News Feeds

Lawrence is harnessing this Beginning Farmer Stipend to improve infrastructure and prepare for late summer and fall planting.

The post Shakera Lawrence appeared first on RAFI.

The couple is excited to expand their production to include reishi and lion’s mane mushrooms for culinary, health, and wellness purposes.

The post William Romney and Becky Bacheller appeared first on RAFI.

Snow is harnessing RAFI’s Beginning Farmer Stipend to install a drip irrigation system, purchase planting and harvesting tools, and expand the farmstand stall and parking lot.

The post Cody Snow appeared first on RAFI.

Stachowicz will use the Beginning Farmer Stipend to purchase tools that will help increase efficiency of the market garden operation.

The post Liana Stachowicz appeared first on RAFI.

Wallace began farming to provide fresh, organic food in order to help address health challenges in his community.

The post Chris Wallace appeared first on RAFI.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Barbara Grady

As the Western United States grapples with severe drought, leading cities to scramble for water and farmers to abandon some crops, a new scientific study has found that 122 major oil, gas, coal, and cement companies and state-owned operations are partially responsible.

The study found that climate change from all climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions over the last 70 years has resulted in a 36% decline in annual average mountain snowpacks, the major source of surface water in Western states – and that about 40% of that decline is linked to the climate pollution caused by just 122 companies.

The annual loss attributable to those 122 companies is equivalent to the amount of water held by Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir, at full capacity. 

The authors of the peer-reviewed paper, “Carbon emissions exacerbating the Western US water crisis,” also found that global warming from greenhouse gas emissions has led to a 13% decline in average annual streamflows from mountains to the lower-lying areas that depend on them, and to a 4.3% increase in the need for agricultural irrigation. The study attributed about half the streamflow declines and roughly half the increased need for irrigation to the warming caused by the 122 companies. In other words, those companies’ products resulted in a 6% fall in streamflows in the region, according to the study. 

Nine scientists from the University of California at Merced and the Union of Concerned Scientists contributed to the study, published August 25 in the Nature magazine affiliate Communications Earth & Environment. 

The West relies on snowpack 

Summers are dry in the Western U.S. 

Precipitation occurs in winter, with much of it stored as snowpack in the mountains. The West’s multibillion-dollar agriculture industry and the reservoirs supplying cities and towns in 11 states depend on melted snow carried by rivers, streams, and water conveyance systems in late spring and summer. If the snowpack is scant or if snow melts early, water shortages can occur in summer when water demand is highest. 

The West’s historic megadrought has persisted for two decades. With less surface water available, farmers have had to pump more groundwater for irrigation, depleting aquifers so much that the ground is sinking in many agricultural areas. Some farmers in the Southwest have had to abandon crops or fallow fields for lack of sufficient water. Corpus Christi, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Phoenix are just some of the cities facing severe water shortages.

Tying drought to specific companies 

Emily Williams, lead study author and a postdoctoral research scientist at the University of California at Merced, said in an interview that the study allowed scientists to disentangle how much worse water scarcity became over the decade 2014 to 2024 because of climate-change-induced atmospheric warming, as well as how much worse it became specifically because of the warming emissions generated by 122 companies and their products. 

“It lets us get beyond how much more intense climate change is becoming to look at specific impacts like snowpack decline as well as specific sources” of emissions, she said. Her team found impacts on water resources “not just from climate change but because of emissions traceable to specific sources.” 

The 122 companies cited in the study are the world’s biggest producers of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions cumulatively up to 2024; they are all coal, oil, gas, and cement producers. That list, known in climate science as the carbon majors and compiled by other scientists, is based on publicly reported coal, oil, gas, and cement production data along with scientific formulas for calculating emissions per unit of product produced. Since 2024, the list has grown to include 178 entities.

Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell are the fourth-, fifth-, eighth-, and ninth-biggest cumulative emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, according to the most recent version of the list. The world’s three highest emitters are state-owned coal, oil, and gas companies from the former Soviet Union, China, and Saudi Arabia (Saudi Aramco). U.S. coal producers Core Natural Resources and Peabody Energy are also in the top 25 carbon majors. 

