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.

A Solar Panel Standoff Threatens U.S. Climate Plans

News Feed
Friday, April 26, 2024

CLIMATEWIRE | A flood of Chinese solar components is casting a shadow on President Joe Biden's climate priorities.That's creating deep divisions in the U.S. solar industry and causing political headaches for the president. American manufacturers are calling for additional trade restrictions on Asian imports amid what they say are market-flooding practices by China that are undermining U.S. plans to build a fleet of solar factories.But those calls are colliding with the interests of some renewable energy developers that rely on China-linked companies for components that are fueling a solar building spree in the U.S. They contend new trade barriers could hinder U.S. efforts to eliminate climate pollution in the electricity sector — a pillar of Biden's environmental agenda.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The solar standoff underscores Biden's precarious balancing act as he races toward the presidential election.The Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping climate law signed by Biden in 2022, lavishes tax breaks on companies to build the solar supply chain in the United States. Slowing foreign imports could help create demand for domestic components. But it could also hurt Biden's other priority: achieving 100 percent carbon-free power by 2035 — a promise that analysts say can't be met without a full-speed buildout of renewable energy.That might not be possible without imported solar products.“There’s numerous examples of the conflict between President Biden’s decarbonization agenda and his deglobalization agenda,” said Tim Fox, an analyst who tracks the industry at ClearView Energy Partners. “You want to decarbonize with available and cheap solar panels. But you also want to develop solar here at home. There is tension between those two efforts."The situation came to a head this week when seven U.S. solar manufacturers filed petitions with the federal government requesting an investigation into whether the budding U.S. industry is being harmed by what they say are unfair trade practices from China-linked companies operating in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.The manufacturers argued that companies in Southeast Asia are benefiting from foreign subsidies, and exporting below-cost solar components into the U.S. market. That should make them subject to higher tariffs, the manufacturers said.As a warning of what might come, they pointed to an announcement earlier this year by CubicPV, a Massachusetts-based solar manufacturer that scrapped plans for a massive factory after citing a “collapse” in prices and surging construction costs.“We're at a real inflection point now for developing clean energy manufacturing in the United States,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. “The presence of the massive amount of industrial overcapacity China has in solar, in [electric vehicles] and related industries is a real threat, and we know this because we've seen this play out before in the United States and in other industries. It doesn't end well.”'Green trade war'The use of trade barriers has long been opposed by developers, who say higher prices driven by tariffs could slow U.S. solar growth and make it more expensive to address climate change.Kevin Hostetler, CEO of Array Technologies, a provider of utility-scale solar trackers, a technology that turns panels toward the sun, said the manufacturers’ trade petition creates “a level of uncertainty and delay” that negatively impacts the U.S. solar industry.“We just simply don't need the short-term shocks to the system that may benefit one or two particular companies, but then harm the broader industry over the course of what could be multiple years,” he said.A statement attributed to a White House spokesperson said the administration won’t weigh in on the petitions, but it pointed to “historic investments” in the solar industry under Biden. The administration is also monitoring potential unfair market practices by China in solar and other sectors.“As President Biden has made clear, his administration is keeping all tools on the table to support the unprecedented investments secured by the President’s agenda and take action to protect American workers and manufacturers against unfair competition,” the statements said, adding that Biden is committed to expanding solar deployment.The solar battle is part of a wider spat between the U.S. and China — that members of the Biden administration are increasingly acknowledging.As China’s domestic real estate market has cooled, the country has leaned heavily on its manufacturing sector to bolster economic growth. Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm, estimated that Chinese firms make 80 percent of the components in a solar panel, such as polysilicon, wafers, cells and modules.At the same time, S&P Global Market Intelligence said an “unprecedented wave” of imported solar panels — linked largely to China-based companies operating in Southeast Asia — came into the U.S. in 2023. Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam together accounted for 84 percent of U.S. solar panel imports in the fourth quarter of last year.In Europe, China’s dominance and the supply glut of cheap solar panels has already left manufacturers unable to compete. The surge in foreign panels has the potential to stymie a boom in U.S. solar manufacturing launched by the IRA.U.S. companies have announced plans to build factories capable of churning out 140 gigawatts of solar module capacity, Wood Mackenzie said. But only half of that is likely to be built by 2027, said Elissa Pierce, an analyst who tracks solar manufacturing at the consulting firm. Factories that build subcomponents that go into panels face even bigger hurdles. Of the 61 GW in announced wafer facilities, Wood Mackenzie said only 3.3 GW would be built. Less than one-quarter of the announced cell manufacturing facilities is actually expected to come online.“There is a growing transition from a traditional trade war to a green trade war,” said ClearView’s Fox.Biden administration officials have sharpened their rhetoric in recent weeks."It's important that China recognize the concerns [and] begin to act to address it," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said this week. "But we don't want our industry wiped out in the meantime, so I wouldn't want to take anything off the table."Yellen recently traveled to China to discuss the administration’s concerns.'No objective answer'A similar fight in 2022, over China funneling U.S.-bound products through Southeast Asia, left some manufacturers frustrated and prompted a presidential veto. This time could be different.“I can safely say I've never filed a trade case before where there were such strong statements of support in terms of the need to address Chinese dumping, in particular in the renewable energy sector, as we've had in recent weeks,” said Tim Brightbill, co-chair of Wiley Rein’s international trade practice and lead counsel in the manufacturers’ recent petitions.Those petitions, filed Wednesday, are backed by First Solar, Qcells, Meyer Burger, Mission Solar, REC Silicon, Convalt Energy and Swift Solar — many of which have announced new expansions or investments since passage of Democrats’ climate law.It comes on the heels of a request from Qcells, a South Korean solar maker that has invested $2.5 billion in new factories in Georgia, to end an exemption under an existing tariff regime on bifacial solar panels.The company said double-sided modules now compose over 98 percent of U.S. solar module imports — meaning less than 2 percent of imports are subject to duties. The administration is reportedly planning to soon grant that request.Brightbill called the IRA “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reclaim the solar supply chain and the solar manufacturing process here in America.” But, he added, “you have to not just have the investment, you have to have enforcement as well.”But the petitions received an icy response from the industry’s largest trade groups.In a joint response Wednesday, the Solar Energy Industries Association, American Clean Power Association, Advanced Energy United and American Council on Renewable Energy expressed concern that the trade petitions “will lead to further market volatility across the U.S. solar and storage industry and create uncertainty at a time when we need effective solutions that support U.S. solar manufacturers.”The administration has also faced bipartisan pressure from lawmakers to take additional steps to support the domestic industry. That’s included calls to better incentivize purchases of U.S.-made solar components through stronger tax credits, and to further address stockpiling of Chinese-linked products.“China is running the same playbook Ohio steelworkers know all too well, routing their products through other southeast Asian countries to try to get around the rules,” Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is facing a tough reelection race, said in a statement. “The Administration cannot let them get away with it.”The administration last year determined Chinese companies were funneling solar products through Southeast Asia in order to avoid tariffs. Then it did the opposite of what many manufacturers had hoped: It placed a two-year moratorium on new tariffs, after the initial inquiry prompted months of infighting within the solar industry.The moratorium ends in June, and duties on solar modules are expected to resume for companies that are circumventing tariffs. “We will enforce that rigorously — including ensuring that imported panels are not being inappropriately stockpiled,” a White House official told POLITICO, speaking anonymously to abide by administration guidelines.Antoine Vagneur-Jones, head of trade and supply chains at BloombergNEF, said the U.S. faces a choice. He pointed to Europe as an example of the stakes. Solar modules there are roughly half as expensive as those in the U.S., due to a lack of trade barriers. Yet European solar factories are closing, leaving the continent almost entirely dependent on China for solar equipment.Adopting tariffs could help expand factories in the U.S., creating jobs and political support for the industry, he said. But it will mean higher costs for solar panels as critics contend that cleaner energy sources is already too expensive.“Are you prioritizing speed? Are you prioritizing not being entirely reliant on one region? Those are value judgments,” Vagneur-Jones said. “There is no objective answer.”This story also appears in Energywire.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Inexpensive Chinese solar panels are pitting Americans who want cheap equipment against those who want to make it

