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.

The people who control Georgia’s climate and energy plans

News Feed
Wednesday, July 31, 2024

This story is part of a collaboration with Grist and WABE to demystify the Georgia Public Service Commission, the small but powerful state-elected board that makes critical decisions about everything from raising electricity bills to developing renewable energy.   Georgia may not have a state-level office or agency that addresses climate and energy policy, but there are many positions that wield power over those decisions — from the Public Service Commission, which regulates the main utility provider and determines energy sources, to the attorney general and state treasurer, who can join lawsuits for or against climate action.  Here are some of the major players in Georgia’s climate-related policies — and some who have had significant recent impact — and what they’re responsible for. Public Service Commission Elected; next on the ballot 2025 Established in 1879 to regulate the railroad industry, the Georgia Public Service Commission, or PSC, now regulates Georgia Power — which has 2.7 million customers across the state — as well as natural gas pipelines and telecommunications. Every three years, Georgia Power submits an updated Integrated Resource Plan — the 20-year outlook detailing what energy sources it intends to use (gas, coal, nuclear, solar). The plan and the rate case, which is the process of setting electricity rates, are then subject to feedback from consumer and environmental groups, businesses, and the public, before being finalized by the PSC.  Grist and WABE are collaborating to demystify the Georgia Public Service Commission through ongoing reporting, community workshops, printable resources, and local journalism training. Explore more PSC coverage, including a glossary of terms to know and downloadable fact sheets. Share your thoughts: Tell us what you want to know about energy affordability and utility regulation in Georgia. The commission has five elected members and a staff of 85 to 90, including an advocacy staff that typically opposes the utility’s requests to raise rates and represents the state’s residential and small commercial and industrial consumers during proceedings. In recent years, Georgia Power and the Public Service Commission have been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats for frequent rate hikes. (See a timeline of the PSC’s major recent decisions.) Each member of the commission serves a six-year term, though elections have been on hold since 2022 due to a lawsuit filed under the Voting Rights Act, which alleges that the commission’s statewide elections dilute the power of Black voters. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the suit, and the state passed a law that lays out a new schedule for PSC elections beginning in 2025, meaning all commissioners will serve beyond their elected term. Though Black people make up roughly a third of Georgia’s population, the PSC has had only two Black members in its 145-year history, both appointed by governors to fill a vacancy. All five current members are Republicans. Governor  Elected; next on the ballot 2026 For years, environmental advocates have been demanding that Georgia develop a climate action plan, as dozens of states have done. In 2023, Governor Brian Kemp’s administration started putting one together, buoyed by federal dollars made available under the Inflation Reduction Act. The state’s priority plan was due in March, with the full plan due next year.  Governors have authority to set a state’s regulations and policies. For example, governors in other states have also set emissions targets, like in neighboring North Carolina, where Governor Roy Cooper issued a 2018 executive order aiming to cut emissions, which was later followed by legislative action with longer-term goals. A conservative Republican, Kemp doesn’t talk much about climate change. But he has aggressively courted the electric vehicle industry, luring battery plants and companies like the electric automaker Rivian. He said his intention is for Georgia to become the “electric mobility capital of America.”  Governors appoint several of the positions on this list; they also get an occasional opportunity to influence the makeup of the PSC, filling vacancies before an election can be held. Attorney general Elected; next on the ballot 2026 An attorney general is the main legal counsel to state government agencies and legislatures. In some states, attorneys general have addressed the climate crisis by joining the legal battle against fossil fuel companies for the damage created by greenhouse gas emissions: This year, for instance, Michigan is set to become the ninth state whose attorney general is suing fossil fuel companies for allegedly covering up harms caused by their emissions.  Georgia’s attorney general, Chris Carr, has often opposed federal regulations, including those related to climate and environment. Carr joined a lawsuit in 2024, along with a couple dozen attorneys general of Republican-led states, seeking to block a Biden administration EPA rule that would reduce emissions from coal and natural gas power plants. He has also criticized and challenged other climate-friendly federal moves, like the Biden administration’s 2021 moratorium on oil and gas leasing and drilling permits on federal land. Agriculture commissioner Elected; next on the ballot 2026 The agriculture commissioner oversees the Department of Agriculture. In Georgia, the department is not only overseeing the agriculture industry, it’s also responsible for inspecting and testing gas pumps — and, now, electric vehicle charging stations — to ensure consumers are getting a fair shake. A 2023 law requires the department to have a plan for EV charger inspections in place by 2025, which the commissioner says would make it the first state in the country to implement such a program.  