GoGreenNation news

The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots.

News Feed

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

The vision “Every lawyer has skills that can help the climate. We’ve just gotta make the connections.” — Environmental lawyer and advocate Matthew Karmel The spotlight “How many lawyers does it take to break a Guinness World Record?” Matthew Karmel posed this question on LinkedIn in February, adding, “No, this isn’t a bad lawyer joke; it’s a reason for climate optimism.” Karmel, a principal at the law firm Offit Kurman and the chair of its environmental and sustainability law practice group, is one of the organizers of the Climate Pro Bono Bootcamp, a two-day virtual conference dedicated to helping more lawyers and legal professionals figure out how to donate their time and skills to advance climate work. When people — including lawyers themselves — think of the intersection between climate and law, their minds may go straight to high-profile climate lawsuits or other legal action aimed at holding big polluters and inactive governments accountable. But there are many other forms of legal support that climate causes might need, from simple contracts to forming a new business or nonprofit to legal defense. “There are so many attorneys working at large law firms, small law firms — attorneys everywhere who just don’t do litigation, but are still very passionate about climate change and want to apply their skills in that way,” said Stephanie Demetry, the executive director of Green Pro Bono, an organization that matches attorneys with companies, nonprofits, grassroots leaders, and others who need legal assistance to advance climate solutions. Karmel had the idea for the conference in late 2023, after he had been working with Green Pro Bono for a few years. “I was sitting there thinking, Why isn’t everyone doing this?” he recalled. “The things I’m doing aren’t unique. It doesn’t require specialized legal skills. It requires passion, and the general legal knowledge that every lawyer has.” He approached Demetry with the idea of hosting a training to help demystify what climate-related pro bono work can entail and build up the network of attorneys interested in offering it. They held the first bootcamp in January of 2024 and had around 700 attendees — far exceeding their expectations. After the event, Demetry said, Green Pro Bono more than doubled the number of attorneys in its network and also saw a 53 percent increase in the number of projects that got picked up. But for this year’s bootcamp, planned for late April, they’re aiming to increase that attendance — and setting the ambitious goal of growing it a hundredfold. That’s the number that would break a Guinness World Record for the largest attendance at a virtual law conference in one week (yes, this entry truly does exist). It might be a longer-term goal, but it’s one they’re serious about. Breaking the record, Karmel said, would be a powerful way to demonstrate the growing interest in climate action among the legal community, and also an opportunity to reach thousands more attorneys, students, and others with the event’s key message: that you don’t have to choose between your day job and working for the causes you care about. I spoke with Karmel and Demetry about the goals of the conference, the wide array of skills and expertise that legal professionals have to offer to climate solutions, and the value of having pro bono work built into a career. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Q. Would you say that there is a growing appetite among legal professionals to volunteer their time and skills for the climate cause? Demetry: From our organizational perspective, absolutely. I joined [Green Pro Bono] three years ago, and every year since I’ve been there, there has been huge percentage growth in our network of attorneys who want to take on cases — but there’s also a huge increase in the amount of clients and work that we actually have. So it’s growing in a proportional rate, which is great. We’re seeing a lot of interest from younger people, from students, too. Even within the last couple of months, I would say we’ve gotten a lot of attorney volunteer requests, but also organizational volunteer requests — people who are just trying to get involved in this space in some way, at a time where it’s quite pivotal. Karmel: The legal industry has a tremendous history of pro bono. That volunteerism is something that’s baked into the legal industry. When I started as a junior lawyer, my firm encouraged it. I got credit at the firm for doing pro bono. This is something that the legal community recognizes as something we have a responsibility to do, and that benefits the rule of law. Lawyers see themselves in this white-knight sort of way, and I do, too. The access to justice — we facilitate the movings of policy and of everything through law. That gives a tremendous opportunity for lawyers. Q. Like you mentioned, this isn’t just about environmental law or high-profile climate lawsuits. What are some of the other ways that lawyers might help facilitate climate solutions? Karmel: I’m an environmental lawyer. That’s what I do. But the pro bono work I do isn’t even limited to environment — it’s oftentimes even the reverse of what people think. There is some, but the majority of the climate pro bono requests are not environmental requests. That first thing is almost a misnomer. I’ve done a software licensing agreement for a software-as-a-service sustainability platform for art galleries. The idea was, art galleries don’t have enough of their own resources to hire sustainability coordinators, so let’s have this software that takes in inputs of what you’re doing at the gallery and outputs sustainability recommendations. They needed a simple agreement — that was just a very simple licensing and funding agreement, and had nothing to do with environmental law. Just a basic contract. And anyone with basic contracting skills