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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Brazil claims to be an environmental leader. Are they?

News Feed
Sunday, November 9, 2025

World leaders and delegates are meeting in the northern Brazilian city of Belém for COP30, this year’s major UN climate summit. This is the first time the global climate meeting has been held in the Amazon. The world’s largest rainforest helps keep the planet’s climate in balance by removing carbon dioxide from atmosphere and storing it in dense forest and nutrient-rich soil. The Amazon Rainforest holds an estimated 56.8 billion tonnes of carbon in its trees, more than one and a half times the carbon released by human activities in 2023. For host nation Brazil, this meeting is both an opportunity and a test. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known as Lula) wants to show the world his country can lead on climate action and speak for the global south. He has also proposed a new Tropical Forests Forever fund to channel long-term financing to countries that protect rainforests. Brazil is already known for its low-emissions electricity system (mostly hydropower), long-established biofuel industry (biofuels supply about 25% of the country’s transport energy), and expanding wind and solar sectors. What’s at stake? COP30 will take place at a critical moment for global climate action. The world is not on track to limit warming to 1.5 °C, and trust between rich and developing nations remains fragile. Brazil has signalled it will use the summit to highlight the Amazon’s role in stabilising the global climate and to press for fairer access to climate finance for the global south. Lula has called for stronger international cooperation and more support for countries protecting tropical forests. For Australia, which is bidding to host COP31 in 2026, Brazil’s experience may offer a preview of the opportunities and political tensions that come with hosting a global climate summit. Brazil’s environmental credentials Brazil describes itself as an environmental leader. In some areas, this claim holds weight. More than 80% of its electricity comes from renewable sources, mainly hydropower. It has a strong biofuel industry and rapidly expanding wind and solar power. Brazil’s ethanol program, launched in the 1970s to reduce dependence on imported oil, remains one of the most established in the world. Even so, environmental pressures remain intense. Land-use change, especially rampant deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado (tropical savanna) regions, still accounts for about half of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time the agribusiness sector – broadly defined as farm production, processing, inputs and services – is a major economic force (about a fifth to a quarter of GDP) and carries substantial political influence. Official data shows deforestation in the Amazon fell by about 11% in 2024-25, with around 5,800 square kilometres of forest lost (roughly half the size of greater Sydney). Illegal mining continues to affect Indigenous territories and river systems, while large cities struggle with air and water pollution. Adding to the tension, Brazil’s environment agency recently authorised Petrobras, the state-owned oil company, to drill exploratory wells off the mouth of the Amazon River. Belém, where COP30 is being held, is also on the mouth of the river. The approval is for research drilling to assess whether oil extraction would be viable, yet the timing, weeks before COP30, has drawn criticism from environmental groups. It raises questions about how Brazil will reconcile its clean-energy reputation with its fossil-fuel ambitions. Political whiplash takes a toll Brazil’s recent political upheavals have left a deep mark on its environmental record. During Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency (from 2019 to 2023), key environmental agencies were weakened, enforcement declined, and illegal deforestation and mining surged. Protections for Indigenous lands were largely ignored, and international partnerships such as the Amazon Fund were suspended. By 2021, Amazon deforestation reached its highest level in more than a decade. Lula’s return to power in 2023 signalled a change in direction. His government restored the Amazon Fund, resumed environmental enforcement and reengaged with global climate negotiations. Deforestation rates have since fallen, and Brazil’s reputation abroad has partially recovered. Yet Lula faces competing pressures at home. Agribusiness remains politically powerful, and the government’s focus on economic growth makes it difficult for Brazil to fully align its environmental goals with its development agenda. Brazil’s climate diplomacy and COP30 ambitions COP30 gives Brazil a rare chance to shape the global climate agenda from the heart of the Amazon. The government says it will use the summit to seek stronger financial support for forest protection and to promote fairer climate cooperation among developing countries. Brazil is drawing new investment in clean industries. In 2025, Chinese carmaker BYD opened a US$1 billion factory in Brazil. The project strengthens ties with China on green technology and shows Brazil’s ambition to build its clean-energy economy. Brazil’s position is complex. Its success with renewable power gives it credibility, but the country’s reliance on farming and fossil fuels still limits how far it can push others to act. This mix of progress and compromise reflects a broader challenge for many developing countries – how to grow while cutting emissions. As Brazil hosts COP30, it stands between climate leadership and economic reality. The summit in Belém will test if those goals can translate into environmental progress at home and cooperation abroad. Pedro Fidelman is a researcher in a project funded by Brazil's National Scientific and Technological Development Council (CNPq).