Georgia’s commissioner Tyler Harper is one of a dozen Republican agriculture commissioners around the country challenging major banks (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and others) that joined an alliance “committed to financing ambitious climate action” to get the global economy to net-zero greenhouse emissions by the middle of the century, arguing it creates undue burden on farmers. Agriculture commissioners take many approaches to stewarding the state’s farmers and farmworkers. Commissioners in states including Colorado and Michigan, for example, have launched programs to boost farmers’ resilience in the face of warming temperatures.  Committee chairs Elected; all Georgia House and Senate members are on the ballot every two years, next in fall 2024 While most of the other offices with power over Georgia’s climate positioning won’t be on the ballot this year, Georgia House and Senate members will be.  In the state Legislature, two committees — the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee and the House Energy, Utilities, and Telecommunications Committee — are responsible for issues within the Public Service Commission’s ambit, like legislation involving gas or electrical utilities. The chairs are Republicans Bill Cowsert and Don Parsons, respectively; they’re both up for reelection this fall. In the 2024 legislative session, Parsons sponsored legislation to get more specific information listed on Georgia Power bills, which failed. Both House and Senate committees unanimously approved a bill that would have restored a consumer advocate program for the PSC. Environmental Protection Division Director is nominated by the governor and approved by the Board of Natural Resources A division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the EPD is tasked with drawing up the state’s climate plan. It’s collaborating with researchers at Georgia Tech. The university leads Drawdown Georgia, a project to track emissions and create options to reduce them, which could halve the state’s carbon emissions by 2030. The EPD also has other responsibilities, including overseeing Georgia Power’s coal ash cleanup efforts and monitoring emissions from factories and power plants. Jeff Cown, the current director, was appointed by Governor Kemp in 2023. He is a longtime employee of the natural resources department.  Treasurer Appointed by the State Depository Board (comprised of the governor, insurance commissioner, state accounting officer, commissioner of banking and finance, transportation commissioner, and treasurer) The stewards of pension funds for public-sector workers like teachers, firefighters, and government employees, state treasurers have the ability to steer investments away from dirty energy, and the leverage to push larger asset management companies to divest from fossil fuels. Georgia’s Republican treasurer, Steve McCoy, has joined about two dozen state financial officers around the country in what a 2022 New York Times investigation described as efforts to “thwart climate action.” In 2022, McCoy signed onto a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission objecting to a proposed policy requiring companies to disclose climate risks to their investors, saying among other things that the proposed rule “indulges in irrational climate exceptionalism, elevating climate issues to a place of prominence in disclosures that they do not deserve.” Mayors and local sustainability officials Elected and appointed, respectively Some of Georgia’s cities have taken up the mantle of addressing climate change in recent years — countrywide, mayors and their administrations have led climate and energy planning. Atlanta has a goal to obtain 100 percent clean energy by 2035. The city has a cabinet-level chief sustainability officer and a clean energy advisory board, all appointed by the mayor. The Atlanta Regional Commission — whose board contains elected reps from around the 29-county metro area, and is currently chaired by the mayor of Atlanta — is in the midst of developing its own regional climate plan. Savannah has also set renewable energy targets for 2050, and has an office of sustainability and a clean energy program manager; Athens-Clarke County has a sustainability office and director. Utility consumer advocate This isn’t a position that exists — yet. But when the idea of establishing a consumer advocate within the Georgia Public Service Commission came up in the most recent legislative session, it garnered bipartisan support, even if it failed to make it across the finish line. It’s not a new concept: A consumer utility counsel existed until 2008, when it fell victim to Recession-era belt-tightening. Advocates say it would give the public a stronger voice to challenge things like frequent hikes in electricity rates. PSC commissioners, though, argue that consumer perspectives are sufficiently represented by the commission’s advocacy staff, which is not appointed or elected. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The people who control Georgia’s climate and energy plans on Jul 24, 2024.

A power map of the appointed and elected officials who wield power over how the state manages clean energy, climate adaptation, policy, and investments.

