu wenig unternommen, um zu verstehen, was diese Wählerinnen und Wähler tatsächlich wollen.

Zum Glück kann man sehen, dass wir endlich damit anfangen. Nach den Kommunalwahlen in NRW im vergangenen Jahr haben wir gesehen, dass der Anteil der Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiter unter den AfD-Wählerinnen und -Wählern sehr hoch ist. Plötzlich haben wir die soziale Frage mit der AfD in Verbindung gebracht. Im Osten sehen wir seit zehn Jahren, dass der Anteil der Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiter, die die AfD wählen, kontinuierlich steigt, und haben dennoch die soziale Frage nicht gestellt. Das ist die entscheidende Frage, denn der Osten hat das Wohlstandsniveau Westdeutschlands 36 Jahre nach der Wiedervereinigung immer noch nicht erreicht. Weder bei den Löhnen noch bei den Einkommen noch bei der Wirtschaftskraft. Wir müssen langsam anfangen, die unterschiedlichen Wohlstandsniveaus beider Gesellschaften auch politisch in Angriff zu nehmen. Jeder Kanzler seit Helmut Kohl ist daran gescheitert, weil der Osten immer aus westdeutscher Perspektive mitverwaltet wurde. Wir brauchen eine Politik, die aktiv mit den Unterschieden arbeitet und sehr genau hinschaut. Eine Politik, die jede Maßnahme und jedes Gesetz sehr genau daraufhin prüft, wie sie im ost- und westdeutschen Raum wirkt. Das Wohlstandsgefälle zwischen Ost und West ist strukturell. Es wird nicht wieder verschwinden und ist deutlich sichtbar. Deshalb braucht es verschiedene Herangehensweisen.

1. Nach der Wahl in Sachsen-Anhalt erklärte sich die BSW bereit, bei bestimmten Abstimmungen im Landtag mit der AfD zu verhandeln und zusammenzuarbeiten, womit die Schutzmauer gegen die rechtsextreme Partei faktisch gefallen war. Bei einer geheimen Abstimmung haben wahrscheinlich auch einige CDU-Abgeordnete für den rechtsextremen AfD-Kandidaten für das Amt des Landtagspräsidenten gestimmt. ︎ ︎

Energy and Transport Day at COP31 ironically saw a second morning of horrible traffic jams and over-crowded buses and trams, meaning early events at the venue had to be hastily rescheduled. 

This COP has more than 68,500 registered participants, together with another 24,500 workers needing to reach the venue, which is around 25 kilometres from the centre of Antalya. 

Once things finally got underway in the halls on Tuesday, the focus was on two main voluntary pushes: transitioning away from fossil fuels (TAFF) and the COP31 Global Electrification Pledge, meant to usher in the “age of electricity”, according to the Turkish presidency.

The pledge sets a goal of raising electricity’s share of final energy consumption from around 23% today to 35% by 2035 (known as 35×35) by electrifying transport, buildings and industry.

“This year’s energy crisis has shocked us out of our complacency and demonstrated the inherent vulnerability of dependence on energy imports. Electrifying the global economy is now essential to boost energy security, cut emissions, and drive economic growth,” COP31 President Murat Kurum said in a statement.

The COP31 presidency is “determined to chart a path forward and use the annual UN summit to build momentum”, he added. But it remains to be seen whether and how the pledge will be incorporated into the final cover decision from Antalya, as some fossil fuel-producing countries are set to oppose any mention of the electricity to meet it coming from clean sources. 

Neither is it clear which countries are backing the pledge. Climate Home News understands that no list is expected this week, as Türkiye rallies governments to the cause. Australia and other recent COP host nations are on board, while the European Union co-hosts the first “Electrification Forum” on Tuesday, bringing together governments, institutions, businesses and financiers. 

The International Energy Agency (IEA), meanwhile, will lead a Global Electrification Tracking Mechanism to monitor global and regional electrification trends.

The IEA says the 35×35 electrification goal is within reach with strong political backing. But a recent analysis from Climate Action Tracker shows current policies will only lead to a share of 28% for electricity by the deadline.

• Nov 10, 2026 Comment COP31 outcome needs to prioritise transition away from fossil fuels  Many countries are already working on parts of their transition, such as phasing out coal or ending fossil fuel subsidies, with more expected to follow soon Read more
• Nov 10, 2026 News Developing countries face climate finance deficit as loan payments soar Repayments on climate loans could overtake new lending by 2036, according to CARE analysis shared exclusively with Climate Home News Read more

On the TAFF front, Brazil’s COP30 presidency held a high-level event to showcase its new global roadmap, which is essentially a toolkit to help countries start planning their transitions away from coal, oil and gas.

Here, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said countries should use the document to build their own concrete national roadmaps including clear timelines, responsibilities and financing needs.

By the next Global Stocktake of national climate plans in 2028, “every country should be able to show what it has done to cut fossil fuel use or production, what it will do next, and how it will measure progress,” he said, in a challenge to governments. 

He added that it is “long past time to stop treating the transition away from fossil fuels as taboo or intractable” and called on COP31 to “move from discussing the transition to organising it, financing it, and delivering it”.

European nations signal support for fossil fuel roadmap, says COP30 president

Unfortunately, Türkiye’s leader appears not to have got the memo. On Monday evening, in a post on X, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan praised the start of production at two new oilfields in his country last month as “good news” coming from the mountains of Gabar.

He added that with further development, daily production from 230 wells in the region will increase by 30% to reach more than 100,000 barrels a day in the second half of 2027, contributing billions of dollars a year to the Turkish economy.

As with the electrification pledge, the TAFF process remains a pick and choose effort. Some fossil fuel-producing nations are adamant it will stay that way and are likely to resist any attempt to anchor the roadmap in the cover decision or other negotiated outcomes at COP31. 

Nonetheless, energy security concerns are expected to lead to an almost 60% increase in renewable capacity growth from 2026-2031 compared to the previous six years, according to the IEA, with solar power accounting for three quarters of that growth.

Declarations aim to electrify shipping and rooftops

One sector that is tricky to electrify – mainly because of a lack of chargers in the middle of the ocean – is maritime transport.