The study authors based their calculations on emissions since 1950, rather than earlier, because that was the decade when major oil and gas companies began to suspect that use of their products would cause changes to the Earth’s climate. Engineers at ExxonMobil who studied the issue determined that burning large amounts of fossil fuels would affect planetary climate systems. After its engineers shared their conclusions with management in the 1970s, ExxonMobil at first expanded that research to learn more and then – a decade later – pivoted to hiding the scientific findings and denying the existence of climate change, as reported in the Pulitzer Prize finalist series “The Road Not Taken” by Inside Climate News. Other major oil companies did the same. 

The study authors wrote that “roughly 70% of global industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions since 1854 are traceable to 122 fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers (“Carbon Majors”), and ~97% of these emissions occurred after 1950.” 

U.S. oil companies remain silent

When asked on August 27 for a comment on the water crisis study, Chevron – the largest U.S. emitter since 1950 – sent an automatic thank-you note but did not respond to the question by publication. 

Chevron’s second quarter earnings report, released August 12, highlighted record-breaking oil production. The report said the company “achieved new U.S. upstream production record of nearly 2.1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and record U.S. refinery throughput of over 1 million barrels per day” as well as “competitive growth” in operations “around the globe.” Chevron also has embarked on developing oil resources in Venezuela, which has large deposits of heavy crude – a variety of oil that’s highly polluting to process. 

A media relations receptionist for ExxonMobil, the second-largest U.S. emitter, politely pledged to convey the reporter’s question to the media relations team, but the company did not respond. 

The methodology that Williams and her eight colleagues used involved overlaying observational data of recorded temperatures, precipitation, relative humidity, and hydrologic conditions annually over the decade 2014 to 2024 in seven water basins across the Western states with global climate models. Then they introduced emissions data in three variable scenarios to disentangle the effect of emissions from the carbon majors. One scenario included all human-caused emissions since 1950, the second included no anthropogenic emissions, and the third scenario excluded emissions traced to the 122 companies. 

“By comparing these scenarios and using pattern scaling, we calculated how much of the observed changes in snowpack, streamflow, and irrigation demand are attributable to climate change and specifically to emissions from the Carbon Majors,” the authors wrote.

Governments seek damages from polluters 

The study is part of a growing body of what’s called attribution science. As scientific consensus has solidified around climate change resulting from atmospheric warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, emissions of methane, and destruction of forests, scientists are looking more deeply at the impacts of that warming, how to minimize future warming, and the specific sources of the emissions. 

Similar studies have attributed the size of areas burned in intense wildfires, specific measures of sea level rise, and the increased likelihood and intensity of extreme heat events to emissions from the carbon majors. 

Read: Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people

“We have a choice of how much worse climate change is going to get, and that is a function of how much emissions we allow,” Williams said. She said some changes to the planet’s climate system are already irreversible, but we do have a choice to avoid others and the worsening of some that are already baked in.

Many states and cities around the world are taking the biggest climate polluters to court in hopes of getting financial resources to help them address damages from extreme hurricanes, wildfires and floods whose intensification can be linked to climate change. 

Two states – New York and Vermont – have passed climate superfund laws requiring that the biggest historical emitters help pay for climate damages incurred in their states. Many other states, including California, are considering such legislation. New York’s law was recently struck down in court, but the state also plans to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, several states are suing major fossil fuel companies over the damage they allege was wrought by their emissions.

“As climate impacts become increasingly severe, communities will be asking for more action” to help recover from damage and adapt to climate changes, said Carly Phillips, another author of the water study and senior research scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Communities, states and small countries are bearing an unfair share of the costs of the impacts of emissions, Phillips contended, compared with the companies that ignored the looming crisis for decades and even lobbied Congress against taking action sooner.

 “Given the outsized contribution of certain entities to the problem – 122 companies is a very small number – there should be some accountability,” she said.

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

//

I started birding in 2005 after pulling a used field guide off a bookstore shelf. I had never been birding, didn’t know any birders, and only knew one birding fact: It was not cool.But where did I...