This story is part of a collaboration with Grist and WABE to demystify the Georgia Public Service Commission, the small but powerful state-elected board that makes critical decisions about everything from raising electricity bills to developing renewable energy.  

Georgia may not have a state-level office or agency that addresses climate and energy policy, but there are many positions that wield power over those decisions — from the Public Service Commission, which regulates the main utility provider and determines energy sources, to the attorney general and state treasurer, who can join lawsuits for or against climate action. 

Here are some of the major players in Georgia’s climate-related policies — and some who have had significant recent impact — and what they’re responsible for.

Public Service Commission

Elected; next on the ballot 2025

Established in 1879 to regulate the railroad industry, the Georgia Public Service Commission, or PSC, now regulates Georgia Power — which has 2.7 million customers across the state — as well as natural gas pipelines and telecommunications. Every three years, Georgia Power submits an updated Integrated Resource Plan — the 20-year outlook detailing what energy sources it intends to use (gas, coal, nuclear, solar). The plan and the rate case, which is the process of setting electricity rates, are then subject to feedback from consumer and environmental groups, businesses, and the public, before being finalized by the PSC. 

Your guide to the Georgia PSCGrist and WABE are collaborating to demystify the Georgia Public Service Commission through ongoing reporting, community workshops, printable resources, and local journalism training.

Explore more PSC coverage, including a glossary of terms to know and downloadable fact sheets.

Share your thoughts: Tell us what you want to know about energy affordability and utility regulation in Georgia.

The commission has five elected members and a staff of 85 to 90, including an advocacy staff that typically opposes the utility’s requests to raise rates and represents the state’s residential and small commercial and industrial consumers during proceedings. In recent years, Georgia Power and the Public Service Commission have been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats for frequent rate hikes. (See a timeline of the PSC’s major recent decisions.)

Each member of the commission serves a six-year term, though elections have been on hold since 2022 due to a lawsuit filed under the Voting Rights Act, which alleges that the commission’s statewide elections dilute the power of Black voters. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the suit, and the state passed a law that lays out a new schedule for PSC elections beginning in 2025, meaning all commissioners will serve beyond their elected term. Though Black people make up roughly a third of Georgia’s population, the PSC has had only two Black members in its 145-year history, both appointed by governors to fill a vacancy. All five current members are Republicans.

Governor 

Elected; next on the ballot 2026

For years, environmental advocates have been demanding that Georgia develop a climate action plan, as dozens of states have done. In 2023, Governor Brian Kemp’s administration started putting one together, buoyed by federal dollars made available under the Inflation Reduction Act. The state’s priority plan was due in March, with the full plan due next year. 

Governors have authority to set a state’s regulations and policies. For example, governors in other states have also set emissions targets, like in neighboring North Carolina, where Governor Roy Cooper issued a 2018 executive order aiming to cut emissions, which was later followed by legislative action with longer-term goals.

A conservative Republican, Kemp doesn’t talk much about climate change. But he has aggressively courted the electric vehicle industry, luring battery plants and companies like the electric automaker Rivian. He said his intention is for Georgia to become the “electric mobility capital of America.” 

Governors appoint several of the positions on this list; they also get an occasional opportunity to influence the makeup of the PSC, filling vacancies before an election can be held.

Attorney general

Elected; next on the ballot 2026

An attorney general is the main legal counsel to state government agencies and legislatures. In some states, attorneys general have addressed the climate crisis by joining the legal battle against fossil fuel companies for the damage created by greenhouse gas emissions: This year, for instance, Michigan is set to become the ninth state whose attorney general is suing fossil fuel companies for allegedly covering up harms caused by their emissions. 

Georgia’s attorney general, Chris Carr, has often opposed federal regulations, including those related to climate and environment. Carr joined a lawsuit in 2024, along with a couple dozen attorneys general of Republican-led states, seeking to block a Biden administration EPA rule that would reduce emissions from coal and natural gas power plants. He has also criticized and challenged other climate-friendly federal moves, like the Biden administration’s 2021 moratorium on oil and gas leasing and drilling permits on federal land.