But a newly formed group of ports, shippers, campaign groups and think-tanks want electricity to be used where it can in the sector – electrifying ships on short routes like ferries, plugging ships into the electricity grid when they’re in port and electrifying the machines that handle ships’ cargo.

While the COP31 presidency has proposed a 35% by 2035 goal, this group said on Tuesday they want electricity’s share of final energy demand in shipping to rise to a more modest 20% by 2035 – up from a negligible amount today. The Danish Port of Esbjerg and Californian Port of Long Beach are among the backers of the Maritime Electrification Breakthrough Goal.

Maritime electrification projects could get a huge boost from the International Maritime Organisation’s Net Zero Fund, if it is agreed at intergovernmental talks in London starting later this month.

A cruise ship plugs in to shore power, meaning it can turn off its engines, at the Port of San Diego (Photo: Cody Hooven/Port of San Diego)

Also on Energy Day at COP31, a group of countries including Australia, Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria and Vanuatu signed onto the Global Rooftop Solar Declaration, an Australia-led initiative to try and double the number of solar-powered households to 300 million by 2030.

It’s not clear exactly how many countries are backing it. But the presidents of Palau and Pakistan also joined leaders to discuss the initiative while Indonesia’s state-operated utility PT PLN signed up too.

Australia’s climate minister Chris Bowen said in a statement: “Many countries have the sunshine, the space and the demand, but lack the finance, infrastructure and workforce needed to unlock this opportunity. This declaration is about changing that.”

Coal phase-out partnerships offer emerging economies early help

A multilateral initiative launched in Antalya aims to tackle one of the key demands from coal-producing countries in the Global South: help to access the existing pool of funding for transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Through “Coal Transition Partnerships”, the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) – a group of governments and other actors launched in 2017 – is seeking to unlock more than $23 billion by supporting developing countries to draw up their first phase-out plans.

Backers of the initiative include the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and climate research think-tanks like Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and TransitionZero.

Julia Skorupska, head of the PPCA secretariat, told Climate Home News in Antalya that the early interventions could help developing countries access larger financial mechanisms along the lines of the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), which are working to help several developing countries phase out their coal fleets.

She added that countries are required to have done “a lot of work” before applying for transition funding, including having investment plans and a portfolio of projects. “For us that feels like a gap,” she said.

She added that the initiative has received “a lot of interest” and is meant to enable early-stage planning in coal-dependent emerging economies such as Kazakhstan, Indonesia and Pakistan.

A woman walks past the Orlando Power Station, a decommissioned coal-fired facility now repurposed for bungee jumping between its iconic twin towers, one of the attractions drawing tourists to Soweto, South Africa September 30, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko) A woman walks past the Orlando Power Station, a decommissioned coal-fired facility now repurposed for bungee jumping between its iconic twin towers, one of the attractions drawing tourists to Soweto, South Africa September 30, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko)

By the time of the next Global Stocktake – the UN’s five-year review of climate progress – in 2028, the PPCA aims to be supporting ten of the world’s most coal-dependent countries. These include Indonesia, Vietnam, India and South Africa, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Farah Heliantina, energy transition official at Indonesia’s Ministry of Economic Affairs, said in a statement that the country’s experience “has taught us how challenging this transition can be”, as uncertainty in global fossil fuel markets threatens energy security at home. 

Finance for the transition away from fossil fuels has proven difficult to channel effectively. At COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, South Africa was the first country to announce an $8.5bn JETP – funded by a group of donor countries including the UK, Germany and France – which included projects like early power plant retirements, reskilling workers and building transmission lines for renewable energy. However, by 2025, only around $3.8bn had been allocated.

After the war in Iran disrupted oil and gas markets this year, countries with gas-fired power fleets like China, Korea, Japan, and some European countries have turned to easier-to-source coal generation to keep their economies running, the IEA has highlighted. Skorupska said there’s a risk that new coal investments could become stranded.

“Fundamentally, we want to think about how we can help people overcome those shorter-term challenges to get the real long-term benefits of the transition away from fossil fuels,” she said. 

Transport troubles set to get worse as leaders arrive

The first two days of COP31 have seen travel chaos which looks set to get worse on Wednesday. As world leaders arrive in town and head to the conference centre, some roads will be closed so that the VIPs can be ferried in past not-so-important delegates. The COP31 presidency is warning of “severe disruptions”.

The UNFCCC warned that most buses will operate at reduced capacity from 8:30am to 12pm, and advised delegates to avoid these hours. The frequency of buses before 8:30am will be increased so that participants can arrive early.

The 42 world leaders causing this heightened level of disruption on Wednesday will speak from 2pm local time. They include Brazil’s recently re-elected President Lula, European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen and China’s Vice President Han Zheng. The Turkish and Australian leaders are not on the list, but are expected to speak as COP31 co-hosts.

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley arrives to attend COP31 in Antalya, Turkiye, on November 10, 2026. (Photo: Abdullah Güçlü – Anadolu Agency, courtesy of COP321 presidency ) Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley arrives to attend COP31 in Antalya, Turkiye, on November 10, 2026. (Photo: Abdullah Güçlü – Anadolu Agency, courtesy of COP321 presidency )

The speech of Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley will be worth a watch as she often uses COPs to unveil interesting and progressive new ideas. So will that – for different reasons – of Saudi energy minister Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud, the only minister allowed to speak on a day reserved mainly for presidents and prime ministers. 

After COP28 agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, he infamously described this as just one item on an “a la carte menu”.

Another set of leaders – kicking off with the UK’s Andy Burnham – will speak on Thursday morning, including those of Nigeria, DR Congo, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Venezuela’s new President Delcy Rodriguez.

UK touts electrification despite report about weaker EV measures

UK climate minister Katie White told Tuesday’s electrification summit that going electric offers energy security, affordable energy and stronger economic growth.

“For us, this is about protecting households and businesses from volatile fossil fuel prices, strengthening our energy independence and getting bills down for good,” she said.

