Published

2 years ago

January 17, 2024

Alice Rush

Chris Skidmore has been both UK energy and science minister and led an independent government review into net-zero published in 2023. He recently resigned as a Conservative MP in protest at a UK government bill to boost new oil and gas production.

On realising climate change’s importance: “I realised that, actually, this was a mainstream issue now that was driving economic change and development.”
On meeting Sir David Attenborough: “He just said: ‘Well, just get on with [tackling climate change]. You haven’t got any time, just get on with it.’”
On the 2022 Conservative leadership contest: “I took a purposeful decision then that I was going to do all I could to try and protect and preserve net-zero.”
On being asked to conduct a net-zero review: “I was going to grip that with two hands, regardless of who was prime minister.”
On the government’s response to the review: “They haven’t really gripped that narrative in a way that I hoped they would.”
On government action on climate change: “I think the government has been guilty of ‘green hushing’ in that, actually, the department and the excellent civil servants and officials who are working tirelessly on this agenda are getting on with it.”
On resigning: “I’ve never been someone to rock the boat. But it is the accumulation of all different sides of the narrative building up that meant that I didn’t really feel that there was a choice.”
On the prime minister’s reaction: “I’d asked previously for a meeting with the prime minister earlier in the year, but had received no response.”
On the government’s decision to push new oil and gas: “There’s been a pivot towards trying to create a culture war on the back of net-zero as somehow being a measure that is juxtaposed to energy security. It is completely false.”
On the government’s reluctance to reduce oil and gas emissions: “There’s been a consistent pattern of favouritism towards one particular sector at the expense of others.”
On the next election: “You will probably see at the general election, a false narrative between claiming that the £28bn investment in green industries and technologies is somehow going to be a cost and a burden. Well, it’s not.”
On GB News and TalkTV: “I refuse to go on them, they’re not proper media channels. Whereas most of my colleagues seem to be presenting them.”
On UK newspapers critical of climate action: “[They’re] trying to undermine, make it personal, use misinformation.”
On UK climate policy in five years: “I’m still optimistic that the UK can return to its leadership position if it wants to.”

Carbon Brief: You’ve said in the past that you’ve been on a journey when it comes to seeing climate change as an important issue. Can you please explain that journey?

Chris Skidmore: I first became an MP nearly 14 years ago and I focused a lot locally on the environment from that sort of perspective of the countryside. My constituency was on the edge of Bristol, between Bristol and Bath, and I had campaigned on issues around the protection of the countryside and the green belt. To be honest with you, at that time 14 years ago, I wasn’t aware of the science that was developing around climate change. I was sort of aware of the Paris Agreement happening and [then-secretary of state for energy and climate change] Amber Rudd coming in to meet [then-chancellor] George Osborne when I was the parliamentary private secretary for the Treasury.

But I think, for me, I became science innovation research minister in 2018 and you get the chance to go around the country and meet lots of fantastic academics and researchers, but also start-ups and scale-ups, so I think that was when I began to sort of register that action on climate change wasn’t just a green issue. I think the challenge has been in the past with politics in the UK is – and this is not a criticism – you see the Green Party as holding the flame for looking at issues around climate change. And I realised that, actually, this was a mainstream issue now that was driving economic change and development. I’d always written about research and development and the importance of spending more on R&D – actually, people criticise me for the writing a chapter in Britannia Unchained, but if you looked at that chapter, Buccaneers, is it’s all about how the UK should invest more money in R&D, like Israel, in order to get a rate of return and get new economies. And I started to realise a lot of the work was around decarbonisation, tackling climate change, new forms of renewable clean power, energy – whether it’s new nuclear, whether that’s solar. And so then when I had this opportunity to become interim energy minister in 2019, I seized it with both hands and I told the chief whip Greg Clark that I’ll be able to do both jobs together. Because I saw the opportunity to really push forwards on decarbonisation. And, at that time, I then had the chance to sign net-zero into law. And I’ve always said, when I go around and do talks, I’ve never expected that to have the impact that it had.

I left government in 2020. I was involved then in the all-party group on the environment. I think that was probably part of the journey. I was no longer a government minister, but then I was able to build relationships with [Green Party politician] Caroline Lucas, with the members of the Labour Party, which then brought me to that journey of then having the net-zero review. It was an independent review, but people were obviously naturally sceptical – as a Conservative MP, how can I be independent? So I really tried to go out and meet the SNP, the Welsh Labour government, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrat Party to really demonstrate that this would be cross-party and that I would stand up to my own party. I was going to set out the truth and the reality of what needs to be done and I wouldn’t pull any punches. During the review, we had that vote on fracking and I refused to back a confidence motion. I was expecting to lose the party whip and be sacked at that moment in time. So to me, it’s not a surprise that I’ve gone now.

