Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Biofuel Pledge at Climate Summit Highlights India’s Ethanol Blending Debate

Earlier this year, the Indian government announced that it has achieved its target of mixing 20% of ethanol—considered a relatively cleaner fuel—with petrol or gasoline five years ahead of schedule

BENGALURU, India (AP) — India's push to blend ethanol with gasoline shows the benefits and challenges of the sustainable fuel efforts being showcased at global climate talks this week. Earlier this year, the Indian government announced that it achieved its goal of mixing 20% of the plant-based fuel with gasoline five years ahead of schedule. The world's most populous country is joining Brazil, Japan and Italy to promote ethanol and other biofuels as part of the Belem 4x initiative. The initiative, being showcased Friday at the COP30 climate summit, provides political support for expanding biofuels and relatively low-emission hydrogen-based fuels. Brazil, long a biofuel leader, commonly sells a 27% ethanol blend and its government recently announced plans to increase the percentage. India's rapid ethanol shift shows challenges other countries could face. While the Indian government said ethanol usage reduces pollution, some users said it is affecting their mileage and damaging older engines. Most fuel pumps in India now sell the 20% ethanol blend or unblended gasoline that’s nearly twice as expensive. Lower ethanol blends are being phased out. Environment experts also said grain production for ethanol can displace food crops and sometimes generates more planet-warming gases than it saves. Indian car owners say ethanol reduces mileage Ethanol, typically made from corn, sugarcane or rice, is considered cleaner than petroleum-based gasoline. The Indian government said its blending program has already cut carbon emissions by 74 billion kilograms (163 billion pounds)— equivalent to planting 300 million trees — and saved over $12 billion in oil imports in the last decade.“I think it’s good for the environment,” said Vijay Ramakrishnan, a businessman in Chennai. “But I’ve noticed a drop in mileage in my vehicle in recent months. Given how expensive fuel already is this further drop is only adding to my costs.”Ramakrishnan, who commutes over 100 kilometers (62 miles) daily, wants the government to offer more fuel choices.Amit Khare, who runs a popular YouTube channel on automobiles, said many followers complain about a significant drop in mileage from E20. Some owners of older cars have told him that they are having engine trouble.“E5 is the best fuel, E10 is manageable, but E20 has given a lot of trouble,” he said. Ramya Natarajan of the Bengaluru-based Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy said ethanol can be good for some engines if they are compatible, but agreed that it can reduce mileage. Indian farmers want clarity on crops needed for ethanol Farmers said they need clarity on government procurement plans for ethanol production. Ramandeep Mann, a farmer in India's northern Punjab state, said farmers significantly increased corn acreage last year in hopes of selling it for fuel, but the price dropped after the government allocated large amounts of rice to ethanol makers. The amount of ethanol blended with gasoline in India grew from 8% to 20% in the last five years. Most of the ethanol now comes from grains, as opposed to the sugarcane, its traditional source. Mann said prices for sugarcane have also dropped this year. He said it’s good that the government is tackling climate change, but it should put farmers and their prices ahead of ethanol mandates. Previously, surplus crops not needed for food were the primary source of India's ethanol, but that's beginning to change, according to Natarajan of CSTEP. “With the push for E20 blends or even more, a lot more area has to be cultivated which in turn means it’ll be replacing other crops,” she said. Climate experts said biofuel production can have minimal environmental impact when it’s made from waste or inedible vegetation and processed in facilities that run on clean energy. But when crops are grown explicitly for biofuels, it has a higher carbon footprint because of the fertilizer and fuel involved.India’s ethanol strategy is part of a broader effort to reduce emissions, cut oil imports and boost agriculture, said Purva Jain, an energy specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.But she said a faster transition to infrastructure for electric vehicles might be better. A 2022 study by her organization found that installing solar power for EV charging can be a much more efficient land use than growing crops for biofuel. However, ethanol producers have invested significant sums in manufacturing and need a steady, growing market for their product now, said CK Jain, president of the Grain Ethanol Manufacturers Association. He said India should increase the percentage of ethanol mixed with gas and encourage the sale of compatible vehicles. “We need to have higher blending as soon as possible, otherwise the industry will go into deep financial trouble,” Jain said. Other experts advocated for a middle ground. A 10% blend of ethanol with gasoline, can be a “win-win” solution said Natarajan of CSTEP. She said that would allow for use of existing crops without putting too much pressure on increased cultivation. Khare, the YouTube influencer, said keeping lower blends available would help older vehicles. “The government can bring E20 or even up to E85 programs on top of that, that’s completely fine. But consumers need to be given the option,” he said. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Lemurs Are Having a Mysterious 'Baby Boom' in Madagascar. Here's Why That Might Not Be a Good Thing

Researchers are investigating a sudden spike in pregnancies in one black-and-white ruffed lemur population that might signal environmental stress to the mammals