But back in London, the government’s commitment to electrification and climate action was called into question after the Guardian reported that the UK’s mandate for electric vehicle (EV) sales would be watered down.

UK climate minister Katie White at the UK pavillion on November 10, 2026 in Antalya, Turkiye (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Chatham House researcher Chris Aylett said weakening the mandate would “stifle, rather than encourage, the investment in new manufacturing and infrastructure vital to the country’s electrification journey”.

A crunch meeting will take place on the issue on Wednesday, presided over by de facto deputy prime minister Louise Haigh, the newspaper reported.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham – who will fly to Antalya on Wednesday afternoon – will stay out of the decision as his wife advises the board of an EV-charging network.

White told fellow ministers at COP31 about the various innovations in grids that British companies are pursuing, among them National Grid’s efforts to use dynamic line rating to increase the amount of electricity that transmission lines can carry.

The post COP31 Bulletin Day 2: Energy Day off to slow start amid transport chaos appeared first on Climate Home News.

The voters of the United States have spoken. They have delivered Donald Trump and the Republican Party one of the worst electoral defeats in modern U.S. history, one that rivals the defeat of the GOP after Nixon’s impeachment. To capture its enormity, pundits have grasped for ever more dramatic metaphors from wipeout to earthquake, tsunami, and deluge.

The damage done to Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party is hard to exaggerate. None other than outgoing Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis described it as “an extinction level event…. To call it a wave, I don’t think would be fully accurate. It’s the political equivalent of a meteor strike that went all around the United States, blue states, red states, everything in between.” He predicted it might take a decade for his party to recover.

As the results continue to pour in, the Democrats have swept Congress, winning as many as 260 seats in the House and potentially 56 in the Senate. And they now hold the majority of governors’offices throughout the country. All the Republican gains from 2024 have been erased.

The mass, cross-class resistance is responsible for this defeat ofTrump and the Republican Party. For the last two years, millions of people have protested, defended their communities, and fought for basic democratic rights in the face of the administration’s massive, violent, and sometimes murderous repression. This resistance and the broader radicalization against Trump turned people out in record numbers to kick out his cronies and replace them with Democrats.

On the one hand, this massive vote reflects enormous anger and disgust with Trump, his billionaire backers, and the capitalist system that has impoverished workers and brutalized our communities. That rage opens new horizons for building class and social struggle.

On the other hand, the turn back towards the Democratic Party and the Left’s predominant electoral strategy inside of it risks derailing the movement. We’ve all seen the devastating consequences of this strategy many times before; outraged by Republicans, insurgents voted for the Democrats, but then sat back waiting for change, only to have their hopes betrayed, opening the door for the Republicans to pose as the only alternative and return to power.

To break this cycle, the Left, unions, and social movements must abandon this strategy and, instead, carry out a two-front battle. First, we must continue to defend ourselves against the Trump administration, which remains a clear and present danger. It appears to be doubling down on a program of racist, reactionary nationalism, as reflected in the promotion of white supremacist Stephen Miller as his new chief of staff.

Second, we must force the Democrats both to enact immediate reforms, like the restoration of Medicaid funding, and to fight for much more radical ones like Medicare for All and the abolition of ICE. In the process of this independent struggle, we must set our sights on building a new party of our own, a workers’ party.

Rage against the Trump machine

The meteor that hit the Republican Party in the midterms was none other than Donald Trump. He told voters to pretend he was on the ballot. And they did, voting against him in every corner of the country from north to south and east to west. As one voter said, “I would crawl on my belly over broken glass to vote against that awful man.”

Usually, the midterm electorate is older, wealthier, and whiter. This year, it was more multiracial, more working class, and younger. And these voters came out against Trump in unprecedented numbers and opposed him on every major issue.

Remember, Trump had promised to end the forever wars, bring down the cost of living, and stop mass migration. He instead launched the deeply unpopular war on Iran, which, in combination with tariffs, spiked prices on everything from groceries to gas.

On the issue of immigration, he transformed what had been a source of popularity into a liability. People were repulsed by his deployments of ICE, construction of concentration camps, and mass deportation, especially after his goons murdered Alex Pretti and Renée Good in Minneapolis.

Every single demographic swung against Trump and the Republicans, in particular Latinos and young men. The electorate voted against ICE, the Iran War, the tech oligarchs’ AI data centers, class and social inequality, corruption, and greed. And they sent a clear message: they want reforms that address and improve their lives.

This blue wave was not just in traditional Democratic Party strongholds, but in the heartlands of the so-called red states. The Democrats took Lindsey Graham’s seat in South Carolina, swept Texas, won a Senate seat in Kansas for the first time in 94 years, and, at the time of writing, were poised to win Senate seats in Mississippi and Alaska. The Republicans’ iron grip on the red states, including the old Confederacy, has cracked.

And, in the face of psychotic redbaiting and racism, a slew of candidates in the Democratic Socialists of America won local, state, and congressional elections. This is a sign of the radicalization to the Left, especially among young people. In a stunning development, one-third of young voters nationally considered themselves socialists, more than three times the number that identified as MAGA.

Even in DeSantis Land, aka Florida, DSA member Angie Nixon—with no support from the DNC—came within three percentage points of winning a Senate seat. Some pundits contend that if she had been a moderate, she would have won. But that misses the point that in a deep red state, a Black woman and member of DSA came close to victory.

Trump’s failure to derail democracy

The people defied Trump’s attempt to subvert democracy. After the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act, Black voters turned out in mass numbers, asserting their rights and voting against Republicans everywhere.

Trump’s campaign to rig the election by getting state Republicans to gerrymander Congressional districts blew up in his face. With results still coming in, his GOP candidates lost in at least ten of the fifteen districts. Meanwhile, Democrats picked up five redistricted seats in California and one in Utah.

And the courts ruled against Trump’s more extreme plans to interfere with the vote. They blocked his attempt to seize voter rolls and rejected his attempt to prevent the certification of the Senate election in Alaska.

His attempt to buy the election, by promising to pay each voter $5,000 if the Republicans held on to the House and Senate, also backfired. So did Musk’s obscene spending spree. He wasted nearly half a billion dollars in a fruitless effort to boost GOP candidates.