HARRISBURG, PA (October 7, 2026) —Today, families and environmental and health organizations from across the state called on Governor Shapiro to establish greater protective distances between new fracking wells and nearby homes, schools, and water sources.

Groups made this push as Pennsylvania faces an influx of proposed data centers. These proposals raise concerns about increased reliance on fracked gas and the potential for additional drilling and fossil fuel infrastructure across the state, putting Pennsylvania families in danger.

Pennsylvania’s current rules allow fracking wells to be located as close as 500 feet from buildings (and even closer with exceptions) — a distance that was never set based on health studies and are woefully insufficient to protect public health and the environment from the numerous dangers of fracking.

To address harms from fracking, Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project filed a rulemaking petition with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in October 2024, asking the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to increase minimum setback distances from fracking wells. This October marks two years since the petition was filed. Minimum setbacks, also referred to as protective buffers and no-drill zones in the context of fracking, are mandatory distances that fracking companies must abide by to keep fracking operations separated from homes, schools, hospitals, drinking water wells, and surface water.

“Pennsylvanians are frustrated with politics that seem to work against our cries for a better environment and better health,” said Lauren Otero, Staff Attorney at Clean Air Council. “This is a simple step forward, yet we wait years for our Commonwealth to help us.”

“Nothing has given me more hope than watching communities all across Pennsylvania come together, speaking out against the predatory and parasitic companies looking to pollute our homes and exploit our natural resources,” said Katie Weber, who helped form grassroots group, Protect Burgettstown. “We are united and our message is clear: We do not want data centers. And we do not want fracking anywhere near our homes, schools, or daycares.”

“Pennsylvania can do their part to protect Pennsylvania citizens with far more protective setbacks between fracking activities, people and water,” said Kurt Limbach, a member of Concerned Residents of Western PA and Mountain Watershed Association. “It could also do its part by conducting a thorough review of any air permits to potentially massive polluters like the Homer City fracked gas power plant. The Pennsylvania constitution guarantees the rights of Pennsylvania citizens to clean air and water. Our citizens should not be forced to live in a sacrifice zone to power AI. “

“Too many Pennsylvania families are being harmed by fracking and drilling right next to their homes, schools, and daycare centers,” said Lisa Graves Marcucci, Pennsylvania Coordinator of Community Outreach for the Environmental Integrity Project. “We need protective buffers now. The current 500-foot minimum setback distance was never based on any public health information. And Pennsylvania’s inaction has put more communities at risk each day. Since we filed our Petition for Rulemaking on October 22, 2024, at least 784 new fracking wells have been drilled with only a 500-foot setback required to protect nearby Pennsylvanians. We urge the Shapiro Administration and the Environmental Quality Board to act now to increase minimum setback distances.”

Registered nurses will hold a rally and community event on Saturday, Oct. 10 in Washington, D.C. to demand that MedStar Washington Hospital Center reopen its shuttered postpartum unit in the midst of a Black maternal health crisis in the District. Following the rally, the nurses and allies in the community will make their way to the hospital where they will deliver a letter to management calling for the immediate reopening of the unit.

Climate group commends Virginia’s Lt. Governor for taking a clear stance against creation of largest utility monopoly in the world 

RICHMOND, VA — Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ghazala Hashmi announced yesterday her opposition to NextEra’s acquisition of Dominion Energy. The announcement came after the conclusion of a five-stop listening tour during which the Lt. Governor heard Virginians’ concerns about the merger in Loudoun County, Norfolk, Richmond, Charlottesville, and Roanoke. CCAN Virginia Director joined the Lt. Governor as the energy expert on the panel in Roanoke.

The Virginia State Corporation Commission decision on the merger, which would create the largest regulated utility monopoly in the world, hinges on whether approval would impair or jeopardize “just and reasonable rates.” Recent polling shows that three in four Virginians (76%) believe the merger will increase electric bills.

Victoria Higgins, Virginia Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), issued the following statement:

“We are thankful that Lieutenant Governor Hashmi took the time to hear out Virginians on this topic, and ultimately for taking a strong stance in opposition. We, too, are hearing deep concerns from people all over the state. Virginians see this for what it is: one more leg of the billionaire class’s AI arms race that is robbing everyday families of money, health, jobs, land, and water. It appears that NextEra is only here to capitalize on and accelerate data center infrastructure buildout as the rest of the country wakes up and turns them away.”