Lemurs Are Having a Mysterious ‘Baby Boom’ in Madagascar. Here’s Why That Might Not Be a Good Thing Researchers are investigating a sudden spike in pregnancies in one black-and-white ruffed lemur population that might signal environmental stress to the mammals Elizabeth Preston, bioGraphic November 7, 2025 8:30 a.m. A population of black-and-white ruffed lemurs on Madagascar is experiencing changes in the cadence of its breeding, researchers say. Inaki Relanzon / Nature Picture Library Every August, about halfway through his journey into Madagascar, veterinarian Randy Junge decides he’s never doing it again. After 30 hours of travel from the United States to reach the island off the southeast coast of Africa, he and his colleagues face a 12-hour trip by car over roads that are “bad to nonexistent,” he says. Then a team helps them carry their gear to camp—a hike of 18 miles through the rainforest. Once he recovers a little, though, Junge—who is the vice president of conservation medicine at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Ohio—always changes his mind. He’ll be back. What stands to be learned about the long-term consequences of environmental change to the health of Madagascar’s lemurs is just too important. Junge works with Andrea Baden, a biological anthropologist at Hunter College in New York, on a long-term project monitoring a remote population of black-and-white ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata). Baden started the project at Ranomafana National Park in southeast Madagascar in 2005. Junge joined in 2017. Every summer, they camp out at the park for about ten days and work with a Malagasy team to capture lemurs; conduct medical exams; and collect blood, feces and other samples for later analysis. They also observe lemur families and social interactions. For the rest of year, Malagasy research technicians, guides and graduate students keep tabs on the lemurs’ activity. Because the site is so arduous to reach, it remains a relatively pristine habitat with undisturbed lemurs. But there are signs that the globally transforming climate is changing these lemurs, too.  One of the researchers’ interests is the black-and-white ruffed lemurs’ fertility. The species breeds sporadically, but in 2024 the Ranomafana population had babies for an unprecedented second year in a row. The scientists fear that what looks like a miniature baby boom might actually be a sign that this species is in danger. Did you know? Where do lemurs live? Lemurs are only found in the wild on Madagascar and the nearby Comoro Islands. Like humans and chimpanzees, they are primates, though lemurs are more distant relatives of ours than the apes are. Black-and-white ruffed lemurs are largely arboreal, walking and leaping between tree branches across their forest habitat in search of fruit. Goran Safarek / Shutterstock Wild animals face challenges that their captive counterparts don’t. Back in Ohio, Junge’s animal patients at the zoo “live a pretty soft life,” he says. The lemurs he sees in the rainforest, by contrast, bear signs of their tougher environment, such as cracked teeth or broken fingers that have healed crooked. The environment also shapes reproduction. The pampered black-and-white ruffed lemurs in zoos breed every year and often bear litters of three to five infants. In their native habitat of Madagascar, where all wild lemur species dwell, the black-and-white ruffed lemurs have fewer babies at a time—if they get pregnant at all. Like other lemur species in the wild, black-and-white ruffed lemurs live in the treetops, eat mostly fruit and breed within a specific window of time. But unlike their cousins, which breed annually or at regular intervals such as every other year, black-and-white ruffed lemurs have unpredictable gaps between birth years. Their fickle fecundity is reinforced in a surprising way. Most of the time—as is the case with other lemur species—a female black-and-white ruffed lemur’s vulva has no opening at all. “They could not have sex if they wanted to,” Baden says. But for 24 to 72 hours around July of a lucky year, she says, “Their vagina will open like a flower.” There’s a brief frenzy of mating. Then the females close up shop again. “It’s totally weird,” Baden says. Researchers Randy Junge and Andrea Baden visit the Ranomafana forest in Madagascar each year to study black-and-white ruffed lemurs with their Malagasy colleagues. Randy Junge The result is a boom-or-bust baby cycle: In the years when the Ranomafana population breeds, usually 80 to 100 percent of adult females end up giving birth that October. A mother normally has two or three infants at a time, born helpless and with their eyes closed, “like puppies,” Baden says. Unlike nearly every other hairy primate, young black-and-white ruffed lemurs are unable to cling to their moms’ fur.  For the first month or so of life, the mom has to stay with her young nearly full-time in the nest—a high platform of branches and leaves. For maybe an hour each day, she leaves to forage fruit and to socialize. “Mom takes off and will literally make a beeline to other females’ nests and pop in and pay little visits,” Baden says. After about a month, the mother moves her infants to a new nest, carrying them one at a time in her mouth. Outside this nest, an adult male or female will stand guard, letting the mother spend more time away. Some moms continue parenting like this, Baden says. Others change tack, teaming up with their neighbors instead. They carry their babies to the nests of relatives or friends, or to crooks of trees, and park the kids together under the eye of a sentinel male, while all the moms go out. Baden compares this arrangement to a kindergarten. The mothers who take advantage of shared nests spend more time feeding themselves, and their infants seem more likely to survive, perhaps because more regular meals for mom translate into richer milk. The synchrony of their reproductive habits helps to make this communal care possible. “Something in their environment tells them ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” Baden says. The availability of certain resources may serve as a signal to breed. But no one knows exactly what that signal is, she says. “We’re only just starting to understand this system.” Black-and-white ruffed lemurs typically birth two to three babies at a time, but their pregnancies can be as long as five years apart. Lauren Bilboe / Shutterstock From 2005 to 2023, Baden always saw two or more years between breeding seasons at Ranomafana. Gaps between breeding years seem to be the norm in other black-and-white ruffed lemur populations, too. In Madagascar’s Manombo forest, other researchers observed a stretch where black-and-white ruffed lemurs didn’t breed for five years. That’s why, at Ranomafana in 2024, field observers were startled to see the lemurs mating for the second year in a row. To learn more about what was going on with the population, the U.S. scientists brought a portable ultrasound machine on their annual field visit. (Coincidentally, Baden was eight months pregnant at the time. She sent a graduate student in her place to make the long journey and hike. “I’m tough, but not that tough,” she says.) The Ranomafana population consists of about 40 lemurs, with 15 or so adult females. As in other years, the team used tranquilizer darts to capture some of the lemurs. After using a net to catch each sleepy animal falling from the tree canopy, they collected medical data, conducted ultrasounds on the females and replaced radio collars as needed. The team managed to get ultrasounds on seven of the females. The blurry black-and-white images revealed another surprise: pregnant mothers—but only some. Four of the seven females were pregnant (three with twins and one with a single fetus). In normal years, either none of the females get pregnant, or nearly all of them do. “Not half,” Junge says. Furthermore, he says, one fetus was about twice as big as all the others, suggesting its mother had bred early, outside of the usual window. Junge and Baden brought a portable ultrasound into the field to determine if any females were pregnant for an unprecedented second year in a row. Randy Junge The scientists didn’t know how many of these fetuses would survive to term. Come fall, though, the infants arrived—not in October but mid-September, in yet another aberration from their usual pattern. Multiple litters were born. Some lemur moms successfully reproduced for the second year in a row. Two years of babies might seem like a good thing. But Baden worries that the consecutive breeding years in Ranomafana hint at something different—perhaps a scrambling of whatever environmental cues usually synchronize their boom-or-bust communal breeding. “We’re seeing kind of wonky timing of reproduction, and we’re seeing the plants are fruiting and flowering at different times,” likely due to climate change, Baden says. “We’re seeing way drier wet seasons.” All in all, she says, “There may be some sort of breakdown in the system.” Researchers estimated in 2019 that this species had declined by at least 80 percent over the prior two decades. If scientists can figure out what environmental cues influence the black-and-white ruffed lemurs’ reproduction, that knowledge could be critical for keeping them alive.  Junge is studying the lemurs’ blood to see if the presence of a certain vitamin or mineral in their diet, for example, predicts when they’ll breed. “For instance, if there was a critical nutrient they get from one tree that isn’t fruiting, it could upset the whole reproductive cycle,” Junge speculates. “It’s a little scary, because that ability to succeed may be a very fine line.” A black-and-white ruffed lemur on a branch Diego Grandi / Shutterstock Climate change is rattling Madagascar and its wildlife beyond Ranomafana National Park. In addition to warming and rainfall changes, cyclones are becoming more common and intense on the island. These storms knock down trees and leave holes in the canopy. Increasing storms could disrupt the lemurs’ food supply. Because black-and-white ruffed lemurs have a more selective fruit diet than other species do, they may struggle to adapt when cyclones destroy their preferred feeding trees. The five-year breeding gap in one black-and-white ruffed lemur population came after an intense cyclone tore through their forest.   But climate change is only one of the environmental factors threatening Madagascar’s lemurs. Habitat loss is an ongoing problem that’s difficult to combat, as Harizo Georginnot Rijamanalina, one of Baden’s Malagasy graduate students, has seen firsthand. Rijamanalina recalls visiting a forest in his village as a child. He was tagging along with his father, who was on a mining expedition. While his dad’s team dug their pit, Rijamanalina explored the forest, collecting sticks to make into toy weapons, while lemurs swung overhead. That forest is still intact; Rijamanalina went home for a visit in 2022 and identified about 11 lemur species living there. After finishing his PhD at the University of Antananarivo in Madagascar’s capital city, he plans to take his expertise back home and work on conserving that site and its wildlife. But other areas of lemur habitat across the island have shrunk as he has grown up. The impacts of climate change on the forest, Rijamanalina says, are “exacerbated by intervention of local communities, who struggle from the difficult life.” In trying to survive, they log the forests, mine them for gold or gemstones, or hunt the lemurs themselves for meat.  “You see, every year, the forest [gets] pushed back,” says Tim Eppley, chief conservation officer at the U.S.-based conservation nonprofit Wildlife Madagascar. “It’s largely driven by lack of opportunity and food for the local human populations.” All wild lemurs live in Madagascar and the nearby Comoro Islands, and most populations have been impacted by the forces of development and climate change. Luca Nichetti / Shutterstock As a result, Eppley says, lemurs today are in “a very precarious situation.” Nearly all of Madagascar’s more than 100 lemur species are threatened with extinction. “Many of them have very small populations that exist just within a single forest, or maybe a series of forest fragments,” Eppley says. Every population is critical to protect, scientists say. Baden and her team hope that continuing the ultrasounds in coming field seasons, along with their other biomedical research, will unlock secrets about the black-and-white ruffed lemur’s fertility and unusual reproductive habits that could help safeguard the species. By tracking which lemurs get pregnant, then comparing the data to how the lemur families look later, the team can find out how many pregnancies arise from the short breeding season—and how many of those fetuses make it to term and survive. Lemurs have semi-opposable thumbs that help them grip branches. Pav-Pro Photography Ltd / Shutterstock Even though some Ranomafana females gave birth in two consecutive seasons, “I’ll be curious to see what mortality looks like this time,” Baden says. She’s noticed more infants in recent years not making it to their first birthday. It could be yet another sign that, between the poorly understood lemurs and their shifting environment, some equilibrium is slipping. Was the Ranomafana lemurs’ one weird year in 2024 the start of a trend that could hurt their odds of survival? Or just a fluke? In 2025, the Malagasy team didn’t notice the lemurs mating and assumed things were back to normal. The U.S. researchers brought the portable ultrasound with them when they returned to the rainforest in August, though, just to be sure. And what they found was unprecedented: At least two females were pregnant, yet again. If the babies make it to term, it will be one mother’s third straight year of breeding. She’ll birth those infants, though, into an uncertain future. This story originally appeared in bioGraphic, an independent magazine about nature and regeneration powered by the California Academy of Sciences. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Pollution-plagued port communities near LA and Long Beach say regulator excludes them

Communities near the ports say regulators didn't consider their input when weighing a cooperative agreement about pollution from the ports.