On election day, Trump refrained from following through on his threat to deploy ICE at the polls. In the face of his racist authoritarianism, Latinos turned out in record numbers to protest the Republicans’ escalation of the war on immigrants.

In the end, the blue tsunami was so enormous that, in contrast to 2020, Trump could not question the results, let alone organize a mob against them. Demoralized and resentful in his White House bunker, he initially vacillated between promising to work with the Democrats and threatening to veto everything and rule through executive decree.

Shattering the MAGA coalition

Trump’s MAGA electoral coalition now lies in tatters. Only two years ago, armed with an authoritarian nationalist program, he had united the tech oligarchs, small businesspeople, and sections of the demoralized working class to win back the White House.

While Trump delivered tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, his administration screwed everyone else. Its wars and tariffs drove up prices for small business owners and cut into the living standards of workers. And Trump’s bigotry and scapegoating drove sections of oppressed people, particularly those Latinos who had, out of despair, fallen for his spell, back to the Democrats.

No amount of scapegoating of immigrants, trans people, Muslims, and socialists could cover up his corrupt enrichment of his own family or his naked service to a narrow section of the capitalist class. Bigotry simply does not compensate for spiking prices that threaten people’s ability to pay their bills and buy health insurance.

His policies demoralized even his hard-core supporters like some of the so-called Front Row Joes who stopped turning out to his election rallies. His increasingly bizarre speeches, combining comments about candidates’ asses, various vanity construction projects, and stale laugh lines from the past, evoked declining enthusiasm from even the most faithful.

And his candidate selection was a disaster. He confused politics with a mobster’s patronage system, backing people loyal to him but with no hope of winning, like the comically corrupt Ken Paxton in Texas and Darline Graham, the unqualified sister of the late Lindsey Graham in South Carolina. They, among many others, were so bad that one of his campaign organizers mocked them, saying, “I have seen the enemy and it is us.”

Republican voters either did not turn out or broke from Trump to vote Democrat. The bulk of the capitalist class had already begun to turn against him, diverting their donations back to the Democrats. And, after the election, the stock market surged in the biggest single-day gain in over a year and the largest post-election increase in 44 years in hopes for the restoration of capitalist and imperialist stability.

The next day, however, they woke up, realizing the Democrats’ threat of regulation of AI data centers would undercut the sole source of growth in the U.S. economy, and panicked, reversing all the gains of the previous day. Now all the oligarchs are plotting new strategies to seduce the Democrats’ establishment and neutralize its Left.

As a result of the crack-up of Trump’s cross-class coalition, the Republican Party faces an existential crisis. Trump had transformed it from the main party of big business into a party of the far right, and then his policies and perceived betrayals tore it apart, dooming it to a truly historic defeat.

Already the wolves are circling around their pack leader. JD Vance blamed the Iran War— which he claims to have opposed—for the Republican defeat. DeSantis is sharpening his executioner’s ax. And many are now fleeing the sinking ship. For instance, the current House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has promised to step down from leadership and will not be the party’s minority leader, while he presumably waits for the rapture to rescue him from the Democrat’s coming inquisition.

The Democrats’ victory and its contradictions

The beneficiary of Trump’s crisis is the Democratic Party. Its candidates won their races across the country, with very few exceptions. Most of the victors, particularly in the red states, are pro-capitalist centrists, many of whom hold reactionary positions on key issues like abortion, trans rights, and immigration.

They denounced Trump’s extremes while promising to address the affordability crisis. Neither they nor their establishment backers, however, lifted a finger to oppose the wave of anti-trans referendums across the nation. Even worse, Josh Turek, the centrist victor in the Iowa Senate race, came out against transgender athletes participating in youth sports.

A minority of the victors are pro-capitalist progressives. The most significant of these is Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. After the Democratic Party establishment, along with AIPAC, tried to block his victory in the primary, he secured the nomination, overcame Mike Rogers’ Islamophobic campaign of hate and bigotry, withstood the defection of his primary opponent, Haley Stevens, and won the election to become the first Muslim to secure a Senate seat.

Democratic Socialists also scored victories across the country. These were mainly in traditional Democratic Party heartlands like New York City. Nonetheless, many of the candidates aligned with DSA were new “members” whose affiliation to the socialist movement may have more to do with a perceived path to electoral success than any principled commitment to Marxism. Indeed, many, like Angie Nixon in Florida, distanced themselves from socialism, and others like the newly elected LA Mayor Nithya Raman, who was backed by a hedge fund manager, declared herself pro-capitalist.

These progressives and Democratic Socialists, as establishment analysts have pointed out, underperformed compared to the centrists. They won by narrower margins and in some cases lost. In Vermont, for instance, voters split their ticket. They voted for establishment Democrats, who swept the state, and for the incumbent Eisenhower Republican, Phil Scott, who attacked progressive Amanda Janoo’s campaign platform as “unrealistic.”

[P]rogressives and socialists who did win will be a minority in a party dominated by the capitalist establishment. All of this means that the Democrats’ massive victory in the midterms will largely prevent progressives from advancing their agenda.

Significantly, progressives and socialists who did win will be a minority in a party dominated by the capitalist establishment. All of this means that the Democrats’ massive victory in the midterms will largely prevent progressives from advancing their agenda. The establishment doesn’t have to rely on them as a voting bloc to rule and pass legislation. So, the progressives will not be able to use normal parliamentary means to pressure the party into advancing reforms like Medicare for All.

By contrast, the enormous centrist bloc will likely ensure the reelection of the establishment’s Congressional leadership. It will take not only petitions, but also mass protests to prevent Hakeem Jeffries from becoming House Speaker and Chuck Schumer Senate Majority Leader. Both are corporate and AIPAC bagmen.

Mistakenly, left-wing stalwarts like Mamdani, AOC, and El-Sayed have pledged support to Jeffries, preemptively undercutting the possibility of dethroning him. This is a dead-end tactic of parliamentary horse-trading with the establishment in the vain hope of winning their support for a more progressive platform.