and access to a couple of CLE [Continuing Legal Education] online videos could have done this. There’s lots of things like that. Basic corporate contracts, basic corporate formation, that’s a huge part of it. There’s also lots of policy-based things which aren’t purely environmental. Demetry: I see a lot of intellectual property requests that are very, very pivotal to these organizations. Recently, we helped a medical organization that was developing a compactable syringe to get a patent on that technology. And their projected environmental impact was a 40 percent reduction in the carbon emissions from shipping syringes to rural and remote medical settings around the world. We try at Green Pro Bono to be as expansive and as non-gatekeeping as possible with the clients that we accept. We also get a lot of nonprofits that are looking for advice on, “Hey, we wanna start maybe some sort of community thrift store to bring in additional income to the nonprofit. Is that appropriate? Can a nonprofit do that?” The simple questions that can make a big difference to those organizations, and help them to reinvest the money they would be spending on legal services into their actual innovations and the services they’re providing in their communities — it’s kind of a backdoor way to use the lawyering skills that you have to expedite those innovations and make sure those organizations can continue to carry out their mission. So you’re maybe not directly involved in anything that looks climate-like at all on the backend, but the impact of what you’re doing is actually moving that needle forward a lot. Q. How does all of that inform your curriculum for the bootcamp? What are you planning to cover this year? Karmel: This second year, we’ve really grouped around two topics. One is the master topic of litigation and advocacy, and two is the master topic of corporate work or transactional work. We have one day devoted to each of those pillars. So in the first day, we’re gonna focus on litigation and advocacy and talk about creating policy, advocating for policy, what those skills look like, how that gets done. Then also: What litigation is happening right now? How is litigation that’s happening, matters before the Supreme Court, how do those things impact pro bono that is getting done, and how is it going to continue to impact it? On day two, we’re going to dive deeper than we did last year on specific transactional-related issues and give people skills and give them perspectives on using those. Q. I know that you all are going for a Guinness World Record. Can you tell me a little bit more about that? Karmel: We’re thinking about transformation constantly. That’s why we created this. We’re looking at the world, seeing how it can be different — seeing this untapped resource and saying, What can we do to crack this thing open? What can we do that is going to excite people, energize them? And honestly, I was just randomly brainstorming and someone posted online about a Guinness World Record they had seen and how weird it was. So I just went online, and they have a Guinness World Record for the largest online virtual law conference, and I did not know that such a world record existed. It was [in 2020], about 66,000 people on legal impacts relating to COVID and pandemic-time issues — which were huge, hot issues. And we thought, Geez, how impactful would it be to break that record? For climate, for lawyers, for the country where it is now — it would be such a statement to break that record this year, to say no matter what is going on, we did that. We know that people are coming to this to be part of a community, to be part of a movement that’s trying to do this work. And so it was a way to try to make it even more meaningful, to take it up to the next level. It is partially a cheeky idea: 700 was beyond our concept last year — 66,000, frankly, we haven’t even figured out how we’re gonna pay for the Zoom if we get 66,000 people on there. But we will! If we can do that, we will. Stephanie, what did you think when I came to you with this idea? Demetry: Yeah, I thought it was wild. And exciting, though. I think it’s good to shoot for the moon in these situations. It’s what the moment demands, so why not try? Last year we only had a month or two to prepare, and we really weren’t even sure if we’d get a hundred people. So we were very invigorated coming off of that. Karmel: We’re gonna break it one year. My goal is to have this conference be something that happens every year until forever. I was going to say until it’s not needed anymore, but the fact is, this will always be needed because this is about showing people that they can craft careers that matter to them. You don’t have to choose between a soulless job and a soulful job. Any job can be something that you bring your heart and soul to. — Claire Elise Thompson More exposure Read: an opinion piece by Karmel about the importance of pro bono work (Grist) Read: about the end of the youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States — and the movement it ignited (Grist) Read: an interview with legal scholar Carol Liao about how climate change will impact different areas of law, and why “all lawyers will need to be climate lawyers” (Canadian Lawyer) Read: a profile of Julian Aguon, an attorney from Guam fighting for climate justice on a global stage (Grist) A parting shot Another example of a group of professionals with special skills and resources, who have often rallied to support causes and communities, is chefs. In the aftermath of the L.A. fires earlier this year, a number of chefs and restauranteurs offered free meals to those affected by the fires and to first responders. Here, a taco truck contracted by the food-aid organization World Central Kitchen set up shop to feed emergency and utility workers. IMAGE CREDITS Vision: Mia Torres / Grist Parting shot: Robyn Beck / AFP via Getty Images This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots. on Apr 2, 2025.