Zoom screenshot from interview with Chris Skidmore

For some people who maybe haven’t followed climate policy in detail, it seems like a sudden moment that I’ve taken this snap decision. But actually, going back to 2022, I’ve been at a point where I’ve said that I’m more interested in conserving the planet than conservatism – and that I was going to put net-zero front and centre of my own political values and philosophy. And that’s what I’ve done. And the inevitable consequence of following that journey – which began to accelerate up to Rishi Sunak’s net-zero row-back back in September – was that I was going to have to stand on my principles and that I couldn’t remain part of a party that was taking decisions that were so juxtaposed to my own values and what I believed.

CB: In that journey, can you think of one standout moment – a scientific paper or a talk perhaps – that really convinced you of the importance of climate change, that made you think: ‘Gosh, this is actually a really big problem.’?

CS: When I was science minister, before I became energy minister – so it must have been in that early 2019 period – David Attenborough came into the House of Commons. I said it would be great if I could sit down and have a chat with him.

As science minister, I was responsible for the British Antarctic Survey. I think the one moment for me, along with that meeting with David Attenborough, was that the UK government funded this big Antarctic research laboratory that was then built on an iceberg. And then they had to abandon it. And I was basically told – it wasn’t then public knowledge – that these cracks had opened up. They’d spent millions of pounds on this research station only to find four years later that it’s going to be impossible to use. I thought this is just accelerating far faster than anyone thought. If people thought they could build a research station on this glacier that then now had to be abandoned, this is definitely something that needs more serious focus.

Then I met Attenborough, through the British Antarctic Survey, in the House of Commons. I said to Attenborugh: “Is there anything you’d like me to focus on?” And he just said: “Well, just get on with it. You haven’t got any time, just get on with it.” And I think the way he said that to me made me sort of realise that there wasn’t really any time to be waiting or holding endless consultations.

Then there was the net-zero moment itself. I didn’t realise the impact it would have. That’s driven me to realise that the leadership position the UK can take is so precious because net-zero went viral after we became the first G7 country [to commit to it]. If we can deliver that impact with net-zero, we could have done so with oil and gas. And that’s why I have this incredible frustration that, if it wasn’t for this small amount of oil and gas that we’re trying to extract from the North Sea, we could have had a net-zero moment on defossilisation and the phase-out of fossil fuels. Also, there was a moment when we brought all of the NGOs into a room. Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace. And I said to them: “There is a moment now where the prime minister wishes to achieve net-zero, but if you say it’s not good enough, then it probably is never going to happen.” There are challenges on both sides with net-zero, I recognise for some people it doesn’t go far enough or fast enough and for others, it’s too far too fast. But there was this moment where I felt a sense of recognition in the room that people were going to have to leave their own organisational pride at the door and that we’d all have to work together. Net-zero wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for people coming together. And, if we could achieve that with net-zero in one moment in time where people didn’t fall apart opposing each other, then we could do the same elsewhere. So I think probably two perspectives, one from the scientific perspective and then one from this opportunity of cross-party and cross-organisational collaboration.

CB: As you mentioned, former prime minister Liz Truss instructed you to conduct a review into net-zero. What was your sense of the reasons behind that decision at the time?

CS: Just to rewind back a couple of months, I’d set up the net-zero support group. Because, in January 2022, there was a story in the Guardian that was front-page – and also ran significantly in the BBC – that said: “Tory MPs rowback on net-zero.” It was talking about this net-zero scrutiny group, which had produced a letter signed by about five MPs. I remember thinking: “Not in my name is this going to happen.” So I set up this net-zero support group, which ran for a little bit until I then became chair of the all-party group on the environment. And then Boris Johnson fell. They had the leadership contest – and I took a purposeful decision then that I was going to do all I could to try and protect and preserve our net-zero commitment. So that would mean risking my own political capital to ensure that that happened. So I organised a hustings that I got [COP26 president and Conservative politician] Alok Sharma to chair – that was on the hottest day of the year in the summer when parts of east London were on fire. I organised a Conservative environment pledge, one of the pledges was to agree to net-zero by 2050. It got to a point where we had commitments from Rishi Sunak and from Liz Truss. Liz Truss said that she wanted to do net-zero by 2050 in a way that was pro-business, pro-growth. She basically had this pro-business pro-growth message. And then I initially backed Rishi Sunak. I was then highly annoyed that, having met with him, he didn’t tell me that he was going to come out publicly and say he wanted a ban on onshore wind. I felt that was not an accurate reflection of what he’d said to me in private about net-zero. And Liz Truss was going to win. And I took a decision – again, one that sort of burned through my political capital – to defect because I wanted to make sure that I might have a set opportunity to own and lead the policy [on net-zero]. I didn’t want to become a minister again. I’ve been there and done that.