It will not work. The establishment’s program will at best promise to restore the wretched status quo ante with some mild reforms that pale in comparison to what’s desperately needed. For instance, on immigration, they will not legalize all migrants nor grant them equal rights, but will conduct a “kinder, gentler” border enforcement and enact “saner” immigration policy that under Obama and Biden, led to as many, if not more, deportations than under Trump.

And the establishment will certainly not abolish ICE; they are just as likely to increase funding, as they already have done, to pay for so-called reforms like training and body cameras. We can expect the same centrist nonsense from them on gender, reproductive, and trans rights as well as policing. Even supposedly socialist stalwarts like AOC have dismissed radical demands for equality with quips like “woke 1.0 was crazyyyyy.”

By contrast, what capital demands of the establishment, they will deliver. And that is to restore order in the state bureaucracy, rebuild its damaged sections, especially its military brass, push for an end to the Iran War, reverse Trump’s idiotic protectionism, and repair the damage done to U.S. imperialism’s network of allies.

No doubt, they will demand a pound of flesh from the Trump regime; they will investigate all the corruption, including Elon Musk’s dubiously constitutional DOGE operations, and they will likely impeach the incompetent, testosterone-addled “War” Secretary Pete Hegseth, among other underlings.

Incoming Democratic Party House oversight chair Robert Garcia has already warned the Trump cabinet to “lawyer up.” But Jeffries and Schumer have announced that they will not focus on investigations, impeachment, and convictions. Instead, they have promised to address the affordability crisis.

Even assuming they had the political will to reign in the rapacious billionaire donor class and reshape this new gilded age of capitalism – which they do not – their ability to do so is constrained by their lack of a veto-proof majority. So, barring mass pressure from below, they can only win what Trump will agree to and sign into law. And he will likely veto almost everything they propose.

The battle for 2028

That reality will set up the battle for the 2028 presidential election, which has already begun. The Democrats smell blood in the Republican waters. All the party’s factions will prepare their candidates to fight for the nomination with confidence that the victor will win the presidency.

The battle will be between the capitalist establishment and the progressive wing as it has been for the last several cycles. The establishment, party bureaucracy, and their ruling-class donors will cohere around a centrist with a restorationist program and some mildly liberal planks that address the affordability crisis. Already, progressives and the DSA are rallying to push AOC to follow Bernie Sanders’ example and run for the nomination.

Even if the DSA’s electoral strategy inside the Democratic Party increases the number of elected politicians, they will remain stuck in a quadruple trap. They remain within a hostile capitalist party, disciplined by a capitalist state mired in a growing fiscal crisis, and a global capitalist system already in a slump and headed for a recession when the AI boom ends, and the stock bubble pops. All of this leaves them, and the voters they lead, no closer to breaking and forming a party of their own.

[D]espite waves of class and social struggle over the last two decades, the balance of class forces still favors the ruling class. Socialist sentiment is not yet organized as a force at work sites and in the community, where our real power lies. As a result, we have not managed to build sustained, insurgent movements with the power to scare the ruling class enough to force them to deliver reforms.

 

Moreover, despite waves of class and social struggle over the last two decades, the balance of class forces still favors the ruling class. Socialist sentiment is not yet organized as a force at work sites and in the community, where our real power lies.

As a result, we have not managed to build sustained, insurgent movements with the power to scare the ruling class enough to force them to deliver reforms. The capitalist state, and the power of the global system have contained and neutralized all progressives elected on the Democratic Party ballot line to executive office, from Seattle’s Katie Wilson to Chicago’s Brandon Johnson, and Zohran Mamdani, and it will do the same to Nithya Rahman in LA.

As a result, the Democratic establishment will probably have an easier path to secure the nomination of one of their anointed centrists against AOC or some other insurgent this time than they had against Sanders, whom they struggled against the first time but trounced in the second contest.

Lame duck, angry duck, or tyrannical fowl?

One unpredictable variable over the next two years is Trump himself. Will he go silently into the dark night or rage, rage against the dying of his light? He is a discredited lame duck facing his own mortality. His authoritarian personality disorder, however, could turn him into, in Chris Christie’s words, an “angry duck.”

But it is hard to see what he can do now. He faces a population that despises him, his regime, and all of his policies. The Democratic-controlled Congress will both bog him down in investigation and demand that he enact modest reforms.

His party is in shambles. More cabinet members will look to flee the sinking ship, and perhaps, as one of his pollsters joked, find “asylum in Israel.” Others eager to salvage their lucrative careers will turn on their master, charting a new course to try and rebuild the GOP.

Nevertheless, this angry duck could buck the constitutional order, something he did with his failed coup on January 6, 2021, but not since. This gives the lie to the liberal panic, and lazy leftist hyperbole, that Trump is a fascist. He’s not; he’s an authoritarian nationalist fighting in our degenerating electoral system of competitive authoritarianism.

He could nevertheless morph into a fascist. But, given the widespread demoralization of even his most loyal base and the decomposition of the various far-right militias, he lacks the forces to break the constitutional order.

With Trump, however, nothing can be ruled out. His decision to replace Susie Wiles with Stephen Miller as his Chief of Staff is an ominous signal that, whatever wobbles in the dark of election night, he might be planning to re-galvanize his MAGA base behind an escalated war on immigrants and intensification of Trump’s Donroe Doctrine in Latin America and the Caribbean.

As the New York Times reports, Miller is the most authoritarian and racist figure in the regime. He advocated the “separation of migrant families at the border; the 2017 Muslim travel ban; directing the government to stifle critics of Mr. Trump; the ending of nearly all U.S. refugee programs; the widespread pressure campaign against U.S.universities; extrajudicial boat strikes that have killed hundreds; and purges of officials deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump.”

But, the Times continue, “Miller’s most wide-reaching influence can be seen in Mr. Trump’s mass deportation campaign, which Mr. Miller has overseen. Mr. Miller helped set in motion militarized operations on the streets of American cities, pitting masked, heavily armed immigration agents against residents of cities like Minneapolis and Chicago.”