It's not just high-profile lawsuits — climate solutions need contracts, corporate advice, and IP filings.

Illustration of scales of justice with earth weighing it down on one side

The vision

“Every lawyer has skills that can help the climate. We’ve just gotta make the connections.”

— Environmental lawyer and advocate Matthew Karmel

The spotlight

“How many lawyers does it take to break a Guinness World Record?”

Matthew Karmel posed this question on LinkedIn in February, adding, “No, this isn’t a bad lawyer joke; it’s a reason for climate optimism.”

Karmel, a principal at the law firm Offit Kurman and the chair of its environmental and sustainability law practice group, is one of the organizers of the Climate Pro Bono Bootcamp, a two-day virtual conference dedicated to helping more lawyers and legal professionals figure out how to donate their time and skills to advance climate work.

When people — including lawyers themselves — think of the intersection between climate and law, their minds may go straight to high-profile climate lawsuits or other legal action aimed at holding big polluters and inactive governments accountable. But there are many other forms of legal support that climate causes might need, from simple contracts to forming a new business or nonprofit to legal defense. “There are so many attorneys working at large law firms, small law firms — attorneys everywhere who just don’t do litigation, but are still very passionate about climate change and want to apply their skills in that way,” said Stephanie Demetry, the executive director of Green Pro Bono, an organization that matches attorneys with companies, nonprofits, grassroots leaders, and others who need legal assistance to advance climate solutions.

Karmel had the idea for the conference in late 2023, after he had been working with Green Pro Bono for a few years. “I was sitting there thinking, Why isn’t everyone doing this?” he recalled. “The things I’m doing aren’t unique. It doesn’t require specialized legal skills. It requires passion, and the general legal knowledge that every lawyer has.” He approached Demetry with the idea of hosting a training to help demystify what climate-related pro bono work can entail and build up the network of attorneys interested in offering it.

They held the first bootcamp in January of 2024 and had around 700 attendees — far exceeding their expectations. After the event, Demetry said, Green Pro Bono more than doubled the number of attorneys in its network and also saw a 53 percent increase in the number of projects that got picked up.

But for this year’s bootcamp, planned for late April, they’re aiming to increase that attendance — and setting the ambitious goal of growing it a hundredfold. That’s the number that would break a Guinness World Record for the largest attendance at a virtual law conference in one week (yes, this entry truly does exist). It might be a longer-term goal, but it’s one they’re serious about. Breaking the record, Karmel said, would be a powerful way to demonstrate the growing interest in climate action among the legal community, and also an opportunity to reach thousands more attorneys, students, and others with the event’s key message: that you don’t have to choose between your day job and working for the causes you care about.

I spoke with Karmel and Demetry about the goals of the conference, the wide array of skills and expertise that legal professionals have to offer to climate solutions, and the value of having pro bono work built into a career. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Q. Would you say that there is a growing appetite among legal professionals to volunteer their time and skills for the climate cause?

Demetry: From our organizational perspective, absolutely. I joined [Green Pro Bono] three years ago, and every year since I’ve been there, there has been huge percentage growth in our network of attorneys who want to take on cases — but there’s also a huge increase in the amount of clients and work that we actually have. So it’s growing in a proportional rate, which is great. We’re seeing a lot of interest from younger people, from students, too.

Even within the last couple of months, I would say we’ve gotten a lot of attorney volunteer requests, but also organizational volunteer requests — people who are just trying to get involved in this space in some way, at a time where it’s quite pivotal.

Karmel: The legal industry has a tremendous history of pro bono. That volunteerism is something that’s baked into the legal industry. When I started as a junior lawyer, my firm encouraged it. I got credit at the firm for doing pro bono. This is something that the legal community recognizes as something we have a responsibility to do, and that benefits the rule of law.

Lawyers see themselves in this white-knight sort of way, and I do, too. The access to justice — we facilitate the movings of policy and of everything through law. That gives a tremendous opportunity for lawyers.

Q. Like you mentioned, this isn’t just about environmental law or high-profile climate lawsuits. What are some of the other ways that lawyers might help facilitate climate solutions?