CLIMATEWIRE | A flood of Chinese solar components is casting a shadow on President Joe Biden's climate priorities.

That's creating deep divisions in the U.S. solar industry and causing political headaches for the president. American manufacturers are calling for additional trade restrictions on Asian imports amid what they say are market-flooding practices by China that are undermining U.S. plans to build a fleet of solar factories.

But those calls are colliding with the interests of some renewable energy developers that rely on China-linked companies for components that are fueling a solar building spree in the U.S. They contend new trade barriers could hinder U.S. efforts to eliminate climate pollution in the electricity sector — a pillar of Biden's environmental agenda.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The solar standoff underscores Biden's precarious balancing act as he races toward the presidential election.

The Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping climate law signed by Biden in 2022, lavishes tax breaks on companies to build the solar supply chain in the United States. Slowing foreign imports could help create demand for domestic components. But it could also hurt Biden's other priority: achieving 100 percent carbon-free power by 2035 — a promise that analysts say can't be met without a full-speed buildout of renewable energy.

That might not be possible without imported solar products.

“There’s numerous examples of the conflict between President Biden’s decarbonization agenda and his deglobalization agenda,” said Tim Fox, an analyst who tracks the industry at ClearView Energy Partners. “You want to decarbonize with available and cheap solar panels. But you also want to develop solar here at home. There is tension between those two efforts."

The situation came to a head this week when seven U.S. solar manufacturers filed petitions with the federal government requesting an investigation into whether the budding U.S. industry is being harmed by what they say are unfair trade practices from China-linked companies operating in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

The manufacturers argued that companies in Southeast Asia are benefiting from foreign subsidies, and exporting below-cost solar components into the U.S. market. That should make them subject to higher tariffs, the manufacturers said.

