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.

We might be closer to changing course on climate change than we realized

News Feed
Thursday, April 25, 2024

The world might soon see a sustained decline in greenhouse gas emissions. | Eric Yang/Getty Images Greenhouse gas emissions might have already peaked. Now they need to fall — fast. Earth is coming out of the hottest year on record, amplifying the destruction from hurricanes, wildfires, heat waves, and drought. The oceans remain alarmingly warm, triggering the fourth global coral bleaching event in history. Concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have reached levels not seen on this planet for millions of years, while humanity’s demand for the fossil fuels that produce this pollution is the highest it has ever been. Yet at the same time, the world may be closer than ever to turning a corner in the effort to corral climate change. Last year, more solar panels were installed in China — the world’s largest carbon emitter — than the US has installed in its entire history. More electric vehicles were sold worldwide than ever. Energy efficiency is improving. Dozens of countries are widening the gap between their economic growth and their greenhouse gas emissions. And governments stepped up their ambitions to curb their impact on the climate, particularly when it comes to potent greenhouse gases like methane. If these trends continue, global emissions may actually start to decline. Climate Analytics, a think tank, published a report last November that raised the intriguing possibility that the worst of our impact on the climate might be behind us. “We find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions,” authors wrote. “This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions.” “It was actually a result that surprised us as well,” said Neil Grant, a climate and energy analyst at Climate Analytics and a co-author of the report. “It’s rare in the climate space that you get good news like this.” The inertia behind this trend toward lower emissions is so immense that even politics can only slow it down, not stop it. Many of the worst-case climate scenarios imagined in past decades are now much less likely. The United States, the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter, has already climbed down from its peak in 2005 and is descending further. In March, Carbon Brief conducted an analysis of how US greenhouse gas emissions would fare under a second Trump or a second Biden administration. They found that Trump’s stated goals of boosting fossil fuel development and scrapping climate policies would increase US emissions by 4 billion metric tons by 2030. But even under Trump, US emissions are likely to slide downward. This is a clear sign that efforts to limit climate change are having a durable impact. Carbon Brief US emissions are on track to decline regardless of who wins the White House in November, but current policies are not yet in line with US climate goals. However, four months into 2024, it seems unlikely that the world has reached the top of the mountain just yet. Fossil fuel demand is still poised to rise further in part because of more economic growth in developing countries. Technologies like artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies are raising overall energy demand as well. Still, that it’s possible at all to conceive of bending the curve in the near term after more than a century of relentless growth shows that there’s a radical change underway in the relationship between energy, prosperity, and pollution — that standards of living can go up even as emissions from coal, oil, and gas go down. Greenhouse gases are not a runaway rocket, but a massive, slow-turning cargo ship. It took decades of technology development, years of global bickering, and billions of dollars to wrench its rudder in the right direction, and it’s unlikely to change course fast enough to meet the most ambitious climate change targets. But once underway, it will be hard to stop. We might be close to an inflection point on greenhouse gas emissions Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have risen in tandem with wealth and an expanding population. Since the 1990s and the 2000s, that direct link has been separated in at least 30 countries, including the US, Singapore, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Their economies have grown while their impact on the climate has shrunk per person. In the past decade, the rate of global carbon dioxide pollution has held fairly level or risen slowly even as the global economy and population has grown by wider margins. Worldwide per capita emissions have also held steady over the past decade. “We can be fairly confident that we’ve flattened the curve,” said Michael Lazarus, a senior scientist at SEI US, an environmental think tank, who was not involved in the Climate Analytics study. Still, this means that humanity is adding to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and doing so at close to its fastest pace ever. It’s good that this pace is at least not accelerating, but the plateau implies a world that will continue to get warmer. To halt rising temperatures, humans will have to stop emitting greenhouse gases, zeroing their net output, and even start withdrawing the carbon previously emitted. The world thus needs another drastic downward turn in its emissions trajectory to limit climate change. “I wouldn’t get out any balloons or fireworks over flattening emissions,” Lazarus said. Then there’s the clock. In order to meet the Paris climate agreement target of limiting warming this century to less than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) on average above pre-industrial temperatures, the world must slash carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That means power generators, trucks, aircraft, farms, construction sites, home appliances, and manufacturing plants all over the world will have to rapidly clean up. The current round of international climate commitments puts the planet on track to warm by 5.4°F (3°C) by the end of the century. That’s a world in which the likelihood of a major heat wave in a given year would more than double compared to 2.7°F of warming, where extreme rainfall events would almost double, and more than one in 10 people would face threats from sea level rise. “That puts us in this race between the really limited time left to bend the emissions curve and start that project towards zero, but we are also seeing this sort of huge growth, an acceleration in clean technology deployment,” Grant said. “And so we wanted to see which of these factors is winning the race at the moment and where we are at.” Grant and his team mapped out three scenarios. The first is a baseline based on forecasts from the International Energy Agency on how current climate policies and commitments would play out. It shows that fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions would reach a peak this year, but emissions of other heat-trapping gases like methane and hydrofluorocarbons would keep rising, so overall greenhouse gas emissions would level off. The second scenario, dubbed “low effort,” builds on the first, but also assumes that countries will begin to fulfill their promises under agreements like the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane pollution 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030 and the Kigali Amendment to phase out HFCs. Under this pathway, total global emissions reach their apex in 2025. The third scenario