Karmel: I’m an environmental lawyer. That’s what I do. But the pro bono work I do isn’t even limited to environment — it’s oftentimes even the reverse of what people think. There is some, but the majority of the climate pro bono requests are not environmental requests. That first thing is almost a misnomer.

I’ve done a software licensing agreement for a software-as-a-service sustainability platform for art galleries. The idea was, art galleries don’t have enough of their own resources to hire sustainability coordinators, so let’s have this software that takes in inputs of what you’re doing at the gallery and outputs sustainability recommendations. They needed a simple agreement — that was just a very simple licensing and funding agreement, and had nothing to do with environmental law. Just a basic contract. And anyone with basic contracting skills and access to a couple of CLE [Continuing Legal Education] online videos could have done this.

There’s lots of things like that. Basic corporate contracts, basic corporate formation, that’s a huge part of it. There’s also lots of policy-based things which aren’t purely environmental.

Demetry: I see a lot of intellectual property requests that are very, very pivotal to these organizations. Recently, we helped a medical organization that was developing a compactable syringe to get a patent on that technology. And their projected environmental impact was a 40 percent reduction in the carbon emissions from shipping syringes to rural and remote medical settings around the world. We try at Green Pro Bono to be as expansive and as non-gatekeeping as possible with the clients that we accept.

We also get a lot of nonprofits that are looking for advice on, “Hey, we wanna start maybe some sort of community thrift store to bring in additional income to the nonprofit. Is that appropriate? Can a nonprofit do that?” The simple questions that can make a big difference to those organizations, and help them to reinvest the money they would be spending on legal services into their actual innovations and the services they’re providing in their communities — it’s kind of a backdoor way to use the lawyering skills that you have to expedite those innovations and make sure those organizations can continue to carry out their mission. So you’re maybe not directly involved in anything that looks climate-like at all on the backend, but the impact of what you’re doing is actually moving that needle forward a lot.

Q. How does all of that inform your curriculum for the bootcamp? What are you planning to cover this year?

Karmel: This second year, we’ve really grouped around two topics. One is the master topic of litigation and advocacy, and two is the master topic of corporate work or transactional work. We have one day devoted to each of those pillars.

So in the first day, we’re gonna focus on litigation and advocacy and talk about creating policy, advocating for policy, what those skills look like, how that gets done. Then also: What litigation is happening right now? How is litigation that’s happening, matters before the Supreme Court, how do those things impact pro bono that is getting done, and how is it going to continue to impact it? On day two, we’re going to dive deeper than we did last year on specific transactional-related issues and give people skills and give them perspectives on using those.

Q. I know that you all are going for a Guinness World Record. Can you tell me a little bit more about that?

Karmel: We’re thinking about transformation constantly. That’s why we created this. We’re looking at the world, seeing how it can be different — seeing this untapped resource and saying, What can we do to crack this thing open? What can we do that is going to excite people, energize them? And honestly, I was just randomly brainstorming and someone posted online about a Guinness World Record they had seen and how weird it was. So I just went online, and they have a Guinness World Record for the largest online virtual law conference, and I did not know that such a world record existed. It was [in 2020], about 66,000 people on legal impacts relating to COVID and pandemic-time issues — which were huge, hot issues.

And we thought, Geez, how impactful would it be to break that record? For climate, for lawyers, for the country where it is now — it would be such a statement to break that record this year, to say no matter what is going on, we did that. We know that people are coming to this to be part of a community, to be part of a movement that’s trying to do this work. And so it was a way to try to make it even more meaningful, to take it up to the next level.

It is partially a cheeky idea: 700 was beyond our concept last year — 66,000, frankly, we haven’t even figured out how we’re gonna pay for the Zoom if we get 66,000 people on there. But we will! If we can do that, we will.

Stephanie, what did you think when I came to you with this idea?

Demetry: Yeah, I thought it was wild. And exciting, though. I think it’s good to shoot for the moon in these situations. It’s what the moment demands, so why not try? Last year we only had a month or two to prepare, and we really weren’t even sure if we’d get a hundred people. So we were very invigorated coming off of that.

Karmel: We’re gonna break it one year. My goal is to have this conference be something that happens every year until forever. I was going to say until it’s not needed anymore, but the fact is, this will always be needed because this is about showing people that they can craft careers that matter to them. You don’t have to choose between a soulless job and a soulful job. Any job can be something that you bring your heart and soul to.