Brazil’s Amazon COP30 climate summit will test if a resource-based nation can lead on climate action. It’s a dilemma Australia also faces.

World leaders and delegates are meeting in the northern Brazilian city of Belém for COP30, this year’s major UN climate summit.

This is the first time the global climate meeting has been held in the Amazon. The world’s largest rainforest helps keep the planet’s climate in balance by removing carbon dioxide from atmosphere and storing it in dense forest and nutrient-rich soil. The Amazon Rainforest holds an estimated 56.8 billion tonnes of carbon in its trees, more than one and a half times the carbon released by human activities in 2023.

For host nation Brazil, this meeting is both an opportunity and a test.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known as Lula) wants to show the world his country can lead on climate action and speak for the global south. He has also proposed a new Tropical Forests Forever fund to channel long-term financing to countries that protect rainforests.

Brazil is already known for its low-emissions electricity system (mostly hydropower), long-established biofuel industry (biofuels supply about 25% of the country’s transport energy), and expanding wind and solar sectors.

What’s at stake?

COP30 will take place at a critical moment for global climate action. The world is not on track to limit warming to 1.5 °C, and trust between rich and developing nations remains fragile.

Brazil has signalled it will use the summit to highlight the Amazon’s role in stabilising the global climate and to press for fairer access to climate finance for the global south. Lula has called for stronger international cooperation and more support for countries protecting tropical forests.

For Australia, which is bidding to host COP31 in 2026, Brazil’s experience may offer a preview of the opportunities and political tensions that come with hosting a global climate summit.

Brazil’s environmental credentials

Brazil describes itself as an environmental leader. In some areas, this claim holds weight. More than 80% of its electricity comes from renewable sources, mainly hydropower. It has a strong biofuel industry and rapidly expanding wind and solar power. Brazil’s ethanol program, launched in the 1970s to reduce dependence on imported oil, remains one of the most established in the world.

Even so, environmental pressures remain intense. Land-use change, especially rampant deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado (tropical savanna) regions, still accounts for about half of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time the agribusiness sector – broadly defined as farm production, processing, inputs and services – is a major economic force (about a fifth to a quarter of GDP) and carries substantial political influence.

Official data shows deforestation in the Amazon fell by about 11% in 2024-25, with around 5,800 square kilometres of forest lost (roughly half the size of greater Sydney). Illegal mining continues to affect Indigenous territories and river systems, while large cities struggle with air and water pollution.

Adding to the tension, Brazil’s environment agency recently authorised Petrobras, the state-owned oil company, to drill exploratory wells off the mouth of the Amazon River. Belém, where COP30 is being held, is also on the mouth of the river.

The approval is for research drilling to assess whether oil extraction would be viable, yet the timing, weeks before COP30, has drawn criticism from environmental groups. It raises questions about how Brazil will reconcile its clean-energy reputation with its fossil-fuel ambitions.

Political whiplash takes a toll

Brazil’s recent political upheavals have left a deep mark on its environmental record. During Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency (from 2019 to 2023), key environmental agencies were weakened, enforcement declined, and illegal deforestation and mining surged. Protections for Indigenous lands were largely ignored, and international partnerships such as the Amazon Fund were suspended. By 2021, Amazon deforestation reached its highest level in more than a decade.

Lula’s return to power in 2023 signalled a change in direction. His government restored the Amazon Fund, resumed environmental enforcement and reengaged with global climate negotiations.

Deforestation rates have since fallen, and Brazil’s reputation abroad has partially recovered. Yet Lula faces competing pressures at home. Agribusiness remains politically powerful, and the government’s focus on economic growth makes it difficult for Brazil to fully align its environmental goals with its development agenda.

Brazil’s climate diplomacy and COP30 ambitions

COP30 gives Brazil a rare chance to shape the global climate agenda from the heart of the Amazon. The government says it will use the summit to seek stronger financial support for forest protection and to promote fairer climate cooperation among developing countries.

Brazil is drawing new investment in clean industries. In 2025, Chinese carmaker BYD opened a US$1 billion factory in Brazil. The project strengthens ties with China on green technology and shows Brazil’s ambition to build its clean-energy economy.