The Lt. Governor is the first statewide elected official to flatly oppose the merger. Governor Abigail Spanberger is a formal intervenor in the case before the State Corporation Commission and has expressed that she is “skeptical of the benefits this merger would deliver to Virginia.”

#   #   #

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.

The post Lt. Governor Hashmi Right to Oppose NextEra and Dominion Mega-Merger appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

(October 7, 2026) - Last week, the U.S. Senate passed legislation to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a federal program that invests millions of dollars to clean up toxic...

Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights rcoleman October 7, 2026 EWG and Consumer Reports October 14, 2026 details { border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; margin-bottom: 0; } details summary { cursor: pointer; list-style: none; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: flex-start; gap: 12px; padding: 12px 0; } details summary::-webkit-details-marker { display: none; } details summary::after { content: "+"; font-size: 2.5rem; font-weight: 300; line-height: 1; flex-shrink: 0; margin-top: 2px; } details[open] summary::after { content: "−"; } details summary h4 { margin: 0; } details .details-body { padding-bottom: 16px; } Consumers have the right to warnings on the products they bring into their homes, including the right to know whether a pesticide is linked to cancer and other health harms.

Pesticide residue can lurk on a range of everyday products we wouldn’t immediately think of. Consumers deserve to know whether the pesticides they bring into their homes – ranging from insecticides to lawncare or petcare products – may pose the risk of long-term health harms.

Children are especially vulnerable to the chemicals that may be present in the pesticides designed to kill insects found in and around our homes. One study found an average of over 30 different pesticides in urine samples from every American child surveyed.

Although warnings often alert consumers to risks like eye or skin irritation, labels on residential-use pesticides don’t warn consumers about other risks associated with long-term exposures.

These risks include harm to the lungs, the brain, reproductive or hormone systems, breast cancer, and cancer in children. Even low levels of exposure can affect a young child’s behavioral development.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that long-term exposure to some pesticides used in our homes can result in damage to the liver, kidneys and the hormone and nervous systems. For example, some pet care products designed to kill fleas and ticks contain a chemical that may be dangerous to consumers, especially children and pregnant people. Exposure to this chemical can increase the risk of learning disabilities.

The National Poison Control Centers report more than 28,000 household pesticide exposures to children under the age of 5 and over 35,000 adults each year. In 2024, pesticides were pregnant people’s third most common exposure to poison.

Consumers have the right to know if someone nearby is spraying a pesticide that can make them sick.

Consumers deserve to know whether someone living or working near their home has applied pesticides that can make people sick. In most states, consumers have no way of knowing whether a toxic pesticide has been sprayed nearby. Farmers and other commercial and government applicators are not required to notify their neighbors about potential risks.

Pesticides can travel from their intended target. Some pesticides can drift in the wind after they are applied. Others can volatilize and travel as an invisible vapor.

For example, federal experts using a screening model recently estimated that paraquat, a highly toxic pesticide that’s been linked to Parkinson’s disease, could reach levels of concern in air up to or beyond 2.7 miles from where it’s applied.

And though the people who spread the chemicals may be required to wear special protective gear, communities nearby remain unprotected.

Consumers have the right to know that what they feed their children is subject to the toughest pesticide safety standards.

Consumers deserve to know that the pesticides found on foods most commonly consumed by children – fruit like strawberries and blueberries and vegetables like broccoli and carrots – are subject to the strictest food safety standards.

Federal law requires by default that the EPA apply an additional safety factor when it sets limits on pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables. But it rarely does.

While pesticide residues detected on fruits and vegetables meet federal standards, they are not set low enough to ensure they are safe, especially for kids.

An EWG peer-reviewed study found the EPA fails to adequately consider children when setting limits for 90% of the most common pesticides.

Consumers have the right to expect their kids are protected from toxic pesticides at school and in local parks.