So, she rang me up and she’d like me to lead this independent review on the basis of the commitment she made that she wanted to do net-zero by 2050 in a way that was pro-business and pro-growth. And I asked how long I would get to do it. I said: “Can I have six months?” And she said: “No, you can have three.” It was something that, once the prime minister had asked me to do that, I felt that I got to the place where I needed to be, which was to return to mark my homework having set the net-zero commitment. I wasn’t involved with the net-zero strategy, I was out of government in 2021. So I now have this moment to come back to provide the detail, in terms of that strategy and the pathways. And I was going to grip that with two hands, regardless of who was prime minister.

CB: Do you feel that the conclusions of your net-zero review have been listened to?

CS: I think on the face of it, I did my own analysis of the government’s official response – having an official government response that was recommendation by recommendation doesn’t always happen. I mean, where was the government’s response to the Dieter Helm review on the cost of energy? They didn’t even respond to it in the end. I didn’t want to make the mistake of the Helm review, which was to just go off and write something and give it to government. So I’d gone out purposely to make the net-zero review the biggest engagement exercise on net-zero ever conducted. You know, 1,800 responses. It wasn’t my review. That is what I said to people. I said this is your review. And I think, having done that, I placed the government in a position where they would have to recognise it. And also the totality of the review, it was 340 pages of A4, it’s 500 pages in the new book that has come out. I’d gone to see Nick Stern. Some people advised me to do a strategic review. I decided, in the end, it was every area of net-zero that needed to be covered. And as a result, I think the government needed to respond to this moment.

There were 129 recommendations in the review. Initially, the government took forward about 100 of those recommendations. Then they brought in another one, the net-zero duty for Ofgem. There’s a couple they’ve gradually brought in. We also had a timeline for each one because you can accept a recommendation and then kick the can down the road. So they accepted about 70 on the timescale we recommended. We’ve seen some significant shifts on that. Lots of things have come forward: rebalancing costs of electricity and gas, solar task forces, a number of recommendations around nuclear that the government took forward even last week. So I do think the government has been guilty of ‘green hushing’ in that, actually, the department and the excellent civil servants and officials who are working tirelessly on this agenda – who believe passionately in this agenda – are getting on with it and doing it.

The challenge I think for me with the government’s response to the net-zero review was obviously that I’d also set out, in part one, that this is the economic opportunity, that we need a response effectively to the IRA [US Inflation Reduction Act] and the EU Green Deal – and we’ve not really seen that response come forward. So £4.5bn on new technologies or green industries doesn’t really touch the sides in comparison to the US and the EU’s response. And also this long-term programmatic approach – what I call Mission Zero. The certainty, the clarity, the consistency and the continuity – the four C’s that we identified in the review – that should make a mission. We need a 10-year plan for retrofit, we need a 10-year plan for nuclear. The government’s committed to a 20-year plan for CCS [carbon capture and storage], so why not elsewhere? That brings down the costs. It brings down the learning cost of the technology, it brings down the labour market costs – it makes net-zero cheaper to do. And so they haven’t really gripped that narrative in a way that I hoped they would. The 10 missions that I set out are about taking forward long-term planning and long-term frameworks across several spending reviews. So, yes, to the detail of the individual policy recommendations, I think the government response – and this is pre net-zero row-back as well – was welcome. It’s just that wider, more important point to be honest with you, that if you’re going to commit, you’ve got to commit long term.

CB: As you’ve mentioned you’ve had high-level positions under several Conservative prime ministers. How do you think attitudes towards climate change have shifted in that time with each new prime minister?

CS: I guess the challenge is, whose attitude? I’ve seen myself, my constituents and people who contact me, have become more informed, deeply passionate and engaged on this issue. I have also seen an explosion in community projects that are highly capable, a citizen-led focus on delivering on climate change. In a way this groundswell has come up into local authorities. I’ve met with local authorities across the country and have been deeply impressed by their knowledge. I think we’ve seen this silent revolution take place where individuals have come forwards. Also, you know, we’ve seen websites like yourself being able to provide people with the stories, best-practice examples from across the globe. I passionately feel – and one of the reasons why I’ve left politics – that I can do more on the outside now to help deliver and implement and have an impact that I can in Westminster as a single individual independent MP simply voting time and time again against the government. I think also we’ve seen a number of sort of ginger groups set up, whether in the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, that are trying to push on climate action. So I really do feel that the tapestry of organisations and the climate community [is increasing]. I also think academics are getting better at disseminating their research more immediately. I think, previously, there was a time lag between what was in a paper [and the public knowing about it]. As science minister, I was always keen to make sure there was open-access data, but I think the ability for research to get out into the public domain faster is also informing decisions that can be made more effectively.