Brazil’s position is complex. Its success with renewable power gives it credibility, but the country’s reliance on farming and fossil fuels still limits how far it can push others to act. This mix of progress and compromise reflects a broader challenge for many developing countries – how to grow while cutting emissions.

As Brazil hosts COP30, it stands between climate leadership and economic reality. The summit in Belém will test if those goals can translate into environmental progress at home and cooperation abroad.

The Conversation

Pedro Fidelman is a researcher in a project funded by Brazil's National Scientific and Technological Development Council (CNPq).

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Landmark Paris Agreement Set a Path to Slow Warming. the World Hasn't Stayed on It

The world has seen faster climate change than expected since the Paris Agreement a decade ago

“I think it's important that we're honest with the world and we declare failure,” said Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research in Germany. He said warming's harms are happening faster and more severely than scientists predicted.But diplomats aren't giving up.“We’re actually in the direction that we established in Paris at a speed that none of us could have predicted,” said former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who helped shepherd that agreement, which requires countries to come up with plans to fight warming.But the speed of humanity's climate-fighting effort is slower than the acceleration of climate's harms, she said, adding that means that "the gap between the progress that we see on the ground and where we ought to be, that gap is still there and widening.” U.N. Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said that the world is “obviously falling behind.”“We're sort of sawing the branch on which we are sitting,” she said.The planet's annual temperature jumped about 0.46 degrees Celsius (0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2015, one of the biggest 10-year temperature hikes on record, according to data from the European climate service Copernicus. This year will be either the second or third hottest on record, Copernicus calculated. Each year since 2015 has been hotter than the year of the Paris climate deal. Earth has been hit repeatedly with more costly, dangerous and extreme weather. The decade since 2015 has seen the most Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and the most billion-dollar weather disasters in the United States, according to records kept by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. America has been hit by 193 disasters that cost at least $1 billion in the past 10 years for a total bill of $1.5 trillion.Sea level rise is accelerating. In the past decade, the world's seas have gone up 40 millimeters (1.6 inches). It may not sound like much, but it's enough water to fill 30 lakes the size of Lake Erie, according to Steve Nerem, a University of Colorado professor who researches sea level rise. Success in bending the curve But there's also a lot that officials celebrate in the past 10 years.Renewable energy is now cheaper in most places than polluting coal, oil and natural gas. Last year, 74% of the growth in electricity generated worldwide was from wind, solar and other green choices, according to two July U.N. reports. In 2015, a half-million electric vehicles were sold globally, and last year it was 17 million, the report said.“There's no stopping it,” said former U.S. Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern, who helped negotiate the Paris Agreement. “You cannot hold back the tides.”In 2015, U.N. projections figured that Earth was on path for almost 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since the mid-1800s. Now, the world is on track to warm 2.8 degrees (5 degrees Fahrenheit), maybe a little less if countries do as they promise.“Ten years ago we had a more orderly pathway for staying away from 1.5 degrees C entirely," Rockstrom said. "Now we are 10 years later. We have failed.”A report examining dozens of indicators of progress — such as solar and wind power installations — in transitioning from a fossil fuel economy found that none were on pace for keeping warming at or below the 1.5 degree goal. The report by the Bezos Earth Fund, Climate Analytics, the Climate High-Level Champions, ClimateWorks Foundation and World Resources Institute found that 35 of them are at least going in the right direction, although far too slowly.“Technologies, once hypothetical, are now becoming a reality. And the good news is that reality has outpaced many of the projections a decade ago," said report author Kelly Levin, science and data chief at the Bezos Earth Fund. "But it’s not nearly fast enough for what’s needed.”Methane levels in the atmosphere increased 5.2% from 2015 to 2024, while carbon dioxide levels jumped 5.8% in the same time, according to NOAA data.Several developing countries, including the United States and the rest of the developed world, have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by about 7% since 2015, but other countries have seen their emissions soar, with China's going up 15.5% and India's soaring 26.7%, according to data from the Global Carbon Project. Oxfam International looked at global emissions by income level and found that the richest 0.1% of people increased their carbon emissions by 3% since 2015. Meanwhile, the poorest 10% of people reduced their emissions by 30%.“The Paris Agreement itself has underperformed,” said climate negotiations historian Joanna Depledge of the University of Cambridge in England. “Unfortunately, it is one of those half-full, half-empty situations where you can’t say it’s failed. But then nor can you say it’s dramatically succeeded.”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

Climate
CO2
Science

When Scarcity Blurs the Line Between Right and Wrong

Megha Majumdar’s second novel imagines how climate disaster might scramble our sense of morality.