Consumers deserve to know children are safe when they are at school. They have the right to expect the pesticides sprayed in school, on school grounds and near schools are not toxic. Children face higher risk from pesticides because their developing bodies and nervous system are more vulnerable to chemical toxicity.

Despite mounting scientific evidence of these potential harms, school pesticide safety standards vary from state to state.

Some allow pesticide application within proximity to schools. EWG found 3,901 public elementary and middle schools located within just 200 feet of a crop field where pesticides could be sprayed.

Nearly 25,000 other schools are situated within a quarter-mile of a pesticide-treated crop field.

Consumers have the right to expect America’s pesticide regulators will act quickly to review toxic pesticides when other nations ban the chemicals.

When a pesticide is banned by another country, U.S. consumers have the right to expect the EPA will quickly evaluate whether we should ban it too.

But dozens of pesticides, including those linked to serious health harms, such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease, have been banned by other nations – yet are still allowed for use in the U.S. And many will not be reviewed by the EPA for safety for years to come.

Consumers have the right to know where and when pesticides have been used and misused and when they’re detected in food and water.

Consumers have the right to know more about the impact and details of pesticide use, including especially:

• Where and how much is manufactured
• Where and how much is applied
• Which pesticides can be detected in food and water
• When spills may pose a risk to our health

Some of that information is publicly available. But it is often hard to find, and when it is, may be out of date.

And in most states, this kind of data about the location and quantities of manufacturing and application isn’t available at all.

Consumers deserve to know more about pesticides so they can protect their families.

Consumers have the right to seek justice when pesticides have caused harm.

The Supreme Court this year blocked many pesticide lawsuits, leaving consumers who have been harmed by a pesticide with fewer ways to hold pesticide corporations accountable. When pesticides have made us sick – and consumers can show their health was harmed because of their exposure to pesticides – they should have access to justice through the courts.

In this special encore episode, Bob talked w/ Fadi Kafeety, a scholar of Arab and Middle Eastern history, about the current crises in the region which have been intensified by…

Federal protections helped wolves recover. Here’s what could happen if they disappear.

At 192 years old, Jonathan the giant tortoise is the oldest known living land animal. A new study offers clues as to his incredible longevity.

Read more on E360 →

DENVER—A new analysis by the Center for Western Priorities found that 99.1 percent of the 370,238 public comments posted on the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule oppose the Trump administration’s plan. The comment period closed October 6.

The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibits most road construction and commercial logging on more than 44 million acres of national forest land outside of Colorado and Idaho, where state-specific roadless rules apply. The proposed rule, published August 20, would rescind those protections nationwide and leave the management of roadless areas up to individual forest plans. USFS argues that removing the rule would help reduce wildfire risk and give local managers more flexibility, claims that are undercut by the agency’s own environmental analysis of repealing the rule.

Key findings:

• 99.1 percent of posted comments opposed rescinding the Roadless Rule
• 0.5 percent supported the rescission
• 0.3 percent were neutral or off-topic

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Creative Content and Policy Manager Lilly Bock-Brownstein:

“For the second year in a row, Americans have flooded the Forest Service with comments telling it to keep the Roadless Rule. If the Trump administration moves forward with this proposal, they will be blatantly ignoring the wishes of the American people.

“The Trump administration keeps claiming that repealing the rule is about wildfire, but the public isn’t buying it—our comment analysis confirms that Americans know this is about giving private industry easier access to our public lands.”

These results track previous CWP analyses that found near-universal opposition to the Trump administration’s public lands rollbacks. In September 2025, more than 99 percent of approximately 183,000 comments opposed repealing the Roadless Rule. In November 2025, 98 percent of comments opposed rescinding the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule. And last month, 99 percent of 134,312 comments opposed the Forest Service’s rewrite of the Travel Management Rule, which would open national forest roads and trails to motorized vehicles by default.