I think from a politician’s perspective, I have taken a decision partly because I believe that we are living through the challenge of our generation. If we don’t act now we could face catastrophe in 20 years or even closer than that. I think in 10 years time the world’s going to be a very different place and we’re seeing investors already recognising the risks of maintaining investment in fossil fuel. It’s going to get even faster. The next generation is not having any truck with this sort of compromise approach that somehow claims, Janus-faced, that we can somehow, on the one hand, phase out fossil fuels and, at the same time, produce new fossil fuels. It is unpalatable to me, Chris Skidmore five years ago, that I would have taken the decision that I have taken – I’ve never been someone to rock the boat. But it is the accumulation of all different sides of the narrative building up that meant that I didn’t really feel that there was a choice.

CB: As you mentioned, you resigned over the government’s plans to continue to maximise new oil and gas through the offshore petroleum licensing bill. Did you try to raise your objections to the bill with the prime minister prior to resigning and what was his reaction?

CS: I spoke in the King’s speech, saying that I would not back the King’s speech because of this bill. So I was half expecting the whip to be taken away from me at that point. I didn’t vote on the King’s speech, which in itself is a confidence issue, but then I received no reaction from the whips, no one rang me up angrily. I’d asked previously for a meeting with the prime minister earlier in the year, but had received no response. I don’t want to make this about personalities. I’ve said in the past, prime ministers will come and go, if people don’t want to engage with me, I’m not someone who shows any sort of pride in that. I just felt that I’d made my case repeatedly on the floor of the House of Commons. I had a conversation with Claire Cothiuno when she became new energy minister and set out very clearly my opposition to new oil and gas licences in my conversation with her.

But there does come a point where you can no longer argue black is white and continue in a party. I think it’s quite also clear from my comments that it would be the greatest mistake of [Sunak’s] premiership, if he rowed back on some of the commitments on net-zero – and they did that in the summer. So it shouldn’t have come as any surprise that I took the decision that I had to take. But, ultimately, that’s a decision for them. If they wish to engage with me the ball is in their court. They weren’t going to change. They weren’t going to somehow remove the bill. There’s no way you can amend that bill to make it somehow more palatable. And so, I had to take a decision, both to resign the whip and stand down, in order to demonstrate that we can’t [do this] as politicians in the UK – where we could have led [by phasing out fossil fuels], given that we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel of oil that’s not even going to be sold on domestic markets. The narrative was so false and so wrong, the Twitter graphics that were going out claiming: “This oil is ours.” Unless we’re going to bring in a bill to nationalise that oil, that is deeply mistaken. I couldn’t play a part in that.

There were other issues like the Rwanda Bill. Equally, I had spoken out about that and I didn’t vote for that either. But this is the reason why I feel strongly and passionately. If I’d stayed as an independent, people would have said: “You’ve changed party allegiance. You should resign your seat.” And, actually, 14 years ago, I introduced a bill myself saying if you change your political allegiance, you should have an automatic byelection. So I’ve stood by that principle as well. And I’m not having any truck with anyone that claims that I should have somehow stayed because it’s up to my constituents, having chosen Conservative, to have that opportunity to reelect the MP that they choose. I’m empowering my constituents and the point here is that I tried my hardest to get across the importance of this issue that was only raised further at COP28, but they continued to push forward.

CB: Why do you think the government is set on maximising new oil and gas despite, as you lay out in your letter, the clear case that it will do little to help energy and economic security?

CS: I think decisions are taken at the top and there was a clear change in government policy as a result of a change in leadership. So, again, I don’t want to go into sort of personalities and it’s up to journalists like yourself to try to explore those reasons. I don’t know myself why those individual decisions were taken by Number 10. They were not necessarily taken by BEIS [the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – which has now been split into the Department for Energy Security and Net-Zero, the Department for Science Innovation and Technology and the Department for Business and Trade]. But obviously there’s been a pivot towards trying to create a culture war on the back of net-zero as somehow being a measure that is juxtaposed to energy security. It is completely false. Net-zero is energy security. There couldn’t be any stronger way to deliver energy security than diversification of supply and moving away from foreign-owned volatile fossil fuels. But this demonstration of creating a department of net-zero and energy security as if they were juxtaposed…They fit together.