Whenever I read a novel about immigration, I recall a scene from the 2006 Italian film Nuovomondo (released as Golden Door in English). At the turn of the 20th century, a young Sicilian woman who will soon marry a “rich American” presents two postcards, supposedly from the United States, to a village elder. The first depicts a man holding a wheelbarrow that contains a massive onion, so large that it dwarfs both the wheelbarrow and the man. The second postcard displays a tree that is bursting with coins, as if money is sprouting from the branches. Convinced that these images faithfully represent America, a group of villagers sets off for the New World.Many immigrant novels contain similar scenes, in which hapless characters embrace improbable visions of America, only to be chastened upon arrival. These passages reflect how divided the planet once was, how easily myths about the United States could become rooted in other countries. Yet these images also contained a kernel of truth: America once seemed to be a place where hard work inevitably yielded prosperity; where, with time and effort, you could eventually purchase as many onions as you pleased.Immigration tales tend to adopt a hybrid form—part elegy for life in the home country, part hymn to the promise of the new. A Guardian and a Thief is not an immigrant novel in the traditional sense, though its protagonist hopes to leave India for America. (Majumdar’s best-selling debut novel, A Burning, takes place in contemporary India.) Set in the near future, when an environmental crisis has decimated India’s economy and landscape, A Guardian and a Thief unfolds as a mesmerizing morality play that demonstrates how categories like “victim” and “thief” collapse under conditions of scarcity. Yet the novel suffers from what feels like a mismatch between the conditions it depicts and the worldview of the people who populate it. Majumdar’s characters are contending with intractable 21st-century problems while adhering to the stories of an earlier era. In a novel that is so alert to where climate change is leading the world, a narrative frame that illustrates migration as linear and largely redemptive feels anachronistic.[Read: A new kind of immigrant novel]A Guardian and a Thief begins promisingly, offering nuanced portraits of its main characters. On the first page, the reader meets Ma as she fetches eggs and rice from a hidden room in her home. Standing before the stove, she watches a young man whistling as he cycles past her house. Majumdar continues: Thief, thought Ma. Who else but a person who had chanced upon fresh vegetables or fruit would wander the city of Kolkata in this ruined year, the heat a hand clamped upon the mouth, the sun a pistol against one’s head, and recall a song? But the reader soon learns that Ma, who manages a homeless shelter, has for the past year been skimming donations for her own family as food grows scarcer in Kolkata. Soon after, a desperate man named Boomba, who witnessed Ma stealing from the shelter, breaks into her home and swipes her food, her phone, and a purse containing her family’s invaluable travel documents.Throughout the book, Majumdar provides devastating details about Ma’s and Boomba’s lives. Ma cares for her young daughter and elderly father, and has gone months without seeing her husband, who is waiting for her in the U.S. Boomba’s family, in a nearby village, has endured a series of catastrophes, leaving them in dire straits. Ma and Boomba desire the same things—love, food, shelter, security—and they are fearless and unapologetic in pursuing them. Each comes to understand that the rules that prevailed during calmer times no longer hold, that to cling to them is to willingly accept privation and defeat. Majumdar lavishes her characters with careful attention, and so the reader comes to regard their most troubling actions as justified, if not inevitable. And because the world she conjures is so similar to our own (her characters complain about economic inequality and have smartphones; among them is a social-media influencer with 600,000 followers), a persistent question pulses beneath the story: What would you do if you were in their shoes?In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Majumdar said that her novel was prompted by asking herself: “Are there good people and monsters or do we contain elements of both?” This idea animates every encounter between Ma and Boomba until the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, begins to dissolve. Ma imagines herself as a guardian—of her daughter, her father, her fragile home—yet she steals from the shelter she manages. Boomba, young and rootless, takes essential provisions from Ma’s family, yet his act is also one of guardianship, because he does so to secure his own family’s survival. The novel offers no clean resolutions; it shows how scarcity makes every action double-edged.Majumdar’s psychological precision is what makes the novel’s geopolitical weaknesses feel so pronounced. Her depiction of everyday human interaction is rich and persuasive, but the larger world her characters inhabit feels underdeveloped. Ma’s vision of the U.S., for instance, is described in these clichéd terms: She knew plenty about America. Who didn’t, given Hollywood? It was a country of grocery stores as large as aircraft hangars, stocked with waxed fruit and misted vegetables and canned legumes from floor to ceiling. It was a country of breathable air and potable water, and, despite a history of attempts to cultivate a poorly educated electorate, functioning schools and tenacious thinkers. It was a country of encompassing hope, sustained by the people despite the peddlers of fear and pursuers of gain who wore the ill-fitting costumes of political representation. Ma’s assertion that she knows plenty about America “given Hollywood” might have been understandable in an earlier era, before the internet was ubiquitous. But Majumdar has created a world that is recognizably continuous with our own—her characters scan social media and inhabit a culture saturated with real-time information; as a result, this statement feels curiously old-fashioned. Ma’s description of enormous, glistening grocery stores could be explained as the musings of a person who longs for stability and plentitude, or of a naive character who thinks of America as a land of boundless riches. But Ma has been deftly drawn as a canny realist and problem solver—not the kind of person to indulge in daydreams.[Read: No one is prepared for a new era of global migration]Majumdar’s inconsistent world building ultimately undermines the reader’s ability to invest in the story. She reveals that crops have failed and hunger grips India, but the scope and texture of the climate crisis remain unclear. At one point, Ma’s husband does provide a glimpse of how the climate crisis has affected the U.S. (“fields of corn, cucumber, and asparagus withering, rivers depleted, cacti where there had once been broad-leafed trees”). Yet its brevity is telling: This is the sum of Majumdar’s engagement with the international scale of the disaster. The vagueness might be deliberate—an attempt to present the story as a parable about morality under duress. But invoking climate change invites readers to think in global terms. Without that examination, the moral argument becomes unmoored. A novel about planetary collapse retreats into the contours of a fable, one that asks what people will do to survive without fully confronting the systems that endanger them.Majumdar’s most compelling insight—into collapsing social categories during a time of crisis—speaks to a broader global condition, in which the will to survive can obscure the line between right and wrong. Yet the novel also shows that moral imagination cannot thrive in isolation. Majumdar’s characters’ choices would carry greater weight if the conditions constraining them were rendered with equal depth. In the end, A Guardian and a Thief is a story that comprehends hunger more deeply than the world that produces it.