Agriculture commissioner

Elected; next on the ballot 2026

The agriculture commissioner oversees the Department of Agriculture. In Georgia, the department is not only overseeing the agriculture industry, it’s also responsible for inspecting and testing gas pumps — and, now, electric vehicle charging stations — to ensure consumers are getting a fair shake. A 2023 law requires the department to have a plan for EV charger inspections in place by 2025, which the commissioner says would make it the first state in the country to implement such a program. 

Georgia’s commissioner Tyler Harper is one of a dozen Republican agriculture commissioners around the country challenging major banks (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and others) that joined an alliance “committed to financing ambitious climate action” to get the global economy to net-zero greenhouse emissions by the middle of the century, arguing it creates undue burden on farmers. Agriculture commissioners take many approaches to stewarding the state’s farmers and farmworkers. Commissioners in states including Colorado and Michigan, for example, have launched programs to boost farmers’ resilience in the face of warming temperatures. 

Committee chairs

Elected; all Georgia House and Senate members are on the ballot every two years, next in fall 2024

While most of the other offices with power over Georgia’s climate positioning won’t be on the ballot this year, Georgia House and Senate members will be. 

In the state Legislature, two committees — the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee and the House Energy, Utilities, and Telecommunications Committee — are responsible for issues within the Public Service Commission’s ambit, like legislation involving gas or electrical utilities. The chairs are Republicans Bill Cowsert and Don Parsons, respectively; they’re both up for reelection this fall. In the 2024 legislative session, Parsons sponsored legislation to get more specific information listed on Georgia Power bills, which failed. Both House and Senate committees unanimously approved a bill that would have restored a consumer advocate program for the PSC.

Environmental Protection Division

Director is nominated by the governor and approved by the Board of Natural Resources

A division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the EPD is tasked with drawing up the state’s climate plan. It’s collaborating with researchers at Georgia Tech. The university leads Drawdown Georgia, a project to track emissions and create options to reduce them, which could halve the state’s carbon emissions by 2030. The EPD also has other responsibilities, including overseeing Georgia Power’s coal ash cleanup efforts and monitoring emissions from factories and power plants. Jeff Cown, the current director, was appointed by Governor Kemp in 2023. He is a longtime employee of the natural resources department. 

Treasurer

Appointed by the State Depository Board (comprised of the governor, insurance commissioner, state accounting officer, commissioner of banking and finance, transportation commissioner, and treasurer)

The stewards of pension funds for public-sector workers like teachers, firefighters, and government employees, state treasurers have the ability to steer investments away from dirty energy, and the leverage to push larger asset management companies to divest from fossil fuels.

Georgia’s Republican treasurer, Steve McCoy, has joined about two dozen state financial officers around the country in what a 2022 New York Times investigation described as efforts to “thwart climate action.” In 2022, McCoy signed onto a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission objecting to a proposed policy requiring companies to disclose climate risks to their investors, saying among other things that the proposed rule “indulges in irrational climate exceptionalism, elevating climate issues to a place of prominence in disclosures that they do not deserve.”

Mayors and local sustainability officials

Elected and appointed, respectively

Some of Georgia’s cities have taken up the mantle of addressing climate change in recent years — countrywide, mayors and their administrations have led climate and energy planning. Atlanta has a goal to obtain 100 percent clean energy by 2035. The city has a cabinet-level chief sustainability officer and a clean energy advisory board, all appointed by the mayor. The Atlanta Regional Commission — whose board contains elected reps from around the 29-county metro area, and is currently chaired by the mayor of Atlanta — is in the midst of developing its own regional climate plan. Savannah has also set renewable energy targets for 2050, and has an office of sustainability and a clean energy program manager; Athens-Clarke County has a sustainability office and director.

Utility consumer advocate

This isn’t a position that exists — yet. But when the idea of establishing a consumer advocate within the Georgia Public Service Commission came up in the most recent legislative session, it garnered bipartisan support, even if it failed to make it across the finish line. It’s not a new concept: A consumer utility counsel existed until 2008, when it fell victim to Recession-era belt-tightening. Advocates say it would give the public a stronger voice to challenge things like frequent hikes in electricity rates. PSC commissioners, though, argue that consumer perspectives are sufficiently represented by the commission’s advocacy staff, which is not appointed or elected.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The people who control Georgia’s climate and energy plans on Jul 24, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Fire Disrupts UN Climate Talks Just as Negotiators Reach Critical Final Days