imagines a world where clean technology — renewable energy, electric vehicles, energy efficiency — continues gaining ground at current rates, outstripping energy demand growth and displacing coal, oil, and natural gas. That would mean greenhouse gases would have already peaked in 2023 and are now on a long, sustained decline. Climate Analytics Global greenhouse gas emissions are likely to fall in the coming years, but the rate of decline depends on policies and technology development. The stories look different when you zoom in to individual countries, however. While overall emissions are poised to decline, some developing countries will continue to see their output grow while wealthier countries make bigger cuts. As noted, the US has already climbed down from its peak. China expects to see its emissions curve change directions by 2025. India, the world’s third largest greenhouse gas emitter, may see its emissions grow until 2045. All three of these pathways anticipate some sort of peak in global emissions before the end of the decade, illustrating that the world has many of the tools it needs to address climate change and that a lot of work in deploying clean energy and cleaning up the biggest polluters is already in progress. There will still be year-to-year variations from phenomena like El Niño that can raise electricity demand during heat waves or shocks like pandemics that reduce travel or conflicts that force countries to change their energy priorities. But according to the report, the overall trend over decades is still downward. To be clear, the Carbon Analytics study is one of the more optimistic projections out there, but it’s not that far off from what other groups have found. In its own analysis, the International Energy Agency reports that global carbon dioxide emissions “are set to peak this decade.” The consulting firm McKinsey anticipates that greenhouse gases will begin to decline before 2030, also finding that 2023 may have been the apogee. Global emissions could just as easily shoot back up if governments and companies give up on their goals Within the energy sector, Ember, a think tank, found that emissions might have peaked in 2022. Research firm Rystad Energy expects that fossil fuel emissions will reach their pinnacle in 2025. Bending the curve still requires even more deliberate, thoughtful efforts to address climate change — policies to limit emissions, deploying clean energy, doing more with less, and innovation. Conversely, global emissions could just as easily shoot back up if governments and companies give up on their goals. “Peaking is absolutely not a guarantee,” Grant said. And if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, even at a slower rate, Earth will continue heating up. It means more polar ice will melt, lifting sea levels along every ocean, increasing storm surges and floods during cyclones. It means more dangerous heat waves. It means more parts of the world will be unlivable. We’re close to bending the curve — but that doesn’t mean the rest will be easy There are some other caveats to consider. One is that it’s tricky to simply get a full tally of humanity’s total impact on the climate. Scientists can measure carbon dioxide concentrations in the sky, but it’s tougher to trace where those molecules came from. Burning fossil fuels is the dominant way humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Since they’re closely tracked commercial commodities, there are robust estimates for their contributions to climate change and how they change over time. But humans are also degrading natural carbon-absorbing ecosystems like mangrove forests. Losing carbon sinks increases the net amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Altering how we use land, like clearing forests for farms, also shifts the balance of carbon. These changes can have further knock-on effects for the environment, and ecosystems like tropical rainforests could reach tipping points where they undergo irreversible, self-propagating shifts that limit how much carbon they can absorb. All this makes it hard to nail down a specific time frame for when emissions will peak and what the consequences will be. There’s also the thorny business of figuring out who is accountable for which emissions. Fossil fuels are traded across borders, and it’s not always clear whose ledger high-polluting sectors like international aviation and shipping should fall on. Depending on the methodology, these gray areas can lead to double-counting or under-counting. “It’s very difficult to get a complete picture, and even if we get the little bits and pieces, there’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Luca Lo Re, climate and energy analyst at the IEA. Even with these uncertainties, it’s clear that the scale of the course correction needed to meet climate goals is immense. According to the Climate Analytics report, to meet the 2030 targets for cutting emissions, the world will need to stop deforestation, stop any new fossil fuel development, double energy efficiency, and triple renewable energy. Another way to illustrate the enormity of this task is the Covid-19 pandemic. The world experienced a sudden drop in global emissions as travel shut down, businesses closed, people stayed home, and economies shrank. Carbon dioxide output has now rebounded to an even higher level. Reducing emissions on an even larger scale without increasing suffering — in fact, improving welfare for more people — will require not just clean technology but careful policy. Seeing emissions level off or decline in many parts of the world as economies have grown in recent decades outside of the pandemic is an important validation that the efforts to limit climate change are having their intended effect. “Emissions need to decrease for the right reasons,” Lo Re said. “It is reasonable to believe our efforts are working.” The mounting challenge is that energy demand is poised to grow. Even though many countries have decoupled their emissions from their GDPs, those emissions are still growing. Many governments are also contending with higher interest rates, making it harder to finance new clean energy development just as the world needs a massive buildout of solar panels, wind turbines, and transmission lines. And peaking emissions isn’t enough: They have to fall. Fast. The longer it takes to reach the apex, the steeper the drop-off needed on the other side in order to meet climate goals. Right now, the world is poised to walk down a gentle sloping hill of greenhouse gas emissions instead of the plummeting roller coaster required to limit warming this century to less than 2.7°F/1.5°C. It’s increasingly unlikely that this goal is achievable. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change To meet global climate targets, greenhouse gas emissions need to fall precipitously. Finally, the ultimate validation of peak greenhouse emissions and a sustained decline can only be determined with hindsight. “We can’t know if we peaked in 2023 until we get to 2030,” said Lazarus. The world may be closer than ever to bending the curve on greenhouse gas emissions downward, but those final few degrees of inflection may be the hardest. The next few years will shape the warming trajectory for much of the rest of the century, but obstacles ranging from political turmoil to international conflict to higher interest rates could slow progress against climate change just as decarbonization needs to accelerate. “We should be humble,” Grant said. “The future is yet unwritten and is in our hands.”