Guest Commentary written by Theral Golden Theral Golden is a Long Beach resident Paola Vargas Paola Vargas is a community organizer at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice The South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Governors should vote against the so-called cooperative agreement to curb emissions in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because impacted community members were not meaningfully included, it weakens the district’s ability to reduce emissions and it creates a dangerous precedent.   The toxic pollution experienced daily by nearby community members isn’t new. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the busiest in the country. We have known for decades that port emissions shorten life expectancy and quality of life in the South Coast Air Basin, which encompasses parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. These pollution-burdened areas are called “diesel death zones” due to the adverse health impacts. In places like West Long Beach, life expectancy is up to eight years shorter than the county average. Throughout the basin, there are an estimated 2,400 pollution related deaths a year. Both ports have made air quality improvements, but the complex is still the single largest fixed source of emissions in southern California.  And the toxins are only going to increase. Cargo activity at the ports is expected to rise 57% from 2021 to 2032. We can expect the human death toll to rise alongside it. There is a process underway with the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the governing body charged with regulating port pollution — that has the potential to address these grave health outcomes. Communities harmed by the pollution have consistently asked the district to incorporate their feedback when identifying solutions, but the district has not meaningfully engaged them. Instead, it has sided with industry time and again, allowing it to dictate the flow and outcomes of the process.  Gov. Gavin Newsom recently declined to sign Senate Bill 34, citing concerns that it would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s authority to regulate port emissions and would interfere with cooperative actions taking place with the ports. We agree with Newsom’s assessment that regulatory authority and cooperation can avoid the worst health impacts — except the cooperation he refers to as “locally driven and collaborative” has been anything but.   The cooperative agreement includes a five-year ban on rulemaking. That handcuffs South Coast Air Quality Management District, effectively blocking the agency’s authority to address port pollution when the South Coast Air Basin can least afford a delay.  Youths play baseball at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters This ban on rulemaking not only impacts the ports of LA and Long Beach but every port in the district. It also sets a dangerous precedent that could spur other air districts to eliminate public participation in rulemaking processes and prioritize industry priorities over public health.  Instead of advancing the cooperative agreement, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s board should provide more time to meaningfully and collaboratively engage local communities and consider public health implications.   This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. We can chart a path that addresses port pollution, improves quality of life and recognizes the role ports play in our global supply chains.  But that won’t happen without communities taking a meaningful place at the table. 

California lawmakers found money for these pet projects even as they slashed the budget

California lawmakers faced a difficult budget year, but they still managed to put hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in the state budget to benefit their districts — and help them get re-elected.