As a warning of what might come, they pointed to an announcement earlier this year by CubicPV, a Massachusetts-based solar manufacturer that scrapped plans for a massive factory after citing a “collapse” in prices and surging construction costs.

“We're at a real inflection point now for developing clean energy manufacturing in the United States,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. “The presence of the massive amount of industrial overcapacity China has in solar, in [electric vehicles] and related industries is a real threat, and we know this because we've seen this play out before in the United States and in other industries. It doesn't end well.”

'Green trade war'

The use of trade barriers has long been opposed by developers, who say higher prices driven by tariffs could slow U.S. solar growth and make it more expensive to address climate change.

Kevin Hostetler, CEO of Array Technologies, a provider of utility-scale solar trackers, a technology that turns panels toward the sun, said the manufacturers’ trade petition creates “a level of uncertainty and delay” that negatively impacts the U.S. solar industry.

“We just simply don't need the short-term shocks to the system that may benefit one or two particular companies, but then harm the broader industry over the course of what could be multiple years,” he said.

A statement attributed to a White House spokesperson said the administration won’t weigh in on the petitions, but it pointed to “historic investments” in the solar industry under Biden. The administration is also monitoring potential unfair market practices by China in solar and other sectors.

“As President Biden has made clear, his administration is keeping all tools on the table to support the unprecedented investments secured by the President’s agenda and take action to protect American workers and manufacturers against unfair competition,” the statements said, adding that Biden is committed to expanding solar deployment.

The solar battle is part of a wider spat between the U.S. and China — that members of the Biden administration are increasingly acknowledging.

As China’s domestic real estate market has cooled, the country has leaned heavily on its manufacturing sector to bolster economic growth. Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm, estimated that Chinese firms make 80 percent of the components in a solar panel, such as polysilicon, wafers, cells and modules.

At the same time, S&P Global Market Intelligence said an “unprecedented wave” of imported solar panels — linked largely to China-based companies operating in Southeast Asia — came into the U.S. in 2023. Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam together accounted for 84 percent of U.S. solar panel imports in the fourth quarter of last year.

In Europe, China’s dominance and the supply glut of cheap solar panels has already left manufacturers unable to compete. The surge in foreign panels has the potential to stymie a boom in U.S. solar manufacturing launched by the IRA.

U.S. companies have announced plans to build factories capable of churning out 140 gigawatts of solar module capacity, Wood Mackenzie said. But only half of that is likely to be built by 2027, said Elissa Pierce, an analyst who tracks solar manufacturing at the consulting firm. Factories that build subcomponents that go into panels face even bigger hurdles. Of the 61 GW in announced wafer facilities, Wood Mackenzie said only 3.3 GW would be built. Less than one-quarter of the announced cell manufacturing facilities is actually expected to come online.

“There is a growing transition from a traditional trade war to a green trade war,” said ClearView’s Fox.

Biden administration officials have sharpened their rhetoric in recent weeks.

"It's important that China recognize the concerns [and] begin to act to address it," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said this week. "But we don't want our industry wiped out in the meantime, so I wouldn't want to take anything off the table."

Yellen recently traveled to China to discuss the administration’s concerns.

'No objective answer'

A similar fight in 2022, over China funneling U.S.-bound products through Southeast Asia, left some manufacturers frustrated and prompted a presidential veto. This time could be different.

“I can safely say I've never filed a trade case before where there were such strong statements of support in terms of the need to address Chinese dumping, in particular in the renewable energy sector, as we've had in recent weeks,” said Tim Brightbill, co-chair of Wiley Rein’s international trade practice and lead counsel in the manufacturers’ recent petitions.

Those petitions, filed Wednesday, are backed by First Solar, Qcells, Meyer Burger, Mission Solar, REC Silicon, Convalt Energy and Swift Solar — many of which have announced new expansions or investments since passage of Democrats’ climate law.

It comes on the heels of a request from Qcells, a South Korean solar maker that has invested $2.5 billion in new factories in Georgia, to end an exemption under an existing tariff regime on bifacial solar panels.

The company said double-sided modules now compose over 98 percent of U.S. solar module imports — meaning less than 2 percent of imports are subject to duties. The administration is reportedly planning to soon grant that request.

Brightbill called the IRA “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reclaim the solar supply chain and the solar manufacturing process here in America.” But, he added, “you have to not just have the investment, you have to have enforcement as well.”

But the petitions received an icy response from the industry’s largest trade groups.

In a joint response Wednesday, the Solar Energy Industries Association, American Clean Power Association, Advanced Energy United and American Council on Renewable Energy expressed concern that the trade petitions “will lead to further market volatility across the U.S. solar and storage industry and create uncertainty at a time when we need effective solutions that support U.S. solar manufacturers.”

The administration has also faced bipartisan pressure from lawmakers to take additional steps to support the domestic industry. That’s included calls to better incentivize purchases of U.S.-made solar components through stronger tax credits, and to further address stockpiling of Chinese-linked products.