Smoke pouring out of chimneys at a power plant.
The world might soon see a sustained decline in greenhouse gas emissions. | Eric Yang/Getty Images

Greenhouse gas emissions might have already peaked. Now they need to fall — fast.

Earth is coming out of the hottest year on record, amplifying the destruction from hurricanes, wildfires, heat waves, and drought. The oceans remain alarmingly warm, triggering the fourth global coral bleaching event in history. Concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have reached levels not seen on this planet for millions of years, while humanity’s demand for the fossil fuels that produce this pollution is the highest it has ever been.

Yet at the same time, the world may be closer than ever to turning a corner in the effort to corral climate change.

Last year, more solar panels were installed in China — the world’s largest carbon emitter — than the US has installed in its entire history. More electric vehicles were sold worldwide than ever. Energy efficiency is improving. Dozens of countries are widening the gap between their economic growth and their greenhouse gas emissions. And governments stepped up their ambitions to curb their impact on the climate, particularly when it comes to potent greenhouse gases like methane. If these trends continue, global emissions may actually start to decline.

Climate Analytics, a think tank, published a report last November that raised the intriguing possibility that the worst of our impact on the climate might be behind us.

“We find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions,” authors wrote. “This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions.”

“It was actually a result that surprised us as well,” said Neil Grant, a climate and energy analyst at Climate Analytics and a co-author of the report. “It’s rare in the climate space that you get good news like this.”

The inertia behind this trend toward lower emissions is so immense that even politics can only slow it down, not stop it. Many of the worst-case climate scenarios imagined in past decades are now much less likely.

The United States, the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter, has already climbed down from its peak in 2005 and is descending further. In March, Carbon Brief conducted an analysis of how US greenhouse gas emissions would fare under a second Trump or a second Biden administration.

They found that Trump’s stated goals of boosting fossil fuel development and scrapping climate policies would increase US emissions by 4 billion metric tons by 2030. But even under Trump, US emissions are likely to slide downward.

This is a clear sign that efforts to limit climate change are having a durable impact.