In summary California lawmakers faced a difficult budget year, but they still managed to put hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in the state budget to benefit their districts — and help them get re-elected. Despite facing a $12 billion deficit this year, California’s Legislature still managed to spend at least $415 million for local projects to help lawmakers win their next elections.  CalMatters found close to 100 earmarks inserted into just one of the state’s budget bills for local projects and programs that had little apparent benefit to anyone outside the lawmakers’ districts. Some of the earmarks raise concerns about legislative priorities in a difficult budget year, such as lawmakers spending millions from the general fund on museums, trails, parks and other amenities in wealthy communities.The spending includes $5 million in general fund money for a LGBTQ+ venue in high-cost San Francisco, $2.5 million for a private day school in Southern California and $250,000 for a private farm-animal rescue on the North Coast. Around $250 million of the local-project earmarks were funds taken from the $10 billion Proposition 4 climate bond California voters approved last year.  Some of the Prop. 4 earmarks included:  $26 million to programs paying farmers for private land conservation. $20 million to help the public access a Southern California beach gated off by a wealthy community. $15 million for “geologic heritage sites” including the La Brea Tar Pits — whose fossils have been used to study climate change in the last epoch. The earmarks were approved at the same time Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers left state worker positions unfilled, suspended some health care benefits, forewent raises for firefighters, filled budget holes with high-interest bond money and took billions of dollars from the state’s “rainy day” emergency fund. Kristen Cox, executive director of the Long Beach Community Table foodbank, said the money lawmakers spent this year to enhance communities in their districts — often for projects that some would consider frills — isn’t going to the neediest Californians. “It’s misprioritization,” she said. “My priorities are to help the people that need it the most. Their priorities seem to be ‘Let’s make this city look gentrified and pretty and beautiful.’”  A secret process that benefits lawmakers Many of the earmarks — one-time allotments of cash for a specific purpose or project — are fairly benign and went to local infrastructure needs such as fire stations, parks, public schools and environmental projects.  They also represent just a small portion of the state’s $321 billion budget, which pays for programs and services that typically are intended to help all of California.  But inside the notoriously secretive budget negotiation process, lawmakers also have the ability to set aside sizable chunks of money to benefit their districts through an even more opaque earmark system.  It allows them to direct money to their pet projects without leaving a fingerprint — at least until they issue a press release touting a new community perk or show up for ribbon-cutting and check-passing ceremonies. Such spending, disparagingly called “pork-barrel spending” or “pork” for short, is hardly new or unique to California, said Thad Kousser, a former legislative staffer and political science professor at UC San Diego. He has extensively studied equity in how politicians divide up budgets for local needs.  Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story. Mike McGuire Democrat, State Senate, District 2 (Santa Rosa) Christopher Cabaldon Democrat, State Senate, District 3 Jerry McNerney Democrat, State Senate, District 5 (Stockton) Scott Wiener Democrat, State Senate, District 11 (San Francisco) Monique Limón Democrat, State Senate, District 19 (Santa Barbara) Benjamin Allen Democrat, State Senate, District 24 (El Segundo) Henry Stern Democrat, State Senate, District 27 (Calabasas) Catherine Blakespear Democrat, State Senate, District 38 (Encinitas) Brian Jones Republican, State Senate, District 40 (San Diego) Cecilia Aguiar-Curry Democrat, State Assembly, District 4 (Davis) Ash Kalra Democrat, State Assembly, District 25 (San Jose) Gregg Hart Democrat, State Assembly, District 37 (Santa Barbara) Jesse Gabriel Democrat, State Assembly, District 46 (Encino) There’s a reason it’s pervasive: When politicians keep the cash flowing back home, it helps them get re-elected, he said. “Politicians across generations — and in every country — try to use some portion of the budget on these clear signals that they’re directing the flow of government dollars to real people and real organizations right at home in their district,” he said. “Voters reward that.” Eyeing higher office? Send pork home The biggest recipient of the earmarks in Senate Bill 105 appears to be the North Coast Senate district of Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire. After losing his legislative leadership seat this year, he seems to be positioning himself for a congressional bid, according to The Santa Rosa Press Democrat. If he does run, he’ll be able to tout all the cash he brought to his Senate district this year.  His district was the recipient of more than two dozen earmarks totalling more than $100 million, accounting for a quarter of the earmark funds CalMatters identified. They went to fund a regional hospital, harbors, habitat projects, schools and fire stations. His district also received $250,000 for the farm-animal rescue.  State Sen. President Pro Tem Mike McGuire during a floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on April 24, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters His largest earmarks included $50 million in Prop. 4 funds for a redwood trail that’s to run 320 miles across his district. McGuire’s office didn’t make him available for an interview. McGuire instead sent an emailed statement defending the earmarks. “Our state’s budget includes smart, one-time investments across California,” McGuire said. “Many in our state have been working on these projects for years to make California safer, stronger and more resilient.” Sen. Scott Wiener, the powerful Senate Budget Committee chairperson from San Francisco, is definitely running for higher office. Wiener announced last month he’s running for Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat. The budget included at least $9 million in general fund earmarks benefiting the voters of San Francisco who will decide whether to send him to Washington, D.C. The money went for parks, restroom improvements and “to support the preservation and revitalization of a historic LGBTQ+ venue” in the city’s Castro neighborhood, according to the budget bill which doesn’t name the venue.  San Francisco is also slated to receive $1 million for a new oncology clinic and chemotherapy center for Chinese Hospital and $250,000 for “accessibility improvements” to Wah Mei child development center. Wiener’s office didn’t respond to interview requests. Lawmakers complained of earmarks None of the earmarks have a lawmaker’s name on them, making it extremely difficult for members of the public — or even other lawmakers — to decipher whose they are and which districts benefited. The governor’s administration is responsible for some. Legislative staff told CalMatters while reporting this story that earmark requests sent to budget committees aren’t public records.  CalMatters instead used the Digital Democracy database’s ‘Find your legislators’ tool to triangulate which pork projects are in which lawmakers’ districts from earmarks inserted into SB 105. That’s one of 40 budget-related bills Newsom signed this year. There are almost certainly more earmarks buried in the other budget measures. The secretive nature of earmarks — and the number and size of them this year — became a source of contention in September at the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.  Some Democratic lawmakers complained that so many last-minute earmarks had popped up in the spending bills. They questioned whether the earmarks were being fairly distributed to communities with the most need. “For the climate bond money, the general fund money, the Medi-Cal money, the Department of Education money, across the transit money, in almost every one, there is at least one — sometimes 40 — specific allocations,” Sacramento Sen. Christopher Cabaldon told the committee.  “The broader concern about equity and balance in those earmarks is certainly a point really well taken,” said Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat representing the El Segundo area. Nonetheless, none of the 90 Democrats who control the Legislature voted against the budget this year, according to Digital Democracy.Newsom also signed it into law. His office didn’t respond to an interview request.  Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association blasted the pork-project spending as hypocritical, especially as some liberal groups and lawmakers support raising taxes or turning to voters to pass new bonds to prop up the state’s shaky finances. Politicians, she said, like to say, “‘We need money for everything in California.’ And what are they spending the money on now? Basically gifts to the districts that make the elected representatives look good and that are not essential or not as essential.” Pork in Prop. 4  About $275 million in Prop. 4 funds also went to backfill the state’s general fund budget covering existing environmental, fire and energy programs and for expenses such as deferred maintenance at state parks.  Using bond funds to pay for existing expenses in the general fund means there’s less bond money available to pay for the new expenditures voters thought they were supporting. The separate bond earmarks from lawmakers reflect their priorities and may not necessarily be what voters wanted either. Some of the lawmakers’ earmarks include:  $40 million to secure public access to a beach blocked off by the wealthy gated Hollister Ranch community in Santa Barbara County and for a separate dam-removal project. Both projects are in the district of Sen. Monique Limón, who is replacing McGuire as the Senate Democratic leader next year. She shares a district with a handful of assemblymembers who may have sought the earmarks.  Limón’s district also received $1 million for a museum in Santa Barbara “for an interactive water exhibit.” Limón replied to an interview request with an email from her spokesperson, Christina Montoya. “While the senator was not involved in Prop. 4 allocations,” Montoya said, “she is glad to see projects funded that advance the goals of the state.” An aerial photo of Hollister Ranch, located west of Santa Barbara along the Gaviota Coast, on June 16, 2021. Photo by George Rose, Getty Images $1 million went to the UC Davis Integrative Center for Alternative Meat and Protein, primarily at the request of San Jose Assemblymember Ash Kalra. UC Davis isn’t in Kalra’s district, but he’s a vegan and the chair of the Assembly Select Committee On Alternative Protein Innovation. The $15 million earmark “for geologic heritage sites” including the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles was from Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan. His office didn’t make him available for an interview. Taxpayers will pay at least $6 billion in interest and other expenses to finance Prop. 4 over the next four decades. Using Prop. 4 to pay farmers  An example of how earmarks lock up Prop. 4 funds can be found in this year’s budget for the Wildlife Conservation Board. The $10 billion bond is supposed to provide $1 billion for the board to give out as grants in the coming years. The board uses a competitive process that prioritizes habitat project proposals to provide the most ecological benefits for California. This year, the Legislature gave the board $339 million in Prop. 4 money to spend. But about a quarter of it — $88 million — is going to projects the board must now fund because of  lawmakers’ earmarks.  Gregg Hart, a Santa Barbara Democratic assemblymember, got one of the biggest earmarks from the board’s funds — $16 million for a conservation easement on Rancho San Julian, a 13,000-acre private ranch in his district. Conservation easements are legal agreements that ensure private lands don’t get sold and turned into environmentally unfriendly developments.  In an interview, Hart said preserving the ranch’s habitat in perpetuity is in line with what voters intended when they voted for Prop. 4. Assemblymember Gregg Hart speaks during a committee hearing on petroleum and gasoline supply on Sept. 18, 2024. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters “In my district, this is a signature ranch that is an environmental gem,” Hart said. “And preserving that is a very high-value project.” The conservation board also must allocate $10 million in Prop. 4 earmarks to programs that will pay farmers and private wetland landowners in the Central Valley to flood their fields to provide habitat for waterbirds.  Central Valley farmers already have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal crop subsidies over the decades. The flooded-field earmarks came from Democratic Sen. Jerry McNerney, who represents the Stockton area, and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry representing the Davis area. In an emailed statement, McNerney called the $10 million expenditure a “win-win for farmers and for wetlands … ensuring that migratory birds have places to rest and refuel on their long journey on the Pacific Flyway.” The total number of earmarks relying on Prop. 4 funds has Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones of San Diego saying, “I told you so.” He urged voters to reject the bond last year.  “It was going to be pork,” he said. “It was going to be earmarked projects that the legislators are going to be able to move …. into things that really didn’t have anything to do with the story that was being told to the voters when they voted.” Jones’ district was the recipient of some pork, though he said he made no requests for Prop. 4 money. His earmarks were from the general fund. They include $1.4 million for San Diego County dam repairs and $615,000 to the San Diego Mountain Biking Association “for building and maintaining public trails for mountain biking.”  ‘What did we get?’ from the general fund Other notable earmarks from general fund dollars, separate from the climate bond, include large one-time allocations for projects to benefit the state’s Jewish community. The Legislature has an  18-member Jewish Caucus.The funds include $15 million for the Museum of Tolerance and the Holocaust Memorial in Los Angeles as well as $5.4 million for the Jewish Community Center of the East Bay.  The Los Angeles Jewish community and interfaith leaders hold a candle lighting ceremony marking the exact moment of the first anniversary since Hamas spearheaded attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, at a ceremony at The Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles on Oct. 6, 2024. Photo by Damian Dovarganes, AP Photo An earmark for $2.5 million also went “for security and other infrastructure” at Milken Community School East Campus, a private Los Angeles Jewish school with annual tuition of nearly $55,000. The school is in Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel’s and Sen. Henry Stern’s districts. Stern’s office said the earmark for the private school wasn’t his. Gabriel co-chairs the Legislative Jewish Caucus with Wiener. Gabriel also oversees the Assembly Budget Committee. He didn’t return messages. Neither did the school.Gabriel this week attended a check-passing ceremony at the Discovery Cube in Los Angeles. He and two other local lawmakers touted getting the children’s museum a $5 million earmark from Prop. 4 funds. Other earmarks using general fund money included at least $1.7 million for trail improvements and an urban garden in Democratic Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s wealthy coastal district, as well as $3.6 million for the Oceanside Museum of Art.  Blakespear responded to an interview request with an emailed statement. “I’m grateful that these impactful community projects were funded through the state’s general fund,” she said. “I know they will provide immense value to these communities and their residents and are deserving of funding.” She announced this week she would be appearing at a check-passing ceremony for one of her earmarks: $1.2 million to the city of Mission Viejo for the Oso Creek Trail Improvement Project. Former Stockton-area Democratic state Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman said such earmarks are hardly surprising. She was proud to bring back to her district $10 million in her last term to reopen two dilapidated community swimming pools.   “I mean, that is fantastic for my district,” she said.  But she acknowledged it is a lot harder for lawmakers to justify those sorts of expenses when there are so many of them in a difficult budget year.  “I think you either hope that (people) won’t find out, or they see what stuff they’re getting, and they’re like, ‘Oh, all right, well, as long as we got ours,’ right?” she said. “What people are more concerned about is equity. ‘What did we get?’”