Climate
Culture
Food

How Friends in South Carolina Are Restoring a Wetland and Bringing Their Neighborhood Together

Joel Caldwell and two friends have been working to improve wetlands in Charleston, South Carolina

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — As the October night deepened and her bedtime approached, Joel Caldwell's 4-year-old daughter huddled with her dad, dangling a stick she pretended was a fishing pole over a creek that has become Caldwell's passion project for nearly the entirety of his daughter's life.“I want my children to grow up with a relationship to the natural world,” said Caldwell. “But we live in a neighborhood, so how do you do that?”The answer Caldwell and two of his friends came to was improving the creek that snakes into their section of Charleston — preserving its tidal flow, expanding its reach and rewilding its edges. This wetland is a transition zone where the land meets the bigger river. Their work here is small in scale and local, but it is tangible and has built a community at a time when it has gotten easier to destroy such places.With fewer wetlands there are fewer fish, fewer plants, fewer insects and birds, dirtier water and less protection against floods. That flooding is a special concern in hurricane-prone Charleston. Storm threats are compounded further by sea rise, which is being driven by climate change. The trio's restoration work fits into a growing public appreciation over the last 10 to 15 years for how wetlands help absorb floodwater.“We can be paralyzed by the bad news that we are fed every day, or we can work within our local communities and engage with people and actually do things,” Caldwell said. Amid isolation, restoration project was founded Caldwell has traveled the world as a freelance photographer. Then the COVID-19 virus hit right around the time his wife gave birth to their first daughter. From that stuck-in-place isolation, he and two friends, who were also having their first children at the time, founded The Marsh Appreciation and Restoration Society for Happiness Project, or The MARSH Project. Halsey Creek is mere blocks from Caldwell's house. The tidal salt marsh extends a few thousand feet from the Ashley River, one of three rivers that meet at Charleston, flowing between blocks of single-family homes many squeezed on one-tenth-of-an-acre lots.Neglected and abused in its urban setting, their first project was a community trash pickup on a hot day. They expected maybe a dozen people but ended up with 50, thanks to advertising by cofounder Blake Suárez, a graphic designer. Caldwell said people were clearly hungry to connect with their local environment.Over the years, they’ve pulled tires, radios, televisions, “generations of garbage” and even brought over winches to remove a car engine from the marsh. Wetlands viewed as an impediment to progress “It is going to be even harder to protect those wetlands that are left because the best tool we had to protect those wetlands, the federal Clean Water Act, is really being gutted,” said Mark Sabath, an attorney with the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center.The wetlands around Charleston support oyster beds that filter water and cling to long, wooden piers that stretch over shallow water and into the Ashley River. Kingfishers and egrets fly between the cordgrass. It's a humid, sticky place during blazing summers in the South. A vein of the river becomes Halsey Creek, shooting into the Wagner Terrace neighborhood, a suburban area north of Charleston's historic downtown. Waves of communities called it home after World War II: it was predominantly Jewish along with Greek and Italian immigrants in the decades following the war, shifting to African American in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, gentrification has created a mostly white community of more expensive homes.To help protect the wetlands, The MARSH Project's first significant conservation step was buying an acre of land from a local landowner.That acre is not obviously remarkable, running along a sloped strip that hugs the water, a runway of backyard grass on one side and bushes crowding the other. But the purchase ensures it will stay wetlands, not become new houses.