— Claire Elise Thompson

More exposure

Read: an opinion piece by Karmel about the importance of pro bono work (Grist)
Read: about the end of the youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States — and the movement it ignited (Grist)
Read: an interview with legal scholar Carol Liao about how climate change will impact different areas of law, and why “all lawyers will need to be climate lawyers” (Canadian Lawyer)
Read: a profile of Julian Aguon, an attorney from Guam fighting for climate justice on a global stage (Grist)

A parting shot

Another example of a group of professionals with special skills and resources, who have often rallied to support causes and communities, is chefs. In the aftermath of the L.A. fires earlier this year, a number of chefs and restauranteurs offered free meals to those affected by the fires and to first responders. Here, a taco truck contracted by the food-aid organization World Central Kitchen set up shop to feed emergency and utility workers.

A photo of people lined up in front of a taco truck, with the ruins of burned buildings in the background

IMAGE CREDITS

Vision: Mia Torres / Grist

Parting shot: Robyn Beck / AFP via Getty Images

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots. on Apr 2, 2025.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Controversial UK oil field publishes full scale of climate impact

The impact from the Rosebank oil field is estimated at nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming CO2.

The UK's largest undeveloped oil field has revealed the full scale of its environmental impact, should it gain approval by the government.Developers of the Rosebank oil field said nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming gas would be released from using oil products from the field.The amount would vary each year, but by comparison the UK's annual emissions in 2024 were 371 million tonnes.The field's developer said its emissions were "not significant" considering the UK's international climate commitments.Rosebank is an oil and gas field which lies about 80 miles north-west of Shetland and is one of the largest undeveloped discoveries of fossil fuels in UK waters.It is said to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil and some gas, and is owned by Norwegian energy giant Equinor and British firm Ithaca Energy.The field was originally approved in 2023, but in July a court ruled that a more detailed assessment of the field's environmental impact was required, taking into account the effect on the climate of burning any fossil fuels extracted from it.A public consultation has now been opened, and will run until 20th November 2025.The final decision on whether to approve the field will be made by the Energy Secretary.Until recently such projects were only required to consider the impact on the environment from extracting the fossil fuels.But in June last year the Supreme Court ruled that authorities must take account of the impact from also using the products, after a woman in Surrey challenged the development of her local gas project.This ruling was then used in a further challenge to the Rosebank oil field by environmental campaigners Uplift and Greenpeace - which was subsequently successful in January. Equinor was required to recalculate the "full impact" of the field and it now estimates that it will contribute an additional 249 million tonnes of the planet warming gas CO2 over the next 25 years. This is more than 50 times greater than the original figure of 4.5 million tonnes it gave from extracting the oil and gas.The UK has a target to produce no additional emissions by 2050 and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has been vocal about the need to move away from fossil fuels. On Tuesday, he told an industry conference that the UK's dependence on fossil fuels was its "Achilles' heel" and argued clean power was the only way to reduce bills.The fossil fuels for the Rosebank field are not guaranteed to be used in the UK but would be sold on the international market.As such the project is unlikely to have an impact on lowering gas prices. The UK's independent climate advisors said in 2022 that any more domestic oil and gas extraction would have "at most, a marginal effect on prices".But Arne Gurtner, Equinor's senior vice president for the UK, has previously said that: "If the UK needs Rosebank oil, it will go to the UK through open market mechanisms."