Methodology:

CWP downloaded all 370,238 comments posted to docket FS-2025-0001 on regulations.gov as of October 7, 2026, 7:06 AM MT. CWP also downloaded and read the 17,857 attachment files submitted with 3,924 of those comments, so that letters submitted as PDFs or images were classified by their content. Those attachments represent an estimated 296,000 additional individual comments or signatures. Each comment was classified as supporting, opposing, or neutral/off-topic using a combination of keyword matching and a large language model. CWP staff manually audited the labels on a sample of 300 comments, which oversampled “support” and “neutral/off-topic” comments. The audit found a labeling accuracy rate estimated at 99.9 percent.

The comments posted to regulations.gov reflect a portion of the massive public outcry against rescinding the Roadless Rule. Conservation organizations have tracked more than 1 million letters and signatures asking the Forest Service to keep the Roadless Rule in place. The General Services Administration does not post every comment submitted to each agency; CWP’s analysis covers all of the comments that are available online.

Learn more:

• USFS’s own analysis shows Roadless Rule repeal would harm wildlife, water, and rural communities — Westwise

• Commenters overwhelmingly oppose Travel Management Rule rewrite — Center for Western Priorities

• Comment analysis finds over 99% opposition to repealing 2001 Roadless Rule — Center for Western Priorities

The post STATEMENT: New analysis finds 99.1 percent of public comments oppose repealing the Roadless Rule appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

A Dutch NGO has filed the first climate complaint under the European Union’s trade rules, arguing that New Zealand violated the environmental provisions of its free trade agreement with the bloc by weakening its climate regulations.

The case will test whether binding climate provisions in the EU’s free trade deals can be enforced to hold governments accountable to their climate obligations, experts told Climate Home News.

The EU-New Zealand free trade agreement, which came into force in 2024, was the first in the world to include legally-binding climate provisions and possible sanctions for violating them, as the EU seeks to use its trade partnerships to advance greater environmental protection.

Under the deal, both parties committed not to weaken their environmental law to promote trade or investment and to “refrain from any action or omission that materially defeats the object and purpose of the Paris Agreement”.

• Aug 24, 2026 Business New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation A new bill prevents corporations being sued for the climate damage their emissions cause, as the government says climate action should be handled at the national level not in court Read more
• Sep 15, 2026 Business International trade linked to 20% of global emissions – but imports ignored Researchers say governments should discuss how to tackle emissions linked to globally traded goods and services, especially in large importing countries Read more

At the time the agreement was signed, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the agreement included “unprecedented social and climate commitments”. But experts warned it was unclear how the Paris Agreement provisions would be enforced.

The EU included a similar “trade and sustainable development” clause in 14 other bilateral trade deals in recent years, with several others, including with China, awaiting ratification or being negotiated.

Climate activists at the Dutch NGO Both ENDS argue that the New Zealand government breached these terms by reopening its waters to offshore oil and gas exploration, releasing a climate plan that barely requires any emissions reductions, and passing a law that prevents corporations from getting sued over climate damages.

“Here, we have a so-called gold standard for free trade agreements with sustainability provisions but we have a trading partner that is doing exactly the opposite: regressing, as all the evidence points to, away from the Paris Agreement,” said Marius Troost, a senior policy advisor at Both ENDS.

Can the EU enforce its climate trading rules?

The Dutch environmental group filed the complaint under the EU Commission’s Single Entry Point, a mechanism that allows civil society to request enforcement of the bloc’s trade commitments.

The EU-New Zealand trade deal includes the possibility of suspending beneficial trading arrangements between the two parties in response to serious violations of its climate provisions. This, Troost said, is a “unique” tool to enforce both parties’ obligations under the deal.

“This is an opportunity for the EU and New Zealand to show that they are actually serious about these commitments,” he told Climate Home News.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon visits a school in Tonga, August 30, 2024. (AAP Image/Ben McKay)

A spokesperson for New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade denied any violations of the agreement and said the government hadn’t received formal notice of the complaint. The country, they said, “takes its commitments under the NZ-EU Free Trade Agreement seriously, including the agreement’s environment and climate-related provisions”.

An EU Commission spokesperson said it will start a preliminary assessment of the complaint and engage with NGO Both ENDS. “Sustainability is a central pillar of the EU-New Zealand relationship,” they added.

The EU is New Zealand’s second-largest trading partner after China, with about 14% of the country’s exports going to the European market. Agricultural products like meat, diary, fruit and vegetables are the country’s biggest exports to Europe.