Miller is also one of the fiercest advocates of U.S dominance in the Western Hemisphere. When Trump was threatening the annexation of Greenland, he infamously told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else. But we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

With this racist thug at the helm, Trump could morph from an angry duck into a tyrannical fowl. Whether he can carry out Miller’s sociopathic America First program in his dramatically weakened position remains to be seen. The resistance cannot wait to find out. We must stand ready to organize mass protests and mass direct action to stop him in his tracks.

The global tsunami

Regardless of what Trump does, his defeat will have enormous international repercussions. It is the latest setback the right has suffered from the defeat of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić and Brazil’s Flávio Bolsonaro.

This string of losses fits the pattern of mass popular opposition to any party in power. This has created sharp whiplashes as voters alternately toss out the capitalist establishment, reformists, and the far right.

None have been able to address global capitalism’s multiple crises that have wrecked the lives of the vast majority. So, people have swung from various false and failing alternatives, desperately seeking a solution that’s not on offer.

Nonetheless, Trump’s defeat should inspire everyone around the world to rise up against the authoritarian nationalist right. It will boost the confidence of people to organize and defeat the AFD in Germany, Marine Le Pen in France, Narendra Modi in India, and Vladimir Putin in Russia, to name just a few.

The wipeout of the Republicans will also further weaken the hand of U.S. imperialism against its rivals. Until 2028, there will be no new helmsperson on the empire’s tiller. This will have contradictory effects.

On the positive side, it may impede Trump from carrying out the worst of imperialist plots. Despite his and Miller’s demonic fantasies, the administration will face more constraints on further gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, including against Cuba.

It is likely that Trump will also be forced to cut some kind of deal to end the Iran War, open up the Strait of Hormuz, restore shipments of fossil fuels and petrochemicals, and relieve those economies that the war has wrecked. Such a deal will be a setback for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and his decades-long ambitions to escalate the ongoing genocide in Palestine into yet more regional war.

The zionists are thus panicking. As one Israeli journalist close to Netanyahu wailed, “What happened in America last night is a catastrophe. Take AIPAC’s worst nightmares, double them, and you still don’t get close.”

Furthermore, Trump’s defeat should help undermine the transactional pact of Ukrainian blood for Russian oil that his administration has struck with Putin. Ukraine will more readily be able to secure weapons from Washington, D.C. to defend itself from Russian imperialism and its state terrorism against civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Lastly, Trump’s plan for a summit with Xi Jinping and Putin at the upcoming APEC summit, where the three powers would divide up today’s world into imperial spheres of influence like Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin did at Yalta after World War Two, is likely off the table. Xi and Putin will now regard the administration as a weak, caretaker regime and start planning for how to deal with the Democrats in 2029.

On the negative side, the U.S. ruling class will be determined to restore its imperial position in the wake of a second Trump administration that has further exacerbated its relative decline against its rivals in global capitalism. They will turn to the Democrats to carry out that project, especially against China, their main economic and geopolitical rival.

Without struggle there is no progress

Amidst all these contradictions, the most positive impact of Trump’s defeat is the mass popular sense of victory against a regime that had inflicted class war and vicious scapegoating on the majority of the country’s population. Our collective expectation of change has been raised.

But, and this is no surprise to most people, the Democratic Party is not a vehicle for the working class and the oppressed either to stop Trump or to advance our demands for reform. Therefore, the resistance must remain vigilant against Trump’s authoritarian threat and stand ready to stage mass, disruptive protests and strikes, including a general strike planned for May Day 2028, to protect our democratic rights and communities.

At the same time, we must organize and force the Democrats to enact immediate reforms. We should demand that they reverse the looming Medicaid cuts, restore funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and reinstate the 760,000 people kicked off Obamacare.

To win more thoroughgoing reforms, we will need to build independent mass class and social struggle from below. Without that, the Democrats will block substantial demands from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal, the abolition of ICE, and, yes, the defunding of the police.

Amidst this moment of raised expectation, the Left, social movements, and unions have an opportunity and responsibility to fight for such demands over opposition from the Democrats. Snide dismissals notwithstanding, Howard Zinn was right: “What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but ‘who is sitting in’—and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.”

Two years of resistance have brought Trump to his knees. The worst mistake we could make is to sit back and wait for the Democrats to deliver now or in two years.

Two years of resistance have brought Trump to his knees. The worst mistake we could make is to sit back and wait for the Democrats to deliver now or in two years. That will only provide the decimated far right an opening to regroup, rebuild, and exploit disappointment in the Democrats to return to power in the future.

We have to break our epoch’s international pattern of whiplashing back and forth between the parties of the capitalist establishment and the far right. To do that, we need to build an organized and confident Left, with a growing and stronger revolutionary socialist wing, at the heart of a reenergized resistance. We should take lessons and confidence from what our siblings are doing in the wave of uprisings from France to India, Kenya, Albania, and beyond.

We have to adopt a new strategy of building independent class and social struggles, fighting for our demands rather than accepting the establishment’s inadequate reforms, and rebuilding the democratic structures of unions and movements. In that process, we can cohere a new militant minority and build a party of our own, a workers’party, that can challenge the Democrats and Republicans in a contest for state power.

With the Trump era appearing to come to an end, we can see the flickering light of a new day on the horizon. But to usher it into being, we cannot rest in the afterglow of the contradictory results of this midterm election nor wait with folded arms for the 2028 presidential election. Keep your marching shoes on, grab a picket sign, and commit to the long struggle for a society that puts people and planet first. A new world is possible, but we have to fight for it.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Antonioaesparza, RRC1701, Office of Senator Jon Ossoff, Sikis2021, Stimpus1, Leoniceno, ArenLeBrun, Conlan Houston, The Trump White House; modified by Tempest.

The post After the blue tsunami appeared first on Tempest.

Photo by V. Villafranca

For years, zero waste solutions have quietly formed the backbone of community-led climate resilience. Yet, they have historically been sidelined in global climate discussions and storytelling. COP31 changes that. Türkiye, the host country, has placed zero waste and circular economy planning at the very top of its priority themes. For the first time in the history of UN climate summits, a host presidency is elevating waste-derived emissions to a leading position on the climate action agenda and the international stage.