“With the state of the world, and maybe my own sort of inclination, I’m not, like, naturally a happy person. So, this is like my form of therapy,” said co-founder Blake Scott, a historian who can recite the marsh’s role in Charleston dating back to when the British staged a nearby siege during the Revolutionary War.“The marsh makes me happy.” 'There is no gesture too small' Private homes abut the creek, so Scott has become its neighborhood salesperson. Out on a recent day, Scott spotted Jill Rowley, who lives near the end of the creek. He pointed to bare soil in the yard, explaining it would be an ideal spot for native plants to cleanse and slow rushing water, offering an expert’s gardening advice and possibly funding.“I never had an interest in the marsh or native (plants),” Rowley said. “And seeing this, and what is going on here, and really feeling like a steward and learning … I’ve just fallen in love with it.”Rowley can see what Scott is describing by looking across the street at one of their demonstration gardens. This is not a place for evenly spaced flowers surrounded by freshly cut grass. It’s a wilder mass of plants, with tall bending golden rod and Elliott’s aster that sprout purple flowers to attract pollinators deep in the fall. Native plants like these helped increase the bugs for the kids’ moth night that brought Caldwell's daughter, Land, to the creek that October night with her dad. The founders see events like this as one way of ensuring the next generation appreciates the importance of the ecosystem.Scott believes wetlands and wildlife could improve the neighborhood. For part of its length, the creek meanders and absorbs the tide, but a bisecting street constrains flow to its back half. Here it struggles to turn and expand. Nearby blocks flood easily into a suburban lake that can rise to a tall man’s waste. He wants to install better drains and a tidal gate to help the marsh absorb millions of additional gallons of that floodwater. The reaction from neighbors has been mostly, but not universally, positive, Scott said – a limited few resists public access near their property or picking up trash.The trio of founders are now starting to look outside of their neighborhood to create a corridor of native plants and trees to connect wildlife across the city’s few remaining creeks. It builds on four years of hosting public lectures, trash pickups, planting pollinator gardens, bringing in students for water quality testing and many other community events.Through them, they’ve found success focusing on an issue, and local actions — not broader politics.“It’s getting as many people as possible to change whatever their little piece of earth is,” Caldwell said. “There is no gesture too small.”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 – Oct. 2025

Climate
Conservation
Waste

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

Climate
Government
Business

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.”

Climate
Government
Energy

Suggested Viewing

Can't Stop Change: Queer Climate Stories from the Florida Frontlines

As Florida's violent legislation dominates headlines, LGBTQ2S+ communities are also on the frontlines of accelerating climate change. “Can’t Stop Change: Queer Climate Stories from the Florida Frontlines” weaves interviews with 15 LGBTQ2S+ artists, organizers, and educators across Florida (and the new Florida diaspora) into an intersectional climate justice narrative.

Social Justice
Activism
Climate

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

Caught in Quicksand

The Dead Sea is disappearing. The documentary, Caught in Quicksand, was made to raise public awareness about the receding of the Dead Sea.

Water
Climate
Documentary

Heimat - Requiem For The World As We Know It

Four theater-makers from Belgium travel to the melting glaciers on Greenland. Their goal: to play a new composed requiem and say goodbye to the world as we know it.

Music
Culture
Climate

Talking Trees

Yes, trees can talk. They communicate through their roots. Please listen to what they have to say in this short film.

Forests
Extinction
Climate

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.