California’s pro-housing laws have failed to raise new home numbers

New housing starts were around 100,000 a year when Newsom took office in 2019; they still hover around that number today.

California YIMBY, an organization founded eight years ago to promote housing construction in response to an ever-increasing gap between demand and supply, held a victory party in San Francisco recently. “Welcome to the most victorious of California YIMBY’s victory parties,” Brian Hanlon, founder and CEO of the organization, told attendees. Its acronym (Yes In My Backyard) symbolizes its years-long battle with NIMBYs (Not in My Backyard), people and groups who have long thwarted housing projects by pressuring local governments that control land use. YIMBY’s party marked the passage of several pro-housing legislative measures this year, two of which have long been sought by housing advocates. Assembly Bill 130 exempts many urban housing projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, while Senate Bill 79 makes it easier to building high-density housing near transit stations in large cities. “2025 was a year,” Hanlon gleefully declared. The celebratory atmosphere was understandable because this year’s legislative actions capped a half-decade of ever-mounting state government activism on housing that followed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2017 campaign pledge to build 3.5 million new units of housing if elected. That goal was wildly unrealistic, as Newsom should have known, but he did push hard for legislation to remove barriers to housing development. His housing agency also ramped up pressure on local governments to remove arbitrary hurdles that YIMBY-influenced officials had erected and to meet quotas for identifying land that could be used for housing. However, the celebration omitted one salient factor: Pro-housing legislative and administrative actions have failed to markedly increase housing production. New housing starts were around 100,000 a year when Newsom took office in 2019, and they are about that number today, with the net increase even lower. As the Housing and Community Development Department admits in its statewide housing plan, “Not enough housing being built: During the last ten years, housing production averaged fewer than 80,000 new homes each year, and ongoing production continues to fall far below the projected need of 180,000 additional homes annually.” The Census Bureau calculates that since Newsom took office, new housing permits in California ranged from a high of 120,780 units in 2022 to a low of 101,546 last year. Newsom’s own budget agrees with the Census Bureau’s data for the same period and projects future construction through 2028 at 100,000 to 104,000 units a year. Those are the numbers. But how data on housing is collected and collated has been a somewhat murky process, and opponents of housing projects often challenge how they comport with quotas the state imposes on local communities. Fortunately, the Census Bureau has unveiled a new statistical tool that should go a long way toward having complete data that includes not only conventional single- and multi-family projects, but alternative forms of housing such as backyard granny flats, officially known as Accessory Dwelling Units; basements or garages that are transformed into apartments; single-family homes converted into duplexes or apartments; mobile homes or office buildings that become housing. The tool uses several sources of data but is heavily reliant on the Postal Service, which maintains a constantly updated roster of addresses that includes all housing types. More accurate data should make it easier to overcome conflicts and may even reveal that California’s pro-housing actions have had positive effects that current methodology misses. “The housing crisis has persisted in part because we haven’t been able to measure our progress accurately,” an article about the new tool published by the Niskanen Center, a think tank, concludes. “With the Census Bureau’s Address Count Listing File data, that excuse is gone. Now the question is whether policymakers will use this powerful new tool to finally build the housing America needs.”

If Trump’s EPA abandons climate policy, could California take over on greenhouse gases?

Legal experts, including a former federal official and UCLA professor, say California could go it alone if the federal government stops regulating greenhouse gases. One reason to try is to protect the state’s clean-car economy.