Fire has disrupted United Nations climate talks, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Fire disrupted United Nations climate talks in Brazil on Thursday, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements. Officials said no one was hurt.The fire was reported in an area of pavilions where sideline events are held during the annual talks, known this year as COP30. Organizers soon announced that the fire was under control, but fire officials ordered the entire site evacuated for safety checks and it wasn't clear when conference business would resume.Viliami Vainga Tone, with the Tonga delegation, had just come out of a high-level ministerial meeting when dozens of people came thundering past him shouting about the fire. He was among people pushed out of the venue by Brazilian and United Nations security forces.Tone called time the most precious resource at COP and said he was disappointed it's even shorter due to the fire.“We have to keep up our optimism. There is always tomorrow, if not the remainder of today. But at least we have a full day tomorrow,” Tone told The Associated Press.A few hours before the fire, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to compromise and “show willingness and flexibility to deliver results,” even if they fall short of the strongest measures some nations want.“We are down to the wire and the world is watching Belem,” Guterres said, asking negotiators to engage in good faith in the last two scheduled days of talks, which already missed a self-imposed deadline Wednesday for progress on a few key issues. The conference, with this year's edition known as COP30, frequently runs longer than its scheduled two weeks.“Communities on the front lines are watching, too — counting flooded homes, failed harvests, lost livelihoods — and asking, ‘how much more must we suffer?’” Guterres said. "They’ve heard enough excuses and demand results.” On contentious issues involving more detailed plans to phase out fossil fuels and financial aid to poorer countries, Guterres said he was “perfectly convinced” that compromise was possible and dismissed the idea that not adopting the strongest measures would be a failure.Guterres was more forceful in what he wanted rich countries to do for poor countries, especially those in need of tens of billions of dollars to adapt to the floods, droughts, storms and heat waves triggered by worsening climate change. He continued calls to triple adaptation finance from $40 billion a year to $120 billion a year.“No delegation will leave Belem with everything it wants, but every delegation has a duty to reach a balanced deal,” Guterres said.“Every country, especially the big emitters, must do more,” Guterres said.Delivering overall financial aid — with an agreed goal of $300 billion a year — is one of four interconnected issues that were initially excluded from the official agenda. The other three are: whether countries should be told to toughen their new climate plans; dealing with trade barriers over climate and improving reporting on transparency and climate progress.More than 80 countries have pushed for a detailed “road map” on how to transition away from fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, which are the chief cause of warming. That was a general but vague agreement two years ago at the COP in Dubai. Guterres kept referring to it as already being agreed to in Dubai, but did not commit to a detailed plan, which Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pushed for earlier in a speech.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.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Engineered microbes could tackle climate change – if we ensure it’s done safely

Engineering microbes to soak up more carbon, boost crop yields and restore former farmland is appealing. But synthetic biology fixes must be done thoughtfully