Methane from landfills is created when food scraps, garden waste and other organic materials rot without oxygen in dumps and landfills. It is a short-lived but extremely powerful climate pollutant, so cutting it is one of the fastest ways to slow warming this decade — and the quickest, cheapest way to do that is to keep organic waste out of landfills through food waste prevention, source separation and composting, not by burning it in incinerators.

The COP31 presidency has made “Zero Waste and Methane Reduction” one of its headline themes, treating waste as a climate issue rather than only a municipal service. That is good news — at COP31, the UN climate conference taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026, our message is clear: zero waste is a proven climate action when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice — and the climate finance that follows must go to proven zero waste solutions, not to so-called “waste-to-energy” incinerators.

What is landfill methane?

When organic waste is buried in a landfill or piled in an open dump, it breaks down without oxygen. That process, called anaerobic decomposition, releases methane — a greenhouse gas that traps far more heat than carbon dioxide in the short term. The more food and garden waste a city sends to disposal, the more methane its landfills produce.

The science is clear. Organic waste is the largest part of the problem. In Asia, organic matter — mainly discarded food and agricultural material — makes up 50% to 70% of municipal solid waste, as delegates highlighted at GAIA Asia Pacific’s Second Regional Congress on Organics and Climate. Citing studies that attribute around 30% of current global warming to methane, the COP31 presidency has argued that waste prevention and better management of organic waste can deliver rapid climate benefits.

Landfill methane is also a public safety issue. The same rotting waste that generates methane fuels landfill fires and collapses. In recent months, a series of landfill fires and landslides across Asia blanketed cities in toxic fumes and claimed residents’ lives, many of them waste pickers.

“When communities prevent food waste and sort organics at the source, we win twice: we cut methane emissions at the source and eliminate the toxic landfill fires choking our neighborhoods.” — Froilan Grate, Regional Coordinator, GAIA Asia Pacific

Why incineration is not a solution

Proven solutions exist, and scaling them in the next five years is crucial. Incinerator companies often pitch “waste-to-energy” as a way to avoid landfill methane. But burning organic waste simply swaps one climate pollutant for another: the carbon in food scraps and paper is released as CO2 right away, alongside the fossil carbon in burned plastics. Waste-to-energy is the most carbon-intensive way to manage waste and releases more greenhouse gases than any other type of energy facility — 1.7 times as much as coal-fired power plants.

GAIA’s new Burn Book analysis of twenty incinerators and incinerator proposals found that the eleven facilities with available data release a combined 5.5 million metric tons of CO2e every year — the equivalent of 1.3 million passenger cars. And because incinerators need a steady supply of waste to stay financially viable, they compete directly with the composting and food waste programs that stop methane at the source.

Burning wet organic waste also makes little sense. In Mauritius, communities stopped a proposed 300,000-tonne waste-to-energy plant by pointing out a simple mismatch: roughly 70% of the island’s waste is green and kitchen waste. It’s one of the inspiring victories against incinerators GAIA members shared during the Global Week of Action.

Follow the money: climate finance is going to the wrong solutions

The biggest obstacle to cutting waste methane isn’t technology — it’s finance. Delegates at the Organics Congress highlighted a stark imbalance: nearly USD 4 billion has gone into capital-intensive waste incineration projects, capturing 94% of waste-sector methane finance, while barely 1% reaches organic waste management and food rescue systems.

The Jakarta Declaration, adopted at the Congress in September 2026, sets out a roadmap to fix that. It calls on national governments and financing institutions to halt funding for incinerators and redirect climate finance into low-cost, decentralized, and proven locally led organic waste systems and food loss and waste reduction.

Cities already cutting methane with zero waste

Community-led organic waste systems are not a pilot idea. They are working at scale today:

• Florianópolis, Brazil: the city’s Capital Lixo Zero program more than quadrupled food waste composting, from 1,175 tonnes in 2020 to 5,126 tonnes in 2024.
• Valparaíso, Chile: waste pickers from Chile’s national movement ANARCH began managing organic waste in September 2026, in a region where around 70% of municipal waste is organic.
• Pune, India: SWaCH’s 4,000 door-to-door waste pickers enforce source segregation across 1 million households and divert 25 tonnes of organic waste a day.
• Bandung, Indonesia: a Climate Policy Initiative analysis found decentralized community systems save the local government up to IDR 30 billion (about USD 1.7 million) a year in avoided transport and tipping fees.
• Barangay Potrero, Malabon City, Philippines: by integrating 80 waste workers into its system, this community of 43,000 residents diverts more than 100,000 kg of organic waste a year.
• Durban, South Africa: groundWork and eThekwini Municipality turned 586 tonnes of organic waste from three municipal markets into 190 tonnes of compost for city parks and community food gardens, avoiding an estimated 133 tonnes of methane. A cost-benefit analysis found market composting delivers a net benefit of R18 million (about USD 1.09 million) over ten years, while landfilling the same waste would cost R32 million.
• Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Nipe Fagio’s community-based model collects waste from 4,500 households and diverts virtually 100% of their organic waste from disposal, avoiding about 16.4 tonnes of methane emissions a year.
• Accra, Ghana: the Green Africa Youth Organization (GAYO) has formally integrated more than 600 informal waste workers into a decentralized organic waste model that won the 2024 Earthshot Prize.

These results come from places with limited budgets. They show that the most cost-effective climate infrastructure is often people — waste workers, residents and local officials — backed by clear policy. Learn how Bandung, Durban and Valparaíso are financing inclusive organic waste systems, and meet the five Global South cities the UN recognized for zero waste. Explore more zero waste solutions and how GAIA members are building zero incineration cities.

What COP31 negotiators should do about waste methane

As negotiations continue in Antalya, GAIA members are calling on:

• Policymakers to prioritize waste prevention, reuse, source separation, and organics management in climate policies and national climate plans (NDCs), with targets for composting and food waste prevention, while keeping incineration and other polluting technologies out of zero waste solutions.
• Financiers to direct accessible climate and methane finance towards proven, locally led zero waste systems that cut emissions, strengthen communities, and avoid polluting infrastructure, including decentralized organic waste systems, food rescue and direct support for municipalities, and to stop treating incineration as a methane solution.
• Governments and decision-makers to cut waste methane and black carbon at the source, reduce plastic production and fossil fuel dependence, back city-level commitments like the Cities Methane Pledge, and protect and formally integrate waste pickers and workers through a just transition.