In summary Legal experts, including a former federal official and UCLA professor, say California could go it alone if the federal government stops regulating greenhouse gases. One reason to try is to protect the state’s clean-car economy. California has long cast itself as the nation’s climate conscience — and its policy lab. Now, as the Environmental Protection Agency moves to revoke the backbone of federal climate rules — the scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human health — one of the state’s top climate officials is weighing a provocative idea put forward by environmental law experts: If Washington retreats, California could lead on carbon-controlling regulation.   Absent what’s known as the endangerment finding, the EPA may soon consider abandoning the legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources, furthering the Trump Administration’s stated aim to dismantle U.S. climate policy.  While decrying the prospect of such a move, climate advocates say a repeal would yield a silver lining: California and other states could in theory set their own greenhouse gas rules for cars and trucks, regulations previously superseded by federal authority. Cars and trucks represent more than a third of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. A long shot regulatory gambit could clean some of the nation’s dirtiest air – and keep the state’s clean-car transition alive. “All options are currently on the table,” Lauren Sanchez, chair of the California Air Resources Board, told CalMatters in an interview. Authority states have never had before A former federal official and expert on the Clean Air Act – who is also a law professor at UCLA – first floated this idea.  Ann Carlson wrote in the law journal Environmental Forum that an aggressive federal action against climate policy “could, ironically, provide states with authority they’ve never had before.” The Trump administration now argues that greenhouse gases do not endanger health and that regulation is more harmful — a claim widely rejected by scientists, businesses and environmental groups, as well as states, including California. The Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Stella Kalinina for CalMatters “If greenhouse gases aren’t covered by the Clean Air Act,” Carlson told CalMatters, “then California could presumably regulate them — and so could every other state.” Carlson, who ran the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration until last year and has written extensively about the landmark law, argues that the act only preempts state rules for pollutants it actually covers. States “have a pretty strong legal argument” to regulate greenhouse gases, she said. The EPA, for its part, argues that states would still be barred from setting their own standards, arguing that its broad authority over air pollution covers even emissions the agency chooses not to regulate. That’s a view shared by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade association and lobbying group, which supported overturning California’s phaseout of new, gas-powered cars, as well as the American Trucking Associations, which has opposed some of California’s rules on trucks. Carlson said that argument doesn’t hold up. In her Environmental Forum article, she wrote: “If Congress didn’t intend the act to cover greenhouse gases, as the administration argues, then it’s hard to believe Congress intended to preempt states and localities from regulating them.” In other words, she says, preemption has its limits.  Other experts agreed the idea is worth considering.  Ethan Elkind, who directs the climate program at UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, said that states are free to “do whatever they want,” as long as the federal government hasn’t preempted them.  Not a slam dunk for California to step in For the better part of a century, California has worked to curb air pollution at the state and local level. The state’s vanguard status positions it well to test Trump’s move to curb federal climate regulation, say experts.  “I personally would be advocating that they move ahead,” said Mary Nichols, a former air board chair. “And if I were there, I would be looking to gain support for doing it.” California holds a unique status under federal law. It can set tougher tailpipe-emission standards than the rest of the country — a recognition of its early leadership in fighting smog. Since 1968, the state has obtained more than 100 federal waivers for its vehicle rules, and other states can adopt California’s standards under certain conditions. UC Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber said the state could even take a dual-track approach. “We don’t really think we need a waiver,” he would argue after EPA abandons the field, “but just in case we do: yes, give us one.” California’s latest clash with Washington stems from a decades-long dance over who sets the nation’s toughest clean-car rules. The state’s strict vehicle rules have helped spur innovations from catalytic converters to cleaner fuel to electric cars. The regulatory push began in Los Angeles after skies grew so smog-choked they stung peoples’ eyes. In 1966, California adopted the nation’s first tailpipe standards. When Congress passed the 1970 Clean Air Act, it gave the state rare authority to set tougher rules — making California both a laboratory and a trailblazer, so long as it secured a federal waiver. In 2002, California passed the nation’s first law regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The Supreme Court’s 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling confirmed those gases are pollutants under federal law, leading to the Obama administration’s 2009 “endangerment finding” that they harm public health. Such a move would fit California’s pattern of pushing first and asking permission later. In 2005, the state adopted its greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles and sought a waiver before it was even clear whether carbon qualified as pollution under federal law. The EPA initially denied that request in 2008 but reversed course a year later, granting the waiver in 2009. “So this wouldn’t necessarily be a slam dunk approach for the state to take, but I think the legal avenue is now there,” said Elkin, of UC Berkeley. Targeting cars with new regulation If California tried to regulate greenhouse gases on its own, it would have both experience and infrastructure to rely on. The process would look a lot like how the state has written past clean-car rules — except this time, the target would be carbon itself. California’s clean-car rules have operated within the permission-seeking framework set up by the Clean Air Act — until this year, when Trump and Congress moved to block the state’s plans to phase out gas cars and tighten diesel-truck standards. Trump’s EPA then went further by proposing to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, framing it as a win for “consumer choice.” Most of the state’s climate programs already run under authority of California’s own groundbreaking state laws: clean-energy mandates for utilities, a carbon-trading program for businesses, even standards to cut the carbon in fuels. Cars are different. They’re sold into a national market, and tailpipe emissions have long been federally preempted — one reason California has needed Washington’s permission to go its own way. If the state decides to test those limits, regulators would need to draft new rules and open them to public review — a process that could take years. California has already started down the path of new rules for clean cars and trucks. Last month, the Air Resources Board began the process of crafting clean car rules in response to the Trump administration’s rollback of the state’s new gas-car ban — a revocation the state is also fighting in court. In December, the board plans to begin the process of writing new emissions rules for trucks. The automobile association declined to comment on the new rulemaking effort.  Patrick Kelly, vice president of energy and environmental affairs for American Trucking Associations, said the group would work with its state affiliate to “respond to specific proposals. “ “More broadly, (our group) supports achievable national standards and opposes a patchwork of state and local standards that Congress sought to avoid,” Kelly wrote in an email. Gov. Gavin Newsom swears in incoming California Air Resources Board Chair Lauren Sanchez on Oct. 1, 2025. Photo courtesy of Office of the Governor Asked by CalMatters whether the new rulemakings could become the vehicle for California to go its own way under Trump, Sanchez, the air board chair, said it’s an option staff is studying. “It’s something that staff is looking into, and I look forward to digging into myself,” Sanchez said. No downside to trying, and some upsides Even if legal experts like the idea in theory, UC Berkeley’s Dan Farber says California going forward alone is a longshot in practice.  “There’s a chance you would win,” Farber said, of the argument that the state could directly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars. “You’re buying a lawsuit, but other than litigation expenses, I don’t think there’s much downside in trying to do it.” Farber and others point out that the Trump administration and car and truck manufacturers would almost certainly sue to block state-level efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.  The Alliance for Automotive Innovation warned, in comments to the EPA, that if states were not preempted, any unregulated emission “would then become fair game,” creating conflicting standards across the country. Automakers have long argued that letting states write their own climate rules would create a costly patchwork of standards, raising prices for consumers and complicating production for a national market. California is in somewhat of a legal quandary. The Clean Air Act requires California to meet national pollution standards, and the state still has some of the most air-polluted regions in the country. The state’s solutions rely heavily on clean-car and truck rules to meet those requirements. If California falls short, it could lose federal highway funding, a situation that Sanchez called a “no-win, Catch 22.”  After decades of regulation and incentives, California has built a reputation as a leader in electric cars, and experts said if the state pushes further on policy, that could help keep California’s clean-car transition alive and its electric-vehicle goals within reach.  Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy, said California could also risk getting ahead of consumers if it goes it alone. Electric cars proved less popular than policymakers expected when it originally passed its goal to do away with sales of new gas-powered cars.  “What is clear is that the program was not overwhelmingly popular amongst the public, even in California, right?” Nigro said. “That’s usually a flag for policymakers.” Craig Segall, an independent consultant and former state air board deputy, said there’s another factor to consider: by preserving demand and infrastructure for EVs, the state could maintain a beachhead for innovation that a future president might build on. With no coherent federal policy to compete in the global EV market, California could again use its regulatory and investment muscle — just as it once did in helping spawn electric car maker Tesla — to push the market forward. “What the feds are basically signaling here is that the field is open for anyone who’s serious about being a competitive car or truck company in five years,” Segall said. “One of those paths is: the world’s fourth largest economy figures out ways to take its manufacturing economic capacity and just plow ahead.”

How thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists got access to UN climate talks – and then kept drilling

Exclusive: Research shows oil, gas and coal firms’ unprecedented access to Cop26-29, blocking urgent climate actionMore than 5,000 fossil fuel lobbyists were given access to the UN climate summits over the past four years, a period marked by a rise in catastrophic extreme weather, inadequate climate action and record oil and gas expansion, new research reveals.Lobbyists representing the interests of the oil, gas and coal industries – which are mostly responsible for climate breakdown – have been allowed to participate in the annual climate negotiations where states are meant to come in good faith and commit to ambitious policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Continue reading...