New Zealand is ‘having its cake and eating it’

Eliza Prestidge-Oldfield, a senior legal researcher at the New Zealand-based Environmental Law Initiative, which is supporting Both ENDS’s claim, told Climate Home News that if the EU upholds the complaint, both parties would begin a negotiation process.

“The idea is to try and resolve this positively with the New Zealand government acknowledging areas where it needs to change its actions in order to comply with the agreement, and get that change in place as soon as possible,” she said.

But New Zealand’s right-wing coalition government said it won’t take any directives from foreign actors regarding its policies. Trade minister Todd McClay told local media that it was “not for overseas countries, organisations or lobby groups to tell New Zealand how to meet its obligations”.

• Oct 6, 2026 Comment Coal mines and hypocrisy must not be Australia’s COP31 legacy Still without a coal phase-out plan, Australia must course-correct to earn the mantle it has been given and do right by the Pacific nations that backed its bid for COP’s co-presidency Read more
• Oct 6, 2026 News Pacific leaders rail at climate finance failures after pre-COP trip to Tuvalu Island nations seek invest in their own Pacific Resilience Facility, as they struggle with the red-tape of international climate funds Read more
• Oct 2, 2026 Comment As COP31 co-host, Australia should make its polluters pay for climate damage With UN climate funds running short on cash, now is the time to start taxing the companies whose emissions are driving harm in the Pacific and other vulnerable parts of the world Read more

Prestidge-Oldfield argued the complaint isn’t about “Europe telling anyone what to do at all”, but rather stressing the conditions under which they are willing to import goods from New Zealand. “The New Zealand government is trying to have its cake and eat it too,” she said.

If New Zealand refuses to adjust its policies in line with the agreement, the complaint will be assessed by an independent panel, which can require the country to make changes. If those changes are not implemented, the panel could decide that New Zealand should lose its preferential EU market access.

A negotiated resolution is more likely, however, with no prior labour-related complaints to the EU having ever reached the panel stage.

Alexander Gillespie, a law professor at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, said sanctions would be a “last resort”. “This is a test case, which will generate considerable attention – as it is not just about climate change, but how free trade and environmental sustainability have been woven together,” he said in a statement.

Trade deals as tool for climate accountability

Experts said the case could set a precedent for how trade deals can be used to hold governments accountable on climate action. The EU has enacted similar “trade and sustainable development” clauses in its trade agreements with Canada, Japan and South Korea.

While still pending ratification, the EU’s 2024 trade agreement with Mercosur – which encompasses Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – also includes climate provisions, including a commitment to “effectively implement” the Paris Agreement and promote low-carbon trade.

In addition, legal researcher Prestidge-Oldfield noted that last year’s landmark advisory opinion on climate change by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) laid out stronger climate obligations for developed countries like New Zealand and could strengthen allegations of violations of the terms of the trade deal.

“It will be an interesting area to watch how the EU free trade agreement is interpreted in the light of this advisory opinion,” she said.

The post New Zealand accused of breaching EU trade deal over climate rollbacks appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Virginia State Corporation Commission approved fuel cost securitization for the second time since 2023, adding additional interest costs for customers.

Australia and Türkiye have agreed to take forward a “presidency-led decision for COP31” after consulting with different countries and groups, Australia’s climate change and energy minister said on Wednesday at the pre-COP meeting in Fiji.

The announcement that November’s climate conference will produce what is known among negotiators as a “cover decision” lays to rest the annual speculation over how the main outcomes of the UN climate conference will be presented this year.

Unlike other formal decision texts at COP, cover decisions are not negotiated word by word between governments. They are often summaries crafted during the proceedings by the presidency, although they still need to be adopted by consensus. Cover texts bring together key elements and initiatives emerging from the discussions at the two-week UN climate talks and give a sense of the political direction of travel for the coming year.

Australian minister Chris Bowen, who will preside over the negotiations at COP31 in the Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, said the presidency did not want to negotiate “a lengthy political statement”. The two countries are sharing the presidency in an unusual arrangement, although Türkiye has the formal title of COP31 President.