Graph showing US emissions pathways under Biden and Trump, both of which lead to lower emissions, but Biden markedly more so than Trump. Carbon Brief
US emissions are on track to decline regardless of who wins the White House in November, but current policies are not yet in line with US climate goals.

However, four months into 2024, it seems unlikely that the world has reached the top of the mountain just yet. Fossil fuel demand is still poised to rise further in part because of more economic growth in developing countries. Technologies like artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies are raising overall energy demand as well.

Still, that it’s possible at all to conceive of bending the curve in the near term after more than a century of relentless growth shows that there’s a radical change underway in the relationship between energy, prosperity, and pollution — that standards of living can go up even as emissions from coal, oil, and gas go down.

Greenhouse gases are not a runaway rocket, but a massive, slow-turning cargo ship. It took decades of technology development, years of global bickering, and billions of dollars to wrench its rudder in the right direction, and it’s unlikely to change course fast enough to meet the most ambitious climate change targets.

But once underway, it will be hard to stop.

We might be close to an inflection point on greenhouse gas emissions

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have risen in tandem with wealth and an expanding population. Since the 1990s and the 2000s, that direct link has been separated in at least 30 countries, including the US, Singapore, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Their economies have grown while their impact on the climate has shrunk per person.

In the past decade, the rate of global carbon dioxide pollution has held fairly level or risen slowly even as the global economy and population has grown by wider margins. Worldwide per capita emissions have also held steady over the past decade.

“We can be fairly confident that we’ve flattened the curve,” said Michael Lazarus, a senior scientist at SEI US, an environmental think tank, who was not involved in the Climate Analytics study.

Still, this means that humanity is adding to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and doing so at close to its fastest pace ever.

It’s good that this pace is at least not accelerating, but the plateau implies a world that will continue to get warmer. To halt rising temperatures, humans will have to stop emitting greenhouse gases, zeroing their net output, and even start withdrawing the carbon previously emitted. The world thus needs another drastic downward turn in its emissions trajectory to limit climate change. “I wouldn’t get out any balloons or fireworks over flattening emissions,” Lazarus said.

Then there’s the clock. In order to meet the Paris climate agreement target of limiting warming this century to less than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) on average above pre-industrial temperatures, the world must slash carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That means power generators, trucks, aircraft, farms, construction sites, home appliances, and manufacturing plants all over the world will have to rapidly clean up.

The current round of international climate commitments puts the planet on track to warm by 5.4°F (3°C) by the end of the century. That’s a world in which the likelihood of a major heat wave in a given year would more than double compared to 2.7°F of warming, where extreme rainfall events would almost double, and more than one in 10 people would face threats from sea level rise.

“That puts us in this race between the really limited time left to bend the emissions curve and start that project towards zero, but we are also seeing this sort of huge growth, an acceleration in clean technology deployment,” Grant said. “And so we wanted to see which of these factors is winning the race at the moment and where we are at.”

Grant and his team mapped out three scenarios. The first is a baseline based on forecasts from the International Energy Agency on how current climate policies and commitments would play out. It shows that fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions would reach a peak this year, but emissions of other heat-trapping gases like methane and hydrofluorocarbons would keep rising, so overall greenhouse gas emissions would level off.

The second scenario, dubbed “low effort,” builds on the first, but also assumes that countries will begin to fulfill their promises under agreements like the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane pollution 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030 and the Kigali Amendment to phase out HFCs. Under this pathway, total global emissions reach their apex in 2025.

The third scenario imagines a world where clean technology — renewable energy, electric vehicles, energy efficiency — continues gaining ground at current rates, outstripping energy demand growth and displacing coal, oil, and natural gas. That would mean greenhouse gases would have already peaked in 2023 and are now on a long, sustained decline.

Graph showing global emissions pathways under different scenarios. Climate Analytics
Global greenhouse gas emissions are likely to fall in the coming years, but the rate of decline depends on policies and technology development.

The stories look different when you zoom in to individual countries, however. While overall emissions are poised to decline, some developing countries will continue to see their output grow while wealthier countries make bigger cuts.

As noted, the US has already climbed down from its peak. China expects to see its emissions curve change directions by 2025. India, the world’s third largest greenhouse gas emitter, may see its emissions grow until 2045.

All three of these pathways anticipate some sort of peak in global emissions before the end of the decade, illustrating that the world has many of the tools it needs to address climate change and that a lot of work in deploying clean energy and cleaning up the biggest polluters is already in progress.