“China is running the same playbook Ohio steelworkers know all too well, routing their products through other southeast Asian countries to try to get around the rules,” Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is facing a tough reelection race, said in a statement. “The Administration cannot let them get away with it.”

The administration last year determined Chinese companies were funneling solar products through Southeast Asia in order to avoid tariffs. Then it did the opposite of what many manufacturers had hoped: It placed a two-year moratorium on new tariffs, after the initial inquiry prompted months of infighting within the solar industry.

The moratorium ends in June, and duties on solar modules are expected to resume for companies that are circumventing tariffs. “We will enforce that rigorously — including ensuring that imported panels are not being inappropriately stockpiled,” a White House official told POLITICO, speaking anonymously to abide by administration guidelines.

Antoine Vagneur-Jones, head of trade and supply chains at BloombergNEF, said the U.S. faces a choice. He pointed to Europe as an example of the stakes. Solar modules there are roughly half as expensive as those in the U.S., due to a lack of trade barriers. Yet European solar factories are closing, leaving the continent almost entirely dependent on China for solar equipment.

Adopting tariffs could help expand factories in the U.S., creating jobs and political support for the industry, he said. But it will mean higher costs for solar panels as critics contend that cleaner energy sources is already too expensive.

“Are you prioritizing speed? Are you prioritizing not being entirely reliant on one region? Those are value judgments,” Vagneur-Jones said. “There is no objective answer.”

This story also appears in Energywire.

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Park Service orders changes to staff ratings, a move experts call illegal

Lower performance ratings could be used as a factor in layoff decisions and will demoralize staff, advocates say.

A top National Park Service official has instructed park superintendents to limit the number of staff who get top marks in performance reviews, according to three people familiar with the matter, a move that experts say violates federal code and could make it easier to lay off staff.Parks leadership generally evaluate individual employees annually on a five-point scale, with a three rating given to those who are successful in achieving their goals, with those exceeding expectations receiving a four and outstanding employees earning a five.Frank Lands, the deputy director of operations for the National Park System, told dozens of park superintendents on a conference call Thursday that “the preponderance of ratings should be 3s,” according to the people familiar, who were not authorized to comment publicly about the internal call.Lands said that roughly one to five percent of people should receive an outstanding rating and confirmed several times that about 80 percent should receive 3s, the people familiar said.Follow Climate & environmentThe Interior Department, which oversees the National Park Service, said in a statement Friday that “there is no percentage cap” on certain performance ratings.“We are working to normalize ratings across the agency,” the statement said. “The goal of this effort is to ensure fair, consistent performance evaluations across all of our parks and programs.”Though many employers in corporate American often instruct managers to classify a majority of employee reviews in the middle tier, the Parks Service has commonly given higher ratings to a greater proportion of employees.Performance ratings are also taken into account when determining which employees are laid off first if the agency were to go ahead with “reduction in force” layoffs, as many other departments have done this year.The order appears to violate the Code of Federal Regulations, said Tim Whitehouse, a lawyer and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The code states that the government cannot require a “forced distribution” of ratings for federal employees.“Employees are supposed to be evaluated based upon their performance, not upon a predetermined rating that doesn’t reflect how they actually performed,” he said.The Trump administration has reduced the number of parks staff this year by about 4,000 people, or roughly a quarter, according to an analysis by the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group. Parks advocates say the administration is deliberately seeking to demoralize staff and failing to recognize the additional work they now have to do, given the exodus of employees through voluntary resignations and early retirements.Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) said the move would artificially depress employee ratings:“You can’t square that with the legal requirements of the current regulations about how performance reviews are supposed to work.”Some details of the directive were first reported by E&E News.Park superintendents on the conference call objected to the order. Some questioned the fairness to employees whose work merited a better rating at a time when many staff are working harder to make up for the thousands of vacancies.“I need leaders who lead in adversity. And if you can’t do that, just let me know. I’ll do my best to find somebody that can,” Lands said in response, the people familiar with the call said.One superintendent who was on the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation, said in an interview that Lands’ statement “was meant to be a threat.”The superintendent said they were faced with disobeying the order and potentially being fired or illegally changing employees’ evaluations.“If we change these ratings to meet the quota and violated federal law, are we subject to removal because we violated federal law and the oath we took to protect the Constitution?” the superintendent said.Myron Ebell, a board member of the American Lands Council, an advocacy group supporting the transfer of federal lands to states and counties, defended the administration’s move.“It’s exactly the same thing as grade inflation at universities. Think about it. Not everybody can be smarter than average. If everyone is doing great, that’s average,” he said.Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement that the policy could make it easier to lay off staff, after the administration already decimated the ranks of the parks service.“After the National Park Service was decimated by mass firings and pressured staff buyouts, park rangers have been working the equivalent of second, third, or even fourth jobs protecting parks,” Pierno said.“Guidance like this could very well be setting up their staff to be cannon fodder during the next round of mass firings. This would be an unconscionable move,” she added.