More than 5,000 fossil fuel lobbyists were given access to the UN climate summits over the past four years, a period marked by a rise in catastrophic extreme weather, inadequate climate action and record oil and gas expansion, new research reveals.Lobbyists representing the interests of the oil, gas and coal industries – which are mostly responsible for climate breakdown – have been allowed to participate in the annual climate negotiations where states are meant to come in good faith and commit to ambitious policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The roughly 5,350 lobbyists mingling with world leaders and climate negotiators in recent years worked for at least 859 fossil fuel organizations including trade groups, foundations and 180 oil, gas and coal companies involved in every part of the supply chain from exploration and production to distribution and equipment, research shared exclusively with the Guardian has found.Just 90 of the fossil fuel corporations that sent lobbyists to climate talks between 2021 and 2024 accounted for more than half (57%) of all the oil and gas produced last year, according to the analysis by Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO), a coalition of 450 organizations campaigning to stop the fossil fuel industry blocking and delaying global climate action.These corporations, which include many of the world’s most profitable private and publicly owned oil and gas majors, accounted for the production of 33,699m barrels of oil equivalent in 2024 – enough to cover more than the entire area of Spain with a 1cm blanket of oil.The same 90 firms also account for almost two-thirds (63%) of all short-term upstream fossil fuel expansion projects which are gearing up for exploration and production, according to the newly released Global Oil and Gas Exit List – a dataset which includes more than 1,700 companies covering more than 90% of global oil and gas activity.If executed, these expansion projects will produce enough oil – 2.623m km² at 1cm thickness – to coat the entire landmass of seven European countries (France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway) combined.The findings have renewed calls for fossil fuel companies and other big polluters to be banned from the annual climate negotiations amid mounting scientific evidence that the world has failed to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C above preindustrial levels,.“This information clearly exposes corporate capture of the global climate process … the space that should be about science and the people has been transformed into a large carbon business hall,” said Adilson Vieira, spokesperson for the Amazonian Work Group. “While forest communities fight for survival, the same companies that cause climate collapse buy credentials and political influence to continue expanding their fossil empires.”“Not only are Indigenous peoples on the frontlines of their extractive sites suffering human rights violations, but we also face the brunt of climate chaos on our lands with worsening floods, wildfires, and extreme heat waves. We need to take down the ‘for sale’ sign on Mother Earth and bar entry to Cop for oil and gas lobbyists,” said Brenna Yellowthunder, lead coordinator for the Indigenous Environmental Network, a member of KBPO.The 30th UN climate summit (Cop30) opens on Monday in Belem, a city in the Brazilian Amazon – the world’s largest rainforest, which is being destroyed by ever-expanding fossil fuel exploitation, industrial agriculture, and mining, among other extractive industries.The annual meetings are where every country in the world negotiates on how best to tackle the climate crisis. The decisions should be driven by the legally binding United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty, and the 2015 Paris agreement to curtail global heating to under 1.5C.The research analyses the fossil fuel lobbyists known to have attended the negotiations in Glasgow (Cop26), Sharm el-Sheikh (Cop27), Dubai (Cop28) and Baku (Cop29). Until then, information about lobbyists was not collated by the UNFCCC.Growing anger at the lack of meaningful action by the world’s wealthiest, most polluting countries has been compounded by revelations that the fossil fuel industry appears to be granted greater access to the climate talks than most countries.Last year, 1,773 registered fossil fuel lobbyists attended the summit in Azerbaijan – 70% more than the total number of delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations combined (1,033).But the true reach of fossil fuel tentacles is undoubtedly deeper as the lobbyists data excludes executives and other company representatives on official country delegations participating directly in the confidential negotiations, and those attending as guests of governments, known as overflow delegates.The largest number of known lobbyists in recent years were representing state-owned companies from the United Arab Emirates, Russia and Azerbaijan.Many of the world’s most profitable fossil fuel corporations have also been present at recent Cop summits, at a time when governments faced huge public pressure – but failed – to agree to phase out fossil fuels despite deadly climate impacts affecting every corner of the planet.Between 2021 and 2024, Shell sent a combined total of 37 lobbyists, BP sent 36, ExxonMobil 32 and Chevron 20.In the past five years, the four oil majors made more than $420bn in combined profits.On Friday the Exxon CEO Darren Woods will headline a Cop30 launch event in Brasilia hosted by the US chamber of commerce called Pragmatic Business Solutions for Carbon Accounting and Emission Reductions. The US, which like every state is legally obliged under international law to tackle the climate crisis, has withdrawn from the Paris agreement and is not sending a country delegation to the summit.Petrobas, the majority state owned Brazilian multinational which sent at least 28 lobbyists to the past four climate summits, was recently grant ed a licence to conduct exploratory oil drilling in the sea off the Amazon, which is home to multiple Indigenous communities and about 10% of the planet’s known species.A spokesperson said: “Petrobras will be present at COP30, as it has been at previous talks, because it recognizes the opportunity to discuss sustainable models… The company’s participation in COP30 reinforces its commitment to follow and contribute to international debates on climate and energy.”Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron did not respond to requests for comment.After years of campaigning by civil society groups, Cop delegates this year are being asked to publicly disclose who is funding their participation – and confirm that their objectives are in alignment with the UNFCCC. But the new transparency requirement excludes anyone in official government delegations or overflows, and calls for stricter conflict of interest protections to cut industry influence have not been adequately heeded, advocates say.“The new rules are a welcome start, but they come decades too late … and transparency without exclusion is performative. You cannot claim to fix a process already captured by the very corporations burning the planet and fueling wars,” said Mohammed Usrof, executive director of the Palestinian Institute for Climate Strategy. “The UNFCCC must move from disclosure to disqualification… without reform this process will not save the world, and instead, will just help bury it.”UNFCCC has been contacted for comment.

Cruz, Cornyn push new retaliatory legislation that blocks U.S. water from going to Mexico

The bill is the latest effort from the Texas delegation that demands the U.S. get tougher with Mexico for failing to honor a 1944 treaty that in part governs Rio Grande water.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback. McALLEN — U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn want to limit the U.S.’s engagement with Mexico after the country failed to deliver water to Texas under a 1944 international water treaty. The Texas senators filed legislation Thursday that would limit the U.S. from sending Mexico future deliveries of water and would allow the U.S. president to stop engaging with Mexico in certain business sectors that benefit from U.S. water. The treaty requires the U.S. to deliver 1,500,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River to Mexico every year. In exchange, Mexico is required to deliver 1,750,000 acre-feet of water to the U.S. every five years, or 350,000 acre-feet per year, from six tributaries. The delay in water continues to frustrate local farmers and ranchers who depend on water for their irrigation needs. Water received from Mexico is typically stored at two international reservoirs. When water is released, it feeds into the Rio Grande. However, combined levels at the reservoirs reached a record low last year and continue to be in limited supply due, in part, to lack of rainfall. When reservoir water is in short supply, irrigation water for farmers is the first to be cut off. This has had a devastating impact on the Rio Grande Valley’s agricultural community, prompting the shutdown of Texas’ last sugar mill in Santa Rosa, though investors announced they plan to revive it. “The Mexican government exploits the structure of the treaty to defer and delay its deliveries in each individual year until it becomes impossible for it to meet its overall obligations, and it continues to fail to meet its obligation to deliver water to the United States under the 1944 Water Treaty,” Cruz said in a statement. “These failures are catastrophic for Texas farmers and ranchers, who rely on regular and complete deliveries by Mexico under the treaty and are on the front lines of this crisis, facing water shortages that threaten agriculture and livestock.” Mexico has struggled to meet its obligations. When the most recent five-year cycle came to an end on Oct. 24, Mexico still owed 865,136 acre-feet of water. Because of drought conditions, Mexico has the next five years to pay back its debt. The bill would try to compel Mexico to make minimum annual deliveries instead of allowing Mexico to pay what it owes at the end of the five years. It also requires the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on the status of Mexico’s water deliveries within 180 days of the bill’s enactment. The report would determine whether Mexico had delivered at least 350,000 acre-feet of water the previous year. The report would also assess whether Mexico is capable of delivering the full 1,750,000 acre-feet of water by the end of the five-year cycle, and would identify economic sectors and activities in Mexico that benefit from the water it receives from the U.S. and from water from the six tributaries managed by the treaty. If Mexico fails to deliver at least 350,000 acre-feet in the previous year, the bill would require the president to deny all emergency requests from Mexico for the delivery of water under any amendments to the treaty. However, exceptions would be made if the water were used exclusively for an ongoing ecological, environmental, or humanitarian emergency or if fulfilling the request is vital to U.S. national interests. The president may also limit or terminate engagement with Mexico related to those sectors or activities that benefit from the water it gets from the U.S. or from the six tributaries. Exceptions would be made for engagement that relates to countering the flow of fentanyl and other synthetic drugs. Hoping to enact consequences for failing to comply with the water treaty, the Valley’s congressional delegation — including U.S. Reps. Monica De La Cruz, a Republican from Edinburg, Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, and Cornyn — said they favored including the water treaty in trade talks next year when the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement is up for review. “Mexico has repeatedly failed to uphold the 1944 Water Treaty, including last month when they missed the five-year deadline to deliver the 1.75 million acre-feet of water owed to the United States,” Cornyn said. “I am proud to cosponsor this legislation alongside Senator Cruz, which will put added pressure on Mexico to live up to its obligations under the Treaty, ensure the South Texas agriculture community has the water it needs, and impose harsher penalties on Mexico should they choose to continue withholding the water we’re owed.” The bill could potentially work faster to add an enforcement mechanism to the treaty if it is passed. “Without stronger congressional pressure and oversight, Mexico will continue to fail to meet its obligations,” Cruz said. Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc.

Will Texas actually run out of water? Your questions about the state’s water supply answered.