The decision, he explained, will be one that “captures the global moment and calls for action”, adding that it would offer “a focused and concrete response to the challenges and opportunities of our time”.

• Oct 6, 2026 News Pacific leaders rail at climate finance failures after pre-COP trip to Tuvalu Island nations seek invest in their own Pacific Resilience Facility, as they struggle with the red-tape of international climate funds Read more
• Oct 5, 2026 Politics At pre-COP, UN climate chief warns of heat threat to mothers and babies The spotlight on maternal health came on the first day of the pre-COP31 meeting in Fiji, where Pacific concerns are set to top the agenda as ministers gather for talks Read more

Bowen said the text could recognise the recent UN report acknowledging that an overshoot of the 1.5C warming limit is now inevitable, but temperatures could be brought back down to that level. The decision could also stress “the urgent need for climate action, support and international cooperation to go further and faster”, he added.

With COP31 President Murat Kurum sitting next to him, smiling and nodding, Bowen said the joint presidency aimed to be open and transparent, giving governments an early idea of what to expect from the COP31 process.

Earlier in the week, they published a second joint letter laying out key areas for progress at the negotiations, from setting up a just transition mechanism to putting science at the centre of the next global stocktake of climate plans and focusing governments on the need to increase adaptation finance.

Cosima Cassel, climate diplomacy lead at think-tank E3G, said a COP31 cover decision should send a clear political signal that accelerating climate action is central to global security, prosperity and resilience, show that faster implementation can help address 1.5C overshoot, and support developing countries to put their climate plans into practice.

EU keen to know “what success looks like”

Earlier on Wednesday, Europe’s climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told journalists in Fiji that the European Commission had asked the UN and COP31 organisers to provide clarity on the summit’s agenda and “what success would look like” in Antalya.

That is why, he added, “I… like it a lot that the organisers are pushing for electrification and are already clear about it upfront”.

A voluntary goal for electricity to provide 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035, up from 23% today, was announced by Türkiye at the Bonn mid-year climate talks. It has since been garnering support for the target, which was developed with the backing of international energy agencies. Australia said on Wednesday it would sign up for the goal.  

However, it remains unclear if or how this goal will be reflected in the COP31 cover decision, as including it in a document that has to be endorsed by all countries could influence its form.

COP31 electrification pledge leaves out clean power commitment

In recent years, blocking tactics by powerful fossil-fuel producing countries like Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia have made it difficult for COPs to make headway on a 2023 decision to transition away from fossil fuels (TAFF).

At COP30 in Belém, Brazil had to offer to develop a voluntary TAFF roadmap at the last minute after failing to secure support to launch the process as part of the formal UN talks. There was also confusion over whether COP30 would produce a cover decision, with Brazil holding its cards close to its chest until the second week, when it decided to put together the “Mutirão Decision”.

Electrification goal in cover decision?

This time around, it is now practically certain that COP31 will produce a cover decision, but a key question is whether the co-presidency will somehow try to anchor the voluntary electrification pledge in that text.

Doing so could make it hard to specify that the electricity to meet the target should come from clean, renewable sources, due to potential objections from some countries. The proposed text for the electrification pledge, unveiled on the sidelines of the General Assembly last month, did not make that commitment.

E3G’s Cassel said the COP31 cover decision needs to specify that electrification will be clean “otherwise there is a strong risk that fossil fuel projects are supported by the pledge”. It also must outline the support needed to enable the 35×35 goal to be met, rather than just the top-line target, she added.

On Wednesday, the EU’s Hoekstra said “the whole main effort” towards the electrification goal “should be focusing on renewables”, while nuclear could also be part of the solution.

The energy transition, he added, “is about making sure we transition away from fossil fuels, as the world has already agreed on – so then doubling down on solar, on wind, on battery capacity, on all these elements should be at the very heart of it”.

The post Australia says COP31 co-presidency will work on a cover decision appeared first on Climate Home News.

We are excited to welcome two new conservation assistants, funded by Dr. Allyn Golub. Their main focus is assisting with field and office activities associated with the Sanctuary’s Western...