Coalmine expansions would breach climate targets, NSW government warned in ‘game-changer’ report

Environmental advocates welcome Net Zero Commission’s report which found the fossil fuel was ‘not consistent’ with emissions reductions commitments Sign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe New South Wales government has been warned it can no longer approve coalmine developments after the state’s climate agency found new expansions would be inconsistent with its legislated emissions targets.In what climate advocates described as a significant turning point in campaigns against new fossil fuel programs, the NSW Net Zero Commission said coalmine expansions were “not consistent” with the state’s legal emissions reductions commitments of a 50% cut (compared with 2005 levels) by 2030, a 70% cut by 2035, and reaching net zero by 2050.Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter Continue reading...

The New South Wales government has been warned it can no longer approve coalmine developments after the state’s climate agency found new expansions would be inconsistent with its legislated emissions targets.In what climate advocates described as a significant turning point in campaigns against new fossil fuel programs, the NSW Net Zero Commission said coalmine expansions were “not consistent” with the state’s legal emissions reductions commitments of a 50% cut (compared with 2005 levels) by 2030, a 70% cut by 2035, and reaching net zero by 2050.The commission’s Coal Mining Emissions Spotlight Report said the government should consider the climate impact – including from the “scope 3” emissions released into the atmosphere when most of the state’s coal is exported and burned overseas – in all coalmine planning decisions.Environmental lawyer Elaine Johnson said the report was a “game-changer” as it argued coalmining was the state’s biggest contribution to the climate crisis and that new coal proposals were inconsistent with the legislated targets.She said it also found demand for coal was declining – consistent with recent analyses by federal Treasury and the advisory firm Climate Resource – and the state government must support affected communities to transition to new industries.“What all this means is that it is no longer lawful to keep approving more coalmine expansions in NSW,” Johnson wrote on social media site LinkedIn. “Let’s hope the Department of Planning takes careful note when it’s looking at the next coalmine expansion proposal.”The Lock the Gate Alliance, a community organisation that campaigns against fossil fuel developments, said the report showed changes were required to the state’s planning framework to make authorities assess emissions and climate damage when considering mine applications.It said this should apply to 18 mine expansions that have been proposed but not yet approved, including two “mega-coalmine expansions” at the Hunter Valley Operations and Maules Creek mines. Eight coalmine expansions have been approved since the Minns Labor government was elected in 2023.Lock the Gate’s Nic Clyde said NSW already had 37 coalmines and “we can’t keep expanding them indefinitely”. He called for an immediate moratorium on approving coal expansions until the commission’s findings had been implemented.“This week, multiple NSW communities have been battling dangerous bushfires, which are becoming increasingly severe due to climate change fuelled by coalmining and burning. Our safety and our survival depends on how the NSW government responds to this report,” he said.Net zero emissions is a target that has been adopted by governments, companies and other organisations to eliminate their contribution to the climate crisis. It is sometimes called “carbon neutrality”.The climate crisis is caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere, where they trap heat. They have already caused a significant increase in average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels recorded since the mid-20th century. Countries and others that set net zero emissions targets are pledging to stop their role in worsening this by cutting their climate pollution and balancing out whatever emissions remain by sucking an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere.This could happen through nature projects – tree planting, for example – or using carbon dioxide removal technology.CO2 removal from the atmosphere is the “net” part in net zero. Scientists say some emissions will be hard to stop and will need to be offset. But they also say net zero targets will be effective only if carbon removal is limited to offset “hard to abate” emissions. Fossil use will still need to be dramatically reduced.After signing the 2015 Paris agreement, the global community asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess what would be necessary to give the world a chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C.The IPCC found it would require deep cuts in global CO2 emissions: to about 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, and to net zero by about 2050.The Climate Action Tracker has found more than 145 countries have set or are considering setting net zero emissions targets. Photograph: Ashley Cooper pics/www.alamy.comThe alliance’s national coordinator, Carmel Flint, added: “It’s not just history that will judge the government harshly if they continue approving such projects following this report. Our courts are likely to as well.”The NSW Minerals Council criticised the commission’s report. Its chief executive, Stephen Galilee, said it was a “flawed and superficial analysis” that put thousands of coalmining jobs at risk. He said some coalmines would close in the years ahead but was “no reason” not to approve outstanding applications to extend the operating life of about 10 mines.Galilee said emissions from coal in NSW were falling faster than the average rate of emission reduction across the state and were “almost fully covered” by the federal government’s safeguard mechanism policy, which required mine owners to either make annual direct emissions cuts or buy offsets.He said the NSW government should “reflect on why it provides nearly $7m annually” for the commission to “campaign against thousands of NSW mining jobs”.But the state’s main environment organisation, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, said the commission report showed coalmining was “incompatible with a safe climate future”.“The Net Zero Commission has shone a spotlight. Now the free ride for coalmine pollution has to end,” the council’s chief executive, Jacqui Mumford, said.The state climate change and energy minister, Penny Sharpe, said the commission was established to monitor, report and provide independent advice on how the state was meeting its legislated emissions targets, and the government would consider its advice “along with advice from other groups and agencies”.