Yuji Sakai/GettyAs the climate crisis accelerates, there’s a desperate need to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, both by slashing emissions and by pulling carbon out of the air. Synthetic biology has emerged as a particularly promising approach. Despite the name, synthetic biology isn’t about creating new life from scratch. Rather, it uses engineering principles to build new biological components for existing microorganisms such as bacteria, microbes and fungi to make them better at specific tasks. By one recent estimate, synthetic biology could cut more carbon than emitted by all passenger cars ever made – up to 30 billion tonnes – through methods such as boosting crop yields, restoring agricultural land, cutting livestock methane emissions, reducing the need for fertiliser, producing biofuels and engineering microbes to store more carbon. According to some synthetic biologists, this could be a game-changer. But will it prove to be? Technological efforts to “solve” the climate problem often verge on the improbably utopian. There’s a risk in seeing synthetic biology as a silver bullet for environmental problems. A more realistic approach suggests synthetic biology isn’t a magic fix, but does have real potential worth exploring further. Engineering microorganisms is a controversial practice. To make the most of these technologies, researchers will have to ensure it’s done safely and ethically, as my research points out. What potential does synthetic biology have? Earth’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural processes soak up over half of all carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. Synthetic biology could make these natural sinks even more effective. Some researchers are exploring ways to modify natural enzymes to rapidly convert carbon dioxide gas into carbon in rocks. Perhaps the best known example is the use of precision fermentation to cut methane emissions from livestock. Because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, these emissions account for roughly 12% of total warming potential from greenhouse emissions. Bioengineered yeasts could absorb up to 98% of these emissions. After being eaten by cattle or other ruminants these yeasts block production of methane before it can be belched out. Synthetic biology could even drastically reduce how much farmland the world needs by producing food more efficiently. Engineered soil microbes can boost crop yields at least by 10–20%, meaning more food from less land. Precision fermentation can be used to produce clean meat and clean milk with much lower emissions than traditional farming. Engineered microbes have the potential to boost crop yields considerably. Collab Media/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-ND If farms produce more on less land, excess farmland can be returned to nature. Wetlands, forests and native grasslands can store much more carbon than farmland, helping tackle climate change. Synthetic biology can be used to modify microbe and algae species to increase their natural ability to store carbon in wetlands and oceans. This approach is known as natural geoengineering. Engineered crops and soil microbes can also lock away much more carbon in the roots of crops or by increasing soil storage capacity. They can also reduce methane emissions from organic matter and tackle pollutants such as fertiliser runoff and heavy metals. Sounds great – what’s the problem? As researchers have pointed out, using this approach will require a rollout at massive scale. At present, much work has been done at smaller scale. These engineered organisms need to be able to go from Petri dishes to industrial bioreactors and then safely into the environment. To scale, these approaches have to be economically viable, well regulated and socially acceptable. That’s easier said than done. First, engineering organisms comes with the serious risk of unintended consequences. If these customised microbes release their stored carbon all at once during a drought or bushfire, it could worsen climate change. It would be very difficult to control these organisms if a problem emerges after their release, such as if an engineered microbe began outcompeting its rivals or if synthetic genes spread beyond the target species and do unintended damage to other species and ecosystems. It will be essential to tackle these issues head on with robust risk management and forward planning. Second, synthetic biology approaches will likely become products. To make these organisms cheaply and gain market share, biotech companies will have an incentive to focus on immediate profits. This could lead companies to downplay actual risks to protect their profit margins. Regulation will be essential here. Third, some worthwhile approaches may not appeal to companies seeking a return on investment. Instead, governments or public institutions may have to develop them to benefit plants, animals and natural habitats, given human existence rests on healthy ecosystems. Which way forward? These issues shouldn’t stop researchers from testing out these technologies. But these risks must be taken into account, as not all risks are equal. Unchecked climate change would be much worse, as it could lead to societal collapse, large-scale climate migration and mass species extinction. Large scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now essential. In the face of catastrophic risks, it can be ethically justifiable to take the smaller risk of unintended consequences from these organisms. But it’s far less justifiable if these same risks are accepted to secure financial returns for private investors. As time passes and the climate crisis intensifies, these technologies will look more and more appealing. Synthetic biology won’t be the silver bullet many imagine it to be, and it’s unlikely it will be the gold mine many hope for. But the technology has undeniable promise. Used thoughtfully and ethically, it could help us make a healthier planet for all living species. Daniele Fulvi receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, and his current project investigates the ethical dimensions of synthetic biology for climate mitigation. He also received a small grant from the Advanced Engineering Biology Future Science Platform at CSIRO. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

Exclusive-Europe Plans Service to Gauge Climate Change Role in Extreme Weather

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme...