Frequently asked questions about landfill methane How do landfills produce methane?

Landfills produce methane when organic waste such as food scraps, garden waste and paper breaks down without oxygen. Keeping organics out of landfills through prevention, separation and composting stops that methane at the source.

Does composting reduce methane?

Yes. Well-managed composting breaks organic waste down with oxygen, which largely avoids the methane that forms in landfills, and turns the waste into a soil amendment.

Is incineration better than landfill for the climate?

No. Incineration releases the carbon in waste as CO2 immediately, and waste-to-energy emits more greenhouse gases than any other type of energy facility. The climate-friendly alternative to both is zero waste: preventing waste, composting organics and recycling.

When and where is COP31?

COP31 takes place in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026. The COP31 presidency has made zero waste and methane reduction one of its key themes.

What is the Jakarta Declaration?

The Jakarta Declaration was adopted in September 2026 at GAIA Asia Pacific’s Second Regional Congress on Organics and Climate. It calls on governments and financiers to stop funding incinerators and redirect climate finance into decentralized organic waste management and food waste reduction.

Take action during COP31

Zero waste is a climate action, but only when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice. Methane from waste is one of the most solvable parts of the climate crisis. Read the Jakarta Declaration, share this article with your local officials, learn more about GAIA’s engagement at COP31 and sign up for GAIA’s updates to follow our work at COP31 and beyond.

The post Landfill Methane at COP31: Why Zero Waste Is a Climate Action first appeared on GAIA.

“Filing rate cases right now is really painful,” Joseph Sullivan told Utility Dive in an interview where he also discussed his concerns with overly complex data center cost allocation and an erosion of public trust in institutions.

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter, released weekly on Thursdays. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

Greetings from Antalya, Türkiye!

I’m here for COP31, the United Nations’ annual climate conference, which kicks off today. And I’m doing something a little different this year.

In addition to moderating a panel with the Earth Day Network and other organizations and visiting the Republic of Bati Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute, I’ll be spending more time in the audience. Listening. Learning. Asking questions. And hopefully hearing some new ideas about how we can finally move from promises to action.

Because, frankly, I’m getting a little tired of all the talk.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve attended these conferences for years, and I know important progress happens here. I’ve met extraordinary farmers, scientists, advocates, policymakers, and young people who are working every day to make our food and climate systems more resilient.

But this is COP31. We’ve been having these conversations for more than three decades. And we’re still not acting nearly fast enough.

More than a decade after the Paris Agreement, we’re facing the very real prospect of exceeding the 1.5°C warming threshold that countries pledged to avoid. In September, the U.N. Environment Programme warned that temporarily crossing that threshold is now all but inevitable.

That’s devastating. And it should make all of us angry.

But it doesn’t mean we give up. It means we need to do things differently—and one place to start is by changing how we talk about climate change in the first place.

I think about this a lot in my work at Food Tank. We know that food and agriculture can be powerful climate solutions. Farmers are restoring soil, protecting biodiversity, reducing waste, and helping communities adapt to extreme weather.

Yet, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, agrifood systems receive less than 8 percent of global climate finance.

How is that possible?

We have solutions. We have evidence. We have people doing remarkable work on the ground. But we’re still not investing in them at the scale we need.

And I wonder whether part of the problem is that we’re not telling these stories in ways that resonate with people.

That’s why I was particularly interested in a new report from Potential Energy Coalition, commissioned by The Rockefeller Foundation. Researchers analyzed more than 83,000 survey responses to better understand how we can communicate about climate change in ways that actually inspire people to act.

Four findings stood out to me.

First, don’t be afraid to talk about climate change. We’re often told to avoid those words altogether and talk instead about jobs or economic development. But the research suggests that being direct about the consequences of climate change can be much more effective. People deserve to know what’s at stake.

Second, talk about what we can gain, not just what we might lose. Nobody wants to hear only about sacrifice, restrictions, and everything they must give up. Let’s talk about cleaner air, healthier communities, affordable energy, and better food systems. Let’s give people something to work toward.

Third, make it personal. Climate change isn’t some distant problem for future generations. It’s already affecting what we eat, what we pay for groceries, our health, and the livelihoods of farmers and food workers. Those connections matter. And so do the stories of real people experiencing these changes.

And fourth, please, let’s stop using so much jargon! Terms like “net zero” and “green transition” might make sense to those of us who work in this space every day, but they don’t necessarily mean much to everyone else. We need language that’s clear, accessible, and, most importantly, connected to solutions people can understand.

None of this means watering down the science or pretending the climate crisis isn’t serious.

Quite the opposite: It means taking people seriously enough to communicate with them in ways that are honest, useful, and hopeful.

One of the things I’ve learned from spending time with farmers around the world is that they don’t always talk about climate change in the language we hear at international conferences. They talk about unpredictable rains, declining yields, the cost of inputs, or whether their children will want to keep farming.

And they’re often the people doing the most innovative work to adapt.

We need to listen to them.

The report also offers four approaches to telling more effective climate stories, and I hope communicators, advocates, and policymakers will take a look.

Because we can’t keep doing the same things and expecting different results.

I’m heading into COP31 with some frustration, yes. But also with hope. Recent elections have reminded us that people care deeply about their communities, their health, their food, and their futures. There’s an opportunity to connect those concerns to meaningful climate action.

And I’m looking forward to seeing what happens here in Antalya. This year at COP, I’ll be listening closely, meeting with people working on solutions, and looking for stories that deserve more attention. We’ll continue sharing reporting, analysis, and reflections at FoodTank.com, both during the conference and afterward.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Conservation Commons, Unsplash

The post Can These 4 Tips Transform Climate Communication At COP31 And Beyond? appeared first on Food Tank.