There will still be year-to-year variations from phenomena like El Niño that can raise electricity demand during heat waves or shocks like pandemics that reduce travel or conflicts that force countries to change their energy priorities. But according to the report, the overall trend over decades is still downward.

To be clear, the Carbon Analytics study is one of the more optimistic projections out there, but it’s not that far off from what other groups have found. In its own analysis, the International Energy Agency reports that global carbon dioxide emissions “are set to peak this decade.” The consulting firm McKinsey anticipates that greenhouse gases will begin to decline before 2030, also finding that 2023 may have been the apogee.

Within the energy sector, Ember, a think tank, found that emissions might have peaked in 2022. Research firm Rystad Energy expects that fossil fuel emissions will reach their pinnacle in 2025.

Bending the curve still requires even more deliberate, thoughtful efforts to address climate change — policies to limit emissions, deploying clean energy, doing more with less, and innovation. Conversely, global emissions could just as easily shoot back up if governments and companies give up on their goals.

“Peaking is absolutely not a guarantee,” Grant said. And if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, even at a slower rate, Earth will continue heating up. It means more polar ice will melt, lifting sea levels along every ocean, increasing storm surges and floods during cyclones. It means more dangerous heat waves. It means more parts of the world will be unlivable.

We’re close to bending the curve — but that doesn’t mean the rest will be easy

There are some other caveats to consider. One is that it’s tricky to simply get a full tally of humanity’s total impact on the climate. Scientists can measure carbon dioxide concentrations in the sky, but it’s tougher to trace where those molecules came from.

Burning fossil fuels is the dominant way humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Since they’re closely tracked commercial commodities, there are robust estimates for their contributions to climate change and how they change over time.

But humans are also degrading natural carbon-absorbing ecosystems like mangrove forests. Losing carbon sinks increases the net amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Altering how we use land, like clearing forests for farms, also shifts the balance of carbon. These changes can have further knock-on effects for the environment, and ecosystems like tropical rainforests could reach tipping points where they undergo irreversible, self-propagating shifts that limit how much carbon they can absorb.

All this makes it hard to nail down a specific time frame for when emissions will peak and what the consequences will be.

There’s also the thorny business of figuring out who is accountable for which emissions. Fossil fuels are traded across borders, and it’s not always clear whose ledger high-polluting sectors like international aviation and shipping should fall on. Depending on the methodology, these gray areas can lead to double-counting or under-counting.

“It’s very difficult to get a complete picture, and even if we get the little bits and pieces, there’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Luca Lo Re, climate and energy analyst at the IEA.

Even with these uncertainties, it’s clear that the scale of the course correction needed to meet climate goals is immense.

According to the Climate Analytics report, to meet the 2030 targets for cutting emissions, the world will need to stop deforestation, stop any new fossil fuel development, double energy efficiency, and triple renewable energy.

Another way to illustrate the enormity of this task is the Covid-19 pandemic. The world experienced a sudden drop in global emissions as travel shut down, businesses closed, people stayed home, and economies shrank. Carbon dioxide output has now rebounded to an even higher level.

Reducing emissions on an even larger scale without increasing suffering — in fact, improving welfare for more people — will require not just clean technology but careful policy. Seeing emissions level off or decline in many parts of the world as economies have grown in recent decades outside of the pandemic is an important validation that the efforts to limit climate change are having their intended effect. “Emissions need to decrease for the right reasons,” Lo Re said. “It is reasonable to believe our efforts are working.”

The mounting challenge is that energy demand is poised to grow. Even though many countries have decoupled their emissions from their GDPs, those emissions are still growing. Many governments are also contending with higher interest rates, making it harder to finance new clean energy development just as the world needs a massive buildout of solar panels, wind turbines, and transmission lines.

And peaking emissions isn’t enough: They have to fall. Fast.

The longer it takes to reach the apex, the steeper the drop-off needed on the other side in order to meet climate goals. Right now, the world is poised to walk down a gentle sloping hill of greenhouse gas emissions instead of the plummeting roller coaster required to limit warming this century to less than 2.7°F/1.5°C. It’s increasingly unlikely that this goal is achievable.

Graph showing how much global emissions need to fall in order to meet Paris agreement targets. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
To meet global climate targets, greenhouse gas emissions need to fall precipitously.

Finally, the ultimate validation of peak greenhouse emissions and a sustained decline can only be determined with hindsight. “We can’t know if we peaked in 2023 until we get to 2030,” said Lazarus.