Climate

Energy

Water

The Blue-State Governors Who’ve Gone Weak on Climate Policy

If you scroll California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press releases, a portrait emerges of a undaunted climate fighter. One day he’s “paving [the] way for climate pollution-cutting technology”; another he’s launching “new international climate partnerships as Trump unleashes unhinged UN rant.” Last month, he announced the signing of a suite of measures “saving billions on electric bills, stabilizing [the] gas market and cutting pollution.” But look under the hood, and his heroic self-image dims somewhat. That big legislative package, for instance, also increases oil drilling and sets up a regional electricity market that “could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy,” CalMatters reported.With Trump in death-drive mode on climate, canceling renewable energy projects left and right and even forbidding federal agencies to use language such as “climate change,” “green,”or “sustainable,” blue-state governors are well positioned to distinguish themselves and their party on the issue. They also have a responsibility: The states are our best hope for policy at a scale to match the problem. Yet a worrying trend is taking shape: Blue-state governors are making a big show of battling the Trump administration, but on climate issues they’ve been disappointing—and sometimes downright infuriating. Last month’s climate package wasn’t the California Democrats’ first flub this year. Over the summer, in what Politico dubbed the state’s “Great Climate Retreat,” they weakened limits on the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back environmental reviews for new housing, and lifted a cap on oil industry profits. “California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, told Politico. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.” In Maryland, a climate advisory panel appointed by Governor Wes Moore has hit the brakes on a carbon trading measure, and late last month the state Department of the Environment, or MDE, appeared to cave to the Trump administration in abandoning some environmental justice metrics, which many fear means abandoning Black and brown communities to the whims of polluters. “It just appears to me that MDE blatantly does not want to be accountable in the massive pollution and the overburden of these heavy industrial industries,” Kamita Gray, a community leader in Brandywine—a majority-Black town that’s home to gas-fired power plants, a coal ash dump, and a Superfund site—told Maryland Matters.Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania too is under fire from climate critics. As attorney general, he authored a solid road map for protecting Pennsylvanians from the harmful environmental and health effects of fracking, but in his two years as governor he has allowed companies to be secretive about the chemicals used in fracking, and has not pushed to pass any laws curbing the industry. The Environmental Health Project, a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit, said “residents are still waiting for meaningful action. Our assessment concludes that the Shapiro administration has not fulfilled the commitments the governor made to Pennsylvanians in general and to frontline communities in particular.”And then there’s New York. Governor Kathy Hochul has been failing to follow the decarbonization timeline that was outlined in the state’s 2019 climate law, prompting environmental justice groups to sue her. She has delayed plans for “cap and invest” and is dragging her feet on building public renewables (despite the state’s landmark Build Public Renewables Act, which passed in 2023). She has seemingly caved to Trump by going ahead with gas pipelines she previously rejected. And it’s unclear whether she will sign a repeal of the outdated “100 foot rule,” which requires utility ratepayers to subsize the cost of connecting new customers to the gas system, a reform that has long been a priority of the state’s climate movement.Part of what’s so self-destructive here is that energy affordability is a highly salient issue for voters, taking center stage, for example in the governor’s race in New Jersey, where electricity rates have risen 22 percent. Interviewed in Friday’s New York Times on this subject, David Springe of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates described electricity as “the new eggs,” an indicator of how costly daily life is for most Americans. Republicans in New York have seized on the problem as an opportunity to blame Democrats and climate-friendly policies. Stephan Edel of New York Renews, a progressive coalition fighting for clean energy, told me the governor “has spoken really eloquently about the need to do something about affordability.” Indeed, she endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist, for New York City mayor, partly for this reason. She often uses “affordability” to justify rightward shifts or retreats from climate policy, he said, adding that, inexplicably, she also shies away from touting the affordability benefits of climate policies that she does support. For example, in the state budget last year, she agreed to invest over a billion dollars in funding for climate programs, including one that will help make homes for low-income New Yorkers more energy efficient and another that will save school districts money by shifting to electric school buses. Instead of touting those wins for affordability—or embracing the potential of publicly owned renewables to do the same—she’s embraced the Republican narrative that climate policy and affordability are at odds.By contrast, Mikie Sherill in New Jersey has been touting clean energy as a solution to energy affordability woes. If she gets elected and continues this path, more blue state governors should follow her lead. The Democratic base is desperate to see its leaders stand up to Trump on both climate and affordability. (And when Democratic governors do stand up to Trump on anything—Illinois’s JB Pritzker on the militarization of Chicago, Maine’s Janet Mills on health care—their poll numbers spike.)And the reverse is also true—failing to differentiate themselves from Trump has been political suicide for many Democrats. “Every time one of these elected officials says, ‘I’m going to stand up to Trump, I’m going to protect affordability, I’m going to address climate change,’ and then doesn’t do it,” that’s a win for the Republicans, Edel said, because it fuels low turnout for Democratic voters. Climate offers an obvious opportunity to isolate the Republicans on a matter of broad concern, renew Americans’ faith in government, and make real progress. The Democratic governors flailing so badly on this issue have not only a moral obligation to change course, but also a political one.