Nope, Billionaire Tom Steyer Is Not a Bellwether of Climate Politics

What should we make of billionaire Tom Steyer’s reinvention as a populist candidate for California governor, four years after garnering only 0.72 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, despite obscene spending from his personal fortune? Is it evidence that he’s a hard man to discourage? (In that race, he dropped almost $24 million on South Carolina alone.) Is it evidence that billionaires get to do a lot of things the rest of us don’t? Or is it evidence that talking about climate change is for losers and Democrats need to abandon it?Politico seems to think it’s the third one: Steyer running a populist gubernatorial campaign means voters don’t care about global warming.“The billionaire environmental activist who built his political profile on climate change—and who wrote in his book last year that ‘climate is what matters most right now, and nothing else comes close’—didn’t mention the issue once in the video launching his campaign for California governor,” reporter Noah Baustin wrote recently. “That was no oversight.” Instead, “it reflects a political reality confronting Democrats ahead of the midterms, where onetime climate evangelists are running into an electorate more worried about the climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance than a warming atmosphere.”It’s hard to know how to parse a sentence like this. The “climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance” is, indisputably, a climate issue. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, and home insurance is spiking because increasingly frequent and increasingly severe weather events—driven by climate change—are making large swaths of the country expensive or impossible to insure. The fact that voters are struggling to pay for utilities and insurance, therefore, is not evidence that they don’t care about climate change. Instead, it’s evidence that climate change is a kitchen table issue, and politicians are, disadvantageously, failing to embrace the obviously populist message that accompanies robust climate policy. This is a problem with Democratic messaging, not a problem with climate as a topic.The piece goes on: “Climate concern has fallen in the state over time. In 2018, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was running for office, polling found that 57 percent of likely California voters considered climate change a very serious threat to the economy and quality of life for the state’s future. Now, that figure is 50 percent.”This may sound persuasive to you. But in fact, it’s a highly selective reading of the PPIC survey data linked above. What the poll actually found is that the proportion of Californians calling climate change a “very serious” threat peaked at 57 percent in 2019, fell slightly in subsequent years, then fell precipitously by 11 points between July 2022 and July 2023, before rising similarly precipitously from July 2024 to July 2025. Why did it fall so quickly from 2022 to 2023? Sure, maybe people stopped caring about climate change. Or maybe instead, the month after the 2022 poll, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate policy in U.S. history, and people stopped being quite so worried. Why did concern then rise rapidly between July 2024 and July 2025? Well, between those two dates, Trump won the presidential election and proceeded, along with Republicans in Congress, to dismantle anything remotely resembling climate policy. The Inflation Reduction Act fell apart. I’m not saying this is the only way to read this data. But consider this: The percentage of respondents saying they were somewhat or very worried about members of their household being affected by natural disasters actually went up over the same period. The percentage saying air pollution was “a more serious health threat in lower-income areas” nearby went up. Those saying flooding, heat waves, and wildfires should be considered “a great deal” when siting new affordable housing rose a striking 12 percentage points from 2024 to 2025, and those “very concerned” about rising insurance costs “due to climate risks” rose 14 percentage points.This is not a portrait of an electorate that doesn’t care about climate change. It’s a portrait of an electorate that may actually be very ready to hear a politician convincingly embrace climate populism—championing affordability and better material conditions for working people, in part by protecting them from the predatory industries driving a cost-of-living crisis while poisoning people.This is part of a broader problem. Currently, there’s a big push from centrist Democratic institutions to argue that the party should abandon climate issues in order to win elections. The evidence for this is mixed, at best. As TNR’s Liza Featherstone recently pointed out, Democrats’ striking victories last month showed that candidates fusing climate policy with an energy affordability message did very well. Aaron Regunberg went into further detail on why talking about climate change is a smart strategy: “Right now,” he wrote, “neither party has a significant trust advantage on ‘electric utility bills’ (D+1) or ‘the cost of living’ (R+1). But Democrats do have major trust advantages on ‘climate change’ (D+14) and ‘renewable energy development’ (D+6). By articulating how their climate and clean energy agenda can address these bread-and-butter concerns, Democrats can leverage their advantage on climate to win voters’ trust on what will likely be the most significant issues in 2026 and 2028.”One of the troubles with climate change in political discourse is that some people’s understanding of environmental politics begins and ends with the spotted owl logging battles in the 1990s. This is the sort of attitude that drives the assumption that affordability policy and climate policy are not only distinct but actually opposed. But that’s wildly disconnected from present reality. Maybe Tom Steyer isn’t the guy to illustrate that! But his political fortunes, either way, don’t say much at all about climate messaging more broadly.Stat of the Week3x as many infant deathsA new study finds that babies of mothers “whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases” died at almost three times the rate in their first year of life as babies of mothers who did not live downstream of PFAS contamination. Read The Washington Post’s report on the study here.What I’m ReadingMore than 200 environmental groups demand halt to new US datacentersAn open letter calls on Congress to pause all approvals of new data centers until regulation catches up, due to problems such as data centers’ voracious energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. From The Guardian’s report:The push comes amid a growing revolt against moves by companies such as Meta, Google and Open AI to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into new datacenters, primarily to meet the huge computing demands of AI. At least 16 datacenter projects, worth a combined $64bn, have been blocked or delayed due to local opposition to rising electricity costs. The facilities’ need for huge amounts of water to cool down equipment has also proved controversial, particularly in drier areas where supplies are scarce.These seemingly parochial concerns have now multiplied to become a potent political force, helping propel Democrats to a series of emphatic recent electoral successes in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a stunning upset win in a special public service commission poll in Georgia, with candidates campaigning on lowering power bill costs and curbing datacenters.Read Oliver Milman’s full report at The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