The world may be closer than ever to bending the curve on greenhouse gas emissions downward, but those final few degrees of inflection may be the hardest.

The next few years will shape the warming trajectory for much of the rest of the century, but obstacles ranging from political turmoil to international conflict to higher interest rates could slow progress against climate change just as decarbonization needs to accelerate.

“We should be humble,” Grant said. “The future is yet unwritten and is in our hands.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Twice as effective as nets: shark-spotting drones to become ‘permanent fixture’ on Queensland beaches

State government says expanded use of shark nets and drum lines will continue despite evidence of deadly impact on other marine lifeSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereQueensland will roll out shark-spotting drones to more beaches, after a major study found drones detected more than double the number of sharks caught in adjacent nets.But while drones would become a “permanent fixture” of the state’s shark-control operations, the Department of Primary Industries said Queensland would continue to rely on “traditional measures like nets and drum lines”, despite evidence of their deadly impact on dolphins, whales, turtles and dugongs. Continue reading...

Queensland will roll out shark-spotting drones to more beaches, after a major study found drones detected more than double the number of sharks caught in adjacent nets.But while drones would become a “permanent fixture” of the state’s shark-control operations, the Department of Primary Industries said Queensland would continue to rely on “traditional measures like nets and drum lines”, despite evidence of their deadly impact on dolphins, whales, turtles and dugongs.Rob Adsett, the chief remote pilot at Surf Life Saving Queensland, said the drones were a “really good surveillance tool” that gave lifeguards a better view of everything at the beach. Drones were used to collect data on beach conditions and manage risks associated with sharks, with the added benefit of aiding search and rescue efforts.Drone operations ran parallel to life-saving services, he said. “So we’ll start our patrols at the start of the day when they put up the flags. And we’ll fly through to about lunchtime, and that’s mainly due to weather conditions.”The ability to see and follow sharks – and suspected sharks – in real time meant lifeguards could manage safety risks without being “overcautious”, Adsett said.“Previously if there was a shark reported, we might close the beach for an hour, but then find out that there wasn’t a shark at all.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterDrones were an effective shark-control measure that offered additional safety benefits compared with shark nets, according to the Queensland government report, which monitored 10 beaches across four years.When large sharks were spotted by drone, and thought to be a risk to the public, people could be evacuated from the water. Drones also provided additional benefits, the report said, assisting with rescuing swimmers from rip currents and searching for missing people.Shark nets had a substantially higher environmental impact, with 123 non-target animals (not including non-target sharks) caught in nets across 10 beaches during the trial period.The bycatch, as it is termed, included 13 dolphins, eight whales, 45 turtles, two dugongs, dozens of rays and other fish, including many species protected under federal environment laws. About half were dead at the time of retrieval.In May, the Crisafulli government announced it would expand the use of shark nets, a position it has maintained despite more than a dozen whales becoming entangled in recent months. The state now deploys 27 nets and 383 drum lines designed to catch and kill seven target species of shark.The trial, which ran from 2020 to 2024, was part of the state government’s commitment to research to compare nonlethal alternatives with traditional shark-control measures.During the trial there were 676 shark sightings by drones, including 190 for sharks larger than 2 metres, which was significantly higher than those caught in adjacent Shark Control Program gear – 284 and 133, respectively.“Drones provide a high-definition aerial view of a wide expanse of ocean, allowing the detection of sharks in real-time, whilst having negligible impact on the environment and non-target species,” the report said.Prof Robert Harcourt, a marine ecologist at Macquarie University, said the results were “no surprise” and similar to what had been found in New South Wales.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 promotion“If you’ve got clear water and sandy beaches, then drones are very effective at detecting sharks and other animals.”“Using drones, you don’t stop anything coming in, but you can see what’s there and can tell people to get out of the water – which means nobody gets hurt.“The nets are there, not to protect the beach, but to fish it,” he said.Harcourt said it was good that Queensland was trialling drones as a shark management tool, and it would be even better if the state considered switching to “smart drum lines” – where animals were caught, tagged and released – instead of lethal nets.Prof Charlie Huveneers, who leads the Southern Shark Ecology Group at Flinders University, said while there was “no silver bullet” that could eliminate all shark-bite risk, the study added to the scientific literature reaffirming that drones should be part of the toolbox of measures.“Drones are non-lethal to targeted or bycatch species and can detect sharks enabling people to leave the water, but are not suitable in all conditions (eg strong wind, rain, low water visibility).”A Department of Primary Industries spokesperson said the use of shark-spotting drones would be expanded from 10 to 20 beaches under the 2025 to 2029 shark management plan, “becoming a permanent fixture of Shark Control Program operations, complementing traditional measures like nets and drum lines”.“While drones are a good augmentation of the program, they cannot replace core program gear such as drum lines and nets at this time,” the spokesperson said.Australian research published last year into 196 unprovoked shark incidents found no difference in unprovoked human-shark interactions at netted versus non-netted beaches since the 2000s.