Climate

Chemicals

Government

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

Maritime nations are meeting in London to discuss regulations that could shift the shipping industry away from fossil fuels

The world’s largest maritime nations are gathering in London on Tuesday to consider adopting regulations that would move the shipping industry away from fossil fuels to slash emissions.If the deal is adopted, this will be the first time a global fee is imposed on planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Most ships today run on heavy fuel oil that releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants as it’s burned. That would be a major win for the climate, public health, the ocean and marine life, said Delaine McCullough at the Ocean Conservancy. For too long, ships have run on crude, dirty oil, she said.“This agreement provides a lesson for the world that legally-binding climate action is possible," McCullough, shipping program director for the nonprofit environmental advocacy group, said. Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as trade has grown and vessels use immense amounts of fossil fuels to transport cargo over long distances. The regulations would set a pricing system for gas emissions The regulations, or “Net-zero Framework,” sets a marine fuel standard that decreases, over time, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed from using shipping fuels. The regulations also establish a pricing system that would impose fees for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.There's a base-level of compliance for the allowable greenhouse gas intensity of fuels. There's a more stringent direct compliance target that requires further reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity.If ships sail on fuels with lower emissions than what's required under the direct compliance target, they earn “surplus units," effectively credits. Ships with the highest emissions would have to buy those credits from other ships under the pricing system, or from the IMO at $380 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach the base level of compliance. In addition, there's a penalty of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach direct compliance. Ships that meet the base target but not the direct compliance one must pay the $100 per ton penalty, too. Ships whose greenhouse gas intensity is below a certain threshold will receive rewards for their performance.The fees could generate $11 billion to $13 billion in revenue annually. That would go into an IMO fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships. Looking for alternative fuels Ships could lower their emissions by using alternative fuels, running on electricity or using onboard carbon capture technologies. Wind propulsion and other energy efficiency advancements can also help reduce fuel consumption and emissions as part of an energy transition. Large ships last about 25 years, so the industry would need to make changes and investments now to reach net-zero around 2050.If adopted, the regulations will enter into force in 2027. Large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, would have to pay penalties for their emissions starting in 2028, according to the IMO. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption. Concerns over biofuels produced from food crops Heavy fuel oil, liquefied natural gas and biodiesel will be dominant for most of the 2030s and 2040s, unless the IMO further incentivizes green alternatives, according to modeling from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. The way the rules are designed essentially make biofuels the cheapest fuel to use to comply, but biofuels require huge amounts of crops, pushing out less profitable food production, often leading to additional land clearance and deforestation, said Faig Abbasov, shipping director at T&E. They are urging the IMO to promote scalable green alternatives, not recklessly promote biofuels produced from food crops, Abbasov said. As it stands now, the deal before the IMO won't deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, he added.Green ammonia will get to a price that it’s appealing to ship owners in the late 2040s — quite late in the transition, according to the modeling. The NGO also sees green methanol playing an important role in the long-term transition. The vote at the London meeting The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but it's likely nations will vote on adopting the regulations. At the April meeting, a vote was called to approve the contents of the regulations. The United States was notably absent in April, but plans to participate in this meeting. Teresa Bui at Pacific Environment said she's optimistic “global momentum is on our side” and a majority of countries will support adoption. Bui is senior climate campaign director for the environmental nonprofit, which has consultative, or non-voting, status at the IMO. If it fails, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed.“It's difficult to know for sure what the precise consequences will be, but failure this week will certainly lead to delay, which means ships will emit more greenhouse gases than they would have done and for longer, continuing their outsized contribution to the climate crisis,” said John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, who is at the London meeting. 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

Crisis

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

The results challenge claims that the climate risks posed by an individual fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesGlobal warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed. The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature. The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified. Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed. Each new investment in coal and gas extraction can now be linked to harmful effects. Shutterstock Every tonne of CO₂ matters Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse. But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured. The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂. Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed: it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations. But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer. A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations. According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals. But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects. That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project. Scarborough’s harms laid bare Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂. We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C. This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage. The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived. We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. The project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. Antonio Masiello/Getty Images And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder. As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets. We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050. Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible. ‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed. Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter. In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said: Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets. We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website. A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research CouncilAndrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program. Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Climate

CO2

Government

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Scientists have examined the $16.5bn project’s climate impact and found it could expose more than half a million people to unprecedented heatSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGreenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades. Continue reading...

Greenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades.Emissions from the project would contribute 0.00039C to global heating, they estimate. Using recently developed techniques known as climate attribution, they suggest that fraction of warming would expose an additional 516,000 people globally to unprecedented heat, and result in the loss of an extra 16m coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef in every future bleaching event.It would also push 356,000 people outside the “human climate niche” – the reasonable zone for human survival, with an upper limit for average annual temperature of 29C.The study, published in the journal Climate Action, forms part of a new focus in climate science that aims to quantify the impacts of individual fossil fuel projects and emitters.A Woodside spokesperson said the company would reduce the Scarborough project’s “direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations”.“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” they added. “It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterBut study co-author Andrew King, an associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said the research illustrated that individual projects had tangible climate impacts.“Often the argument made for individual projects that would involve greenhouse gas emissions is that they are quite small [in the global context],” he said. “But really, especially with larger fossil fuel projects, we can very clearly say that the impacts are not negligible.”Study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University, said that given Australia’s emission reductions requirements, in the coming decades Scarborough would also constitute a greater proportion of the country’s CO2 emissions budget.“By 2049, assuming that the Scarborough project emits the same amount year on year, it’s going to be chewing up half of our emissions budget,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “That’s the stuff that we burn here, let alone what we export overseas.”Beyond 2050, emissions from Scarborough would require CO2 removal from the atmosphere – “technologies that either don’t exist yet, or that we can’t scale up”, she said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionUnder a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths.The researchers calculated the project’s climate impacts with a tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE). The TCRE estimates that every 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions causes 0.45C of additional global heating.Scarborough’s contribution to global heating had a likely range between 0.00024C and 0.00055C, the study’s authors estimated, but they noted “direct measurement of global mean temperature changes is not possible with this level of precision”.The approach could be used by governments and companies to assess whether future “projects fall within acceptable levels of environmental and societal risk”, the researchers suggest. The tool “could be part of the process for determining whether a project should be approved”, King said.Yuming Guo, a professor of global environmental health and biostatistics at Monash University, who was not involved in the study, said the study provided “a valuable tool for conducting environmental risk assessments”.“Considering the vast number of fossil fuel projects operating globally, the cumulative contribution of these emissions to climate change is substantial and should not be overlooked,” he said.Dr Kat O’Mara, a senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University, who was not part of the study, said: “With the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion a few months ago that countries need to take action to protect the climate, this new research reinforces the need to consider climate impacts beyond just how much carbon is being produced.”

Climate

CO2

Energy

Suggested Viewing

Carbon Men Salvation: The Senator's Dilemma

Climate change is heating up the world at an accelerating rate, but Congress is frozen to action. Humanity is heading towards devastation; there is only one chance to change the future by traveling into the past. Brilliant climatologist student Anna Jones is researching a massive glacier in Antarctica that is on the verge of collapse. This disaster will drown coastal cities, trigger unprecedented climate refugee numbers and loss of life, while inciting wars. Anna’s father, Dan Jones, the newly elected Senator from New Jersey, is pivotal to the success or failure of a key climate bill. The vote is imminent. Powerful climate denier factions work against the necessary climate actions, even as the planet teeters on the prime tipping point where human behavior, science and legislation collide. Only Noah Poem, a time traveling scientist from the future, can help Anna Jones convince her climate doubting father to do the right thing. But time is running out as science fiction meets science fact. The fate of the human race hangs in the balance. One vote could save humanity.

Government

Climate

Activism

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution

Forests

Inspirational

Capturing The Fire

When Louise Coghill saw the first plume of smoke begin to rise behind her parents property, she could never have predicted that in less than four hours, it would become a wall of flames, swallowing everything in its path. A photographer by trade, Louise has travelled the world documenting everything from the nomadic wanderers of Mongolia, to base life at Mount Everest. Capturing the extraordinary comes naturally to Louise, so when her family home in the semi-rural Western Australian town of Gidgegannup became engulfed in flames, her first instinct wasn’t to take shelter, it was to pick up her camera.

Conservation

Climate

Nature

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

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots.

The vision

The spotlight

More exposure

A parting shot

Related News

Controversial UK oil field publishes full scale of climate impact

The Blue-State Governors Who’ve Gone Weak on Climate Policy

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Suggested Viewing

Carbon Men Salvation: The Senator's Dilemma

LEAVES

Capturing The Fire

Resilience

Caught in Quicksand

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots.

The vision

The spotlight

More exposure

A parting shot

Related News

Controversial UK oil field publishes full scale of climate impact

The Blue-State Governors Who’ve Gone Weak on Climate Policy

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Suggested Viewing

Carbon Men Salvation: The Senator's Dilemma

LEAVES

Capturing The Fire

Resilience

Caught in Quicksand

Join us to forgea sustainable future

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

Join us to forge
a sustainable future