What should we make of billionaire Tom Steyer’s reinvention as a populist candidate for California governor, four years after garnering only 0.72 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, despite obscene spending from his personal fortune? Is it evidence that he’s a hard man to discourage? (In that race, he dropped almost $24 million on South Carolina alone.) Is it evidence that billionaires get to do a lot of things the rest of us don’t? Or is it evidence that talking about climate change is for losers and Democrats need to abandon it?Politico seems to think it’s the third one: Steyer running a populist gubernatorial campaign means voters don’t care about global warming.“The billionaire environmental activist who built his political profile on climate change—and who wrote in his book last year that ‘climate is what matters most right now, and nothing else comes close’—didn’t mention the issue once in the video launching his campaign for California governor,” reporter Noah Baustin wrote recently. “That was no oversight.” Instead, “it reflects a political reality confronting Democrats ahead of the midterms, where onetime climate evangelists are running into an electorate more worried about the climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance than a warming atmosphere.”It’s hard to know how to parse a sentence like this. The “climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance” is, indisputably, a climate issue. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, and home insurance is spiking because increasingly frequent and increasingly severe weather events—driven by climate change—are making large swaths of the country expensive or impossible to insure. The fact that voters are struggling to pay for utilities and insurance, therefore, is not evidence that they don’t care about climate change. Instead, it’s evidence that climate change is a kitchen table issue, and politicians are, disadvantageously, failing to embrace the obviously populist message that accompanies robust climate policy. This is a problem with Democratic messaging, not a problem with climate as a topic.The piece goes on: “Climate concern has fallen in the state over time. In 2018, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was running for office, polling found that 57 percent of likely California voters considered climate change a very serious threat to the economy and quality of life for the state’s future. Now, that figure is 50 percent.”This may sound persuasive to you. But in fact, it’s a highly selective reading of the PPIC survey data linked above. What the poll actually found is that the proportion of Californians calling climate change a “very serious” threat peaked at 57 percent in 2019, fell slightly in subsequent years, then fell precipitously by 11 points between July 2022 and July 2023, before rising similarly precipitously from July 2024 to July 2025. Why did it fall so quickly from 2022 to 2023? Sure, maybe people stopped caring about climate change. Or maybe instead, the month after the 2022 poll, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate policy in U.S. history, and people stopped being quite so worried. Why did concern then rise rapidly between July 2024 and July 2025? Well, between those two dates, Trump won the presidential election and proceeded, along with Republicans in Congress, to dismantle anything remotely resembling climate policy. The Inflation Reduction Act fell apart. I’m not saying this is the only way to read this data. But consider this: The percentage of respondents saying they were somewhat or very worried about members of their household being affected by natural disasters actually went up over the same period. The percentage saying air pollution was “a more serious health threat in lower-income areas” nearby went up. Those saying flooding, heat waves, and wildfires should be considered “a great deal” when siting new affordable housing rose a striking 12 percentage points from 2024 to 2025, and those “very concerned” about rising insurance costs “due to climate risks” rose 14 percentage points.This is not a portrait of an electorate that doesn’t care about climate change. It’s a portrait of an electorate that may actually be very ready to hear a politician convincingly embrace climate populism—championing affordability and better material conditions for working people, in part by protecting them from the predatory industries driving a cost-of-living crisis while poisoning people.This is part of a broader problem. Currently, there’s a big push from centrist Democratic institutions to argue that the party should abandon climate issues in order to win elections. The evidence for this is mixed, at best. As TNR’s Liza Featherstone recently pointed out, Democrats’ striking victories last month showed that candidates fusing climate policy with an energy affordability message did very well. Aaron Regunberg went into further detail on why talking about climate change is a smart strategy: “Right now,” he wrote, “neither party has a significant trust advantage on ‘electric utility bills’ (D+1) or ‘the cost of living’ (R+1). But Democrats do have major trust advantages on ‘climate change’ (D+14) and ‘renewable energy development’ (D+6). By articulating how their climate and clean energy agenda can address these bread-and-butter concerns, Democrats can leverage their advantage on climate to win voters’ trust on what will likely be the most significant issues in 2026 and 2028.”One of the troubles with climate change in political discourse is that some people’s understanding of environmental politics begins and ends with the spotted owl logging battles in the 1990s. This is the sort of attitude that drives the assumption that affordability policy and climate policy are not only distinct but actually opposed. But that’s wildly disconnected from present reality. Maybe Tom Steyer isn’t the guy to illustrate that! But his political fortunes, either way, don’t say much at all about climate messaging more broadly.Stat of the Week3x as many infant deathsA new study finds that babies of mothers “whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases” died at almost three times the rate in their first year of life as babies of mothers who did not live downstream of PFAS contamination. Read The Washington Post’s report on the study here.What I’m ReadingMore than 200 environmental groups demand halt to new US datacentersAn open letter calls on Congress to pause all approvals of new data centers until regulation catches up, due to problems such as data centers’ voracious energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. From The Guardian’s report:The push comes amid a growing revolt against moves by companies such as Meta, Google and Open AI to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into new datacenters, primarily to meet the huge computing demands of AI. At least 16 datacenter projects, worth a combined $64bn, have been blocked or delayed due to local opposition to rising electricity costs. The facilities’ need for huge amounts of water to cool down equipment has also proved controversial, particularly in drier areas where supplies are scarce.These seemingly parochial concerns have now multiplied to become a potent political force, helping propel Democrats to a series of emphatic recent electoral successes in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a stunning upset win in a special public service commission poll in Georgia, with candidates campaigning on lowering power bill costs and curbing datacenters.Read Oliver Milman’s full report at The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Takeaways From AP’s Report on Potential Impacts of Alaska’s Proposed Ambler Access Road