Brazil claims to be an environmental leader. Are they?

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

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

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

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

“I think it's important that we're honest with the world and we declare failure,” said Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research in Germany. He said warming's harms are happening faster and more severely than scientists predicted.But diplomats aren't giving up.“We’re actually in the direction that we established in Paris at a speed that none of us could have predicted,” said former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who helped shepherd that agreement, which requires countries to come up with plans to fight warming.But the speed of humanity's climate-fighting effort is slower than the acceleration of climate's harms, she said, adding that means that "the gap between the progress that we see on the ground and where we ought to be, that gap is still there and widening.” U.N. Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said that the world is “obviously falling behind.”“We're sort of sawing the branch on which we are sitting,” she said.The planet's annual temperature jumped about 0.46 degrees Celsius (0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2015, one of the biggest 10-year temperature hikes on record, according to data from the European climate service Copernicus. This year will be either the second or third hottest on record, Copernicus calculated. Each year since 2015 has been hotter than the year of the Paris climate deal. Earth has been hit repeatedly with more costly, dangerous and extreme weather. The decade since 2015 has seen the most Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and the most billion-dollar weather disasters in the United States, according to records kept by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. America has been hit by 193 disasters that cost at least $1 billion in the past 10 years for a total bill of $1.5 trillion.Sea level rise is accelerating. In the past decade, the world's seas have gone up 40 millimeters (1.6 inches). It may not sound like much, but it's enough water to fill 30 lakes the size of Lake Erie, according to Steve Nerem, a University of Colorado professor who researches sea level rise. Success in bending the curve But there's also a lot that officials celebrate in the past 10 years.Renewable energy is now cheaper in most places than polluting coal, oil and natural gas. Last year, 74% of the growth in electricity generated worldwide was from wind, solar and other green choices, according to two July U.N. reports. In 2015, a half-million electric vehicles were sold globally, and last year it was 17 million, the report said.“There's no stopping it,” said former U.S. Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern, who helped negotiate the Paris Agreement. “You cannot hold back the tides.”In 2015, U.N. projections figured that Earth was on path for almost 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since the mid-1800s. Now, the world is on track to warm 2.8 degrees (5 degrees Fahrenheit), maybe a little less if countries do as they promise.“Ten years ago we had a more orderly pathway for staying away from 1.5 degrees C entirely," Rockstrom said. "Now we are 10 years later. We have failed.”A report examining dozens of indicators of progress — such as solar and wind power installations — in transitioning from a fossil fuel economy found that none were on pace for keeping warming at or below the 1.5 degree goal. The report by the Bezos Earth Fund, Climate Analytics, the Climate High-Level Champions, ClimateWorks Foundation and World Resources Institute found that 35 of them are at least going in the right direction, although far too slowly.“Technologies, once hypothetical, are now becoming a reality. And the good news is that reality has outpaced many of the projections a decade ago," said report author Kelly Levin, science and data chief at the Bezos Earth Fund. "But it’s not nearly fast enough for what’s needed.”Methane levels in the atmosphere increased 5.2% from 2015 to 2024, while carbon dioxide levels jumped 5.8% in the same time, according to NOAA data.Several developing countries, including the United States and the rest of the developed world, have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by about 7% since 2015, but other countries have seen their emissions soar, with China's going up 15.5% and India's soaring 26.7%, according to data from the Global Carbon Project. Oxfam International looked at global emissions by income level and found that the richest 0.1% of people increased their carbon emissions by 3% since 2015. Meanwhile, the poorest 10% of people reduced their emissions by 30%.“The Paris Agreement itself has underperformed,” said climate negotiations historian Joanna Depledge of the University of Cambridge in England. “Unfortunately, it is one of those half-full, half-empty situations where you can’t say it’s failed. But then nor can you say it’s dramatically succeeded.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

When Scarcity Blurs the Line Between Right and Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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.