You asked our AI chatbot about Texas’ water supply. We answered some of the questions that it couldn’t.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback. For most of this year, Texas Tribune reporters have aggressively reported on the state’s water supply crisis. As part of our special report, Running Out, we created a chatbot that we trained to answer your questions based on our reporting. Y’all asked a lot of questions! And in some instances, the bot could not answer those questions. Technology! Can’t live with it, can’t live without it. Those queries were sent to us. We read each one and began saw some themes. Many of you had specific questions about your own region. If you still do, you can use this tool to look up the water situation in your county. Many of you wanted to know when the state was going to run out of water, who is in charge, and how much we should worry about climate change. We identified the six most commonly asked questions and answered them below. Texas voters this week once again voted overwhelmingly to fund water projects for the next 20 years. As the Tribune reported, the money will help. And yet, the $20 billion sum falls far short of what might be needed. Our reporting on the state’s water supply and the looming crisis will not end, even as this year comes to a close. Keep the questions and story ideas coming. Will Texas actually run out of water? There are some scary estimates out there. The Texas Water Development Board projects in the state’s 2022 water plan that towns and cities could be on a path toward a severe shortage of water by 2030. This means everything, from drinking water to wastewater, and water for agricultural uses, could run low in the next few years. However, there are several factors that go into that, including if there is a recurring, record-breaking drought across the state and if water entities and state leaders fail to put key strategies in place to secure water supplies. Those strategies range from creating new sources of water supply — think desalination, conservation, and aquifer storage and recovery — to fixing the failing infrastructure that causes water lines to break and gush water out all around the state. Other estimates give us a little more time, but don’t look much better. The state water plan projects that groundwater availability, which is found underground in aquifers, makes up half of the state’s water supply, will drop by 25% by 2070. Our total water supply — groundwater paired with surface water — is estimated to decline by 18% by the same year, in part because of how many people are expected to live in Texas by then. This is why advocates say the dedicated funding approved by voters this year was so critical. That money goes toward repairing aging infrastructure and projects that create the new sources of water supply that the future of the state will rely on. What are the most affected regions in Texas by water shortages and why? Texas has 16 regions for water planning. Each faces unique challenges and are tasked with managing their own water supply. Generally, East Texas is more lush and water-rich, while West Texas is much dried. South Texas, especially the Rio Grande Valley, has been plagued by an ongoing drought. A binational tussle over water with Mexico, also isn’t helping the region. All of Texas water supply is impacted by a combination of the following: limited supplies, population growth, and climate pressures. In their planning, regional leaders are supposed to project their water supply and water demand for the following years to come. Since water supply varies by region, the Texas Tribune created an address-search tool based on that data. This tool shows where your local water supply comes from and what supply and demand projections look like for the future. You can find it here. What role does the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality play in protecting the state’s water supply? Surface water — the stuff in lakes and rivers — in Texas is owned by the state. The TCEQ, the state’s environmental regulator, oversees those rights. Since 1967, the TCEQ has issued permits granting farmers, ranchers, cities, industries, and businesses the right to use it. These permits are issued on a “first come, first served” basis, with each one assigned a priority date that determines seniority. During droughts, permit holders with the earliest dates have the right to get water before those with newer dates. Each permit also specifies the volume of water the holder may use each year. In addition to managing surface water rights, the agency enforces laws by the federal government meant to keep water quality safe enough to drink and protect ecosystems. Agency staff also respond to any contamination events that could threaten the state’s water supply. The TCEQ is different from the Texas Water Development Board, which serves as a bank that funds water projects and is responsible for long-term water supply planning. How does the state gauge how much groundwater is available? The Texas Legislature passed in 1949 the Texas Groundwater Act, which authorized the formation of groundwater districts, but it wasn’t until close to 50 years later that the state explicitly recognized groundwater districts as the state’s preferred method for managing groundwater resources in Texas. Today, 98 Texas groundwater districts cover nearly 70% of the state’s land area. These districts implement various management strategies, including developing and enforcing rules and balancing property rights with preservation goals. A key aspect of this is using groundwater modeling, monitoring wells and data to make decisions about groundwater quantity and quality. Each groundwater district sets goals that describe how much water can be pumped without depleting aquifers for future generations. These “desired future conditions” are key for understanding and managing groundwater availability long-term. To set such goals, districts monitor wells and get water level measurements to track changes and trends in aquifers, a body of rock or sediment underground that holds groundwater. Districts also model how much water they anticipate will get extracted across certain periods. This data and predictions are submitted to a regional groundwater management area and are run through groundwater availability models to project aquifer conditions if these extractions occur as planned. The districts then review model results and set their goals. The Texas Water Development Board independently reviews the models to ensure the projected extractions are feasible and will achieve the goals as well. The water board then calculates the amount of water that can be pumped annually while staying within the goals set by the districts. How will reservoirs be affected by climate change? Climate change will have a significant impact on reservoirs in Texas, and it could get ugly fast. One report studied the effect climate change has on water quality in Texas reservoirs. The researchers expect the weather pattern shifts will lead to increased water temperatures, sulfate and chloride. At the same time, it will cause decreasing levels of oxygen and pH, meaning water in reservoirs could become more acidic. Not only would this combination affect the ecosystems in the reservoirs, but it will affect the quality of water for Texans, both for consumption and recreation. A 2022 Texas Tribune analysis found that the hotter Texas gets, water levels in the reservoirs will also drop. That year, which holds the record for the hottest July recorded, led to a devastating drought and pushed municipalities to call for mandatory water restrictions. It’s a domino effect — higher temperatures cause soil to dry more quickly, which then causes less rain to flow into Texas’ rivers and streams. The longer and more intense hot temperatures continue, climate change also accelerates water evaporation from Texas’ reservoirs. Since surface water, which is mainly stored in Texas’ rivers and reservoirs, accounts for about half of the state’s water supply, climate change makes it less and less reliable. Which region or city has the highest quality of water supply? Water quality varies throughout the state. However, a 2024 statewide competition crowned Dallas for having the best drinking water in Texas. There were 23 water providers in the competition who provided unlabeled water samples for the judges, and it was judged by the taste and smell of the water. The runner-up was Denton, so by this competition alone, it could be North Texas that has the highest quality of water. That’s not to say water in the region doesn’t have problems. According to the North Texas Municipal Water District, taste, odor and hard water can still occur from naturally occurring minerals present in the lakes across the region. They are one of many water districts in the region that has rigorous monitoring of water conditions and test samples on a regular basis to ensure water meets or exceeds standards set by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Climate Risk Rarely Leads to ECB Collateral Downgrade, Blog Finds

FRANKFURT (Reuters) -The European Central Bank is already factoring climate-related risk into the assessment of collateral used to borrow money...

FRANKFURT (Reuters) -The European Central Bank is already factoring climate-related risk into the assessment of collateral used to borrow money from the bank but this rarely leads to credit rating changes, a blog post published by the ECB said on Friday.The ECB's 2021 climate action plan made the integration of climate risks into its collateral framework a key priority and the bank expects climate risk to be factored into credit ratings of assets posted by banks when they borrow from the central bank."While climate risks are widely recognised, they rarely lead to rating changes," the blog post, which does not necessarily represent the ECB's views, argued. "Several persistent challenges still limit the full and consistent integration of climate change risk into credit ratings."The ECB is using both its own in-house credit assessment systems and external rating agencies to determine climate risk but neither method has so far had a huge impact on collateral valuation.When using its in-house system, the share of credit ratings affected by climate risks is below 4% and the adjustments made are typically limited to one rating grade, the blog said.In the case of external agencies, environmental, social, and governance factors influence approximately 13% to 19% of all rating actions across the major agencies but climate change-specific downgrades account for only 2% to 7%, the blog post argued.While actual risk may be greater, assessment is difficult because banks can mask the vulnerabilities of some debtors, risk mitigation strategies can reduce their perceived exposure and because rating horizons are short- and medium-term, whereas climate risks tend to be long term, the blog said."Furthermore, reliable, granular climate change-related data remain scarce, particularly for smaller issuers, sovereigns and structured finance," it argued.(Reporting by Balazs KoranyiEditing by Tomasz Janowski)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.