A proposed mining road in Northwest Alaska has sparked debate amid climate change impacts

AMBLER, Alaska (AP) — In Northwest Alaska, a proposed mining road has become a flashpoint in a region already stressed by climate change. The 211-mile (340-kilometer) Ambler Access Road would cut through Gates of the Arctic National Park and cross 11 major rivers and thousands of streams relied on for salmon and caribou. The Trump administration approved the project this fall, setting off concerns over how the Inupiaq subsistence way of life can survive amid rapid environmental change. Many fear the road could push the ecosystem past a breaking point yet also recognize the need for jobs. A strategically important mineral deposit The Ambler Mining District holds one of the largest undeveloped sources of copper, zinc, lead, silver and gold in North America. Demand for minerals used in renewable energy is expected to grow, though most copper mined in the U.S. currently goes to construction — not green technologies. Critics say the road raises broader questions about who gets to decide the terms of mineral extraction on Indigenous lands. Climate change has already devastated subsistence resources Northwest Alaska is warming about four times faster than the global average — a shift that has already upended daily life. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd, once nearly half a million strong, has fallen 66% in two decades to around 164,000 animals. Warmer temperatures delay cold and snow, disrupting migration routes and keeping caribou high in the Brooks Range where hunters can’t easily reach them.Salmon runs have suffered repeated collapses as record rainfall, warmer rivers and thawing permafrost transform once-clear streams. In some areas, permafrost thaw has released metals into waterways, adding to the stress on already fragile fish populations.“Elders who’ve lived here their entire lives have never seen environmental conditions like this,” one local environmental official said. The road threatens what remains The Ambler road would cross a vast, largely undisturbed region to reach major deposits of copper, zinc and other minerals. Building it would require nearly 50 bridges, thousands of culverts and more than 100 truck trips a day during peak operations. Federal biologists warn naturally occurring asbestos could be kicked up by passing trucks and settle onto waterways and vegetation that caribou rely on. The Bureau of Land Management designated some 1.2 million acres of nearby salmon spawning and caribou calving habitat as “critical environmental concern.”Mining would draw large volumes of water from lakes and rivers, disturb permafrost and rely on a tailings facility to hold toxic slurry. With record rainfall becoming more common, downstream communities fear contamination of drinking water and traditional foods.Locals also worry the road could eventually open to the public, inviting outside hunters into an already stressed ecosystem. Many point to Alaska’s Dalton Highway, which opened to public use despite earlier promises it would remain private.Ambler Metals, the company behind the mining project, says it uses proven controls for work in permafrost and will treat all water the mine has contact with to strict standards. The company says it tracks precipitation to size facilities for heavier rainfall. A potential economic lifeline For some, the mine represents opportunity in a region where gasoline can cost nearly $18 a gallon and basic travel for hunting has become prohibitively expensive. Supporters argue mining jobs could help people stay in their villages, which face some of the highest living costs in the country.Ambler mayor Conrad Douglas summed up the tension: “I don’t really know how much the state of Alaska is willing to jeopardize our way of life, but the people do need jobs.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

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.