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme weather events like heatwaves and extreme rain, and experts say this could help governments set climate policy, improve financial risk assessments and provide evidence for use in lawsuits.Scientists with the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service told Reuters the service can help governments in weighing the physical risks posed by worsening weather and setting policy in response. "It's the demand of understanding when an extreme event happens, how is this related to climate change?" said the new service's technical lead, Freja Vamborg.The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.The service will perform attribution science, which involves running computer simulations of how weather systems might have behaved if people had never started pumping greenhouse gases into the air and then comparing those results with what is happening today.Funded for about 2.5 million euros over three years, Copernicus will publish results by the end of next year and offer two assessments a month - each within a week of an extreme weather event.For the first time, "there will be an attribution office operating constantly," said Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service. "Climate policy is unfortunately again a very polarized topic," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London who helped to pioneer the scientific approach but is not involved in the new EU service. She welcomed the service's plans to partner with national weather services of EU members along with the UK Met and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre."From that point of view, it also helps if the governments do it themselves and just see themselves really the evidence from their own weather services," Otto said. Some independent climate scientists and lawyers cheered the EU move. "We want to have the most information available," said senior attorney Erika Lennon at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law."The more information we have about attribution science, the easier it will be for the most impacted to be able to successfully bring claims to courts."By calculating probabilities of climate change impacting weather patterns, the approach also helps insurance companies and others in the financial sector.In a way, "they're already using it" with in-house teams calculating probabilities for floods or storms, said environmental scientist Johan Rockstroem with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research."Financial institutions understand risk and risk has to be quantified, and this is one way of quantifying," Rockstroem said.In litigation, attribution science is also being used already in calculating how much a country's or company's emissions may have contributed to climate-fuelled disasters.The International Court of Justice said in July that attribution science is legally viable for linking emissions with climate extremes - but it has yet to fully be tested in court. A German court in May dismissed a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit against German utility RWE for emissions-driven warming causing Andean glaciers to thaw. The case had used attribution science in calculating the damage claim, but the court said the claim amount was too low to take the case forward.So "the court never got to discussing attribution science in detail and going into whether the climate models are good enough, and all of these complex and thorny questions," said Noah Walker-Crawford, a climate litigation researcher at the London School of Economics. (Reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen and Kate Abnett in Belem, Brazil; Writing by Katy Daigle; Editing by David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer is running for governor

Billionaire hedge fund founder, climate change warrior and major Democratic donor Tom Steyer is running for governor. Fossil fuel and migrant detention facility investments will likely draw attacks from his fellow Democrats.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer announced Wednesday that he is running for governor of California, arguing that he is not beholden to special interests and can take on corporations that are making life unaffordable in the state.“The richest people in America think that they earned everything themselves. Bulls—, man. That’s so ridiculous,” Steyer said in an online video announcing his campaign. “We have a broken government. It’s been bought by corporations and my question is: Who do you think is going to change that? Sacramento politicians are afraid to change up this system. I’m not. They’re going to hate this. Bring it on.” Protesters hold placards and banners during a rally against Whitehaven Coal in Sydney in 2014. Dozens of protesters and activists gathered downtown to protest against the controversial massive Maules Creek coal mine project in northern New South Wales. (Saeed Khan / AFP/Getty Images) Steyer, 68, founded Farallon Capital Management, one of the nation’s largest hedge funds, and left it in 2012 after 26 years. Since his departure, he has become a global environmental activist and a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes. But the hedge firm’s investments — notably a giant coal mine in Australia that cleared 3,700 acres of koala habitat and a company that runs migrant detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will make him susceptible to political attack by his gubernatorial rivals. Steyer has expressed regret for his involvement in such projects, saying it was why he left Farallon and started focusing his energy on fighting climate change. Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer addresses a crowd during a presidential primary election-night party in Columbia, S.C. (Sean Rayford / Getty Images) Steyer previously flirted with running for governor and the U.S. Senate but decided against it, instead opting to run for president in 2020. He dropped out after spending nearly $342 million on his campaign, which gained little traction before he ended his run after the South Carolina primary.Next year’s gubernatorial race is in flux, after former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla decided not to run and Proposition 50, the successful Democratic effort to redraw congressional districts, consumed all of the political oxygen during an off-year election.Most voters are undecided about who they would like to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for reelection because of term limits, according to a poll released this month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. Steyer had the support of 1% of voters in the survey. In recent years, Steyer has been a longtime benefactor of progressive causes, most recently spending $12 million to support the redistricting ballot measure. But when he was the focus of one of the ads, rumors spiraled that he was considering a run for governor.In prior California ballot initiatives, Steyer successfully supported efforts to close a corporate tax loophole and to raise tobacco taxes, and fought oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.His campaign platform is to build 1 million homes in four years, lower energy costs by ending monopolies, make preschool and community college free and ban corporate contributions to political action committees in California elections.Steyer’s brother Jim, the leader of Common Sense Media, and former Biden administration U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are aiming to put an initiative on next year’s ballot to protect children from social media, specifically the chatbots that have been accused of prompting young people to kill themselves. Newsom recently vetoed a bill aimed at addressing this artificial intelligence issue.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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