But we’re in the run up to a general election. The Labour Party would have been clear that there should be no new fossil fuel licences. A really important point is that no one has ever said that we shouldn’t be using our existing fossil fuel on the net-zero balanced pathway. But everyone has said no additional new fossil fuel licences. And this blurring of the lines – somehow claiming that you’re going to cost 200,000 jobs. Those jobs will be lost in 10 years’ time because private investors will have disinvested in fossil fuels in the North Sea. These will be stranded assets – as well as stranded communities. And it makes me angry that people are playing a culture war, claiming that, on the other side, somehow those that back net-zero are not thinking this through. Of course, we know we thought the production emissions discussion is a false one because, ultimately, in that case, why not buy all your oil and gas from Norway? which is the cleanest and low-carbon product.

But all the recommendations in my review around [the oil and gas sector, such as] bringing forward a methane flaring ban – which has been in place in Norway since 1971 – the government refused to do it. I backed the CCC’s [Climate Change Committee] recommendations that we should move further faster on electrification and decarbonising oil and gas. But the government backed the North Sea Transition Authority’s deal, which was drawn up by the sector itself, marking its own homework. There’s a real challenge around that gap, which is basically the government has allowed the sector [to do as it pleases]. And I’m not demonising that sector, it is just that everyone should be treated fairly. If every industry is expected to decarbonise and be part of the emissions trading scheme, why should there be an exemption for one particular sector? I said we should create a net-zero fund on the back of the tax on fossil-fuel companies and that should be then hypothecated into net-zero projects. Again, the government refused to take it forward. So there’s been a consistent pattern of favouritism towards one particular sector at the expense of others. And we need to have a just transition. A just transition means treating everyone equally and recognising that everyone’s got their role to play – and no one should have one particular advantage. But on that jobs point, I’m extremely worried that this becomes a similar situation to what happened with coal. In that there is not enough fossil fuels to be extracted, they will become evermore expensive. And at a time when everyone else is moving their investments into renewables and clean technology and clean power, we will be spending taxpayers money on tax breaks for industries that will be rapidly out of date. We should be transitioning those jobs. They are highly-skilled, fantastic workers. They could be working both on renewable clean power and decarbonisation as well. And if we leave it too late, those communities will pay the price. And I’m incredibly concerned that this is short-term politics at the expense of long-term security – not just energy security, but the job security of this country.

CB: What role do you see climate change playing in the next general election?

CS: I think that the lines have been drawn now. My resignation from the House of Commons, I hope, will reflect the point that not all Conservatives who believe that Conservatism should be about conserving the planet agree on this strategy. There is a chance that the government might wish to change its mind, we’ll see what happens in the run up to the election. Obviously, they’ve changed their mind on a number of other attitudes on the back of relaunches that took place last year. I think the challenge is going to be to what extent this is a domestic election versus a foreign affairs election. There’s a number of issues in the Middle East that could produce black swan moments, we’ll have to wait and see. There is also a key challenge that I’m interested in, from an economic point of view – put aside issues of culture – which is, do you invest to make things cheaper in the longer term, saving taxpayers money or do you claim that that investment is somehow borrowing and a cost on taxpayers? And we’ve begun to see this narrative develop on the battle lines. I personally believe that the Labour Party’s decision to come out and say that we should be investing in green industries, in the technologies and jobs of tomorrow, is the right one. I can’t deny that I’ve made that case around investment in the past – in R&D, when I was science minister. If you get this right and you bring in inward investment, the UK can be a true leader and also develop huge opportunities for regeneration across the country – jobs, growth – otherwise we get left behind. You will probably see at the general election, a false narrative between claiming that the £28bn investment in green industries and technologies is somehow going to be a cost and a burden. Well, it’s not. Anyone just needs to read my net-zero review to recognise you need to even spend more than that in the longer term, the CCC set that out as you go forwards to 2050. But, equally, my review stated that if we delay this spend, it’s going to cost billions and potentially add 28 base percentage points to debt-to-GDP ratios. So there’s an economic case to be won, as well as a values case, at this election.

CB: Carbon Brief analysis published recently found that right-wing newspapers in the UK published a record number of editorials criticising actions to tackle climate change in 2023. What do you think of the role of the media in casting doubt over the benefits of net-zero?

CS: I think there’s a challenge with some of the media. You have this new media that’s developed very fast – GB News, Talk TV. I refuse to go on them, they’re not proper media channels. Whereas most of my colleagues seem to be presenting them. That creates content that then creates that funnel mechanism that exists on social media, by which people can identify with particular conspiracies or causes that propagate misinformation and disinformation. It’s a huge challenge.

Mainstream media, how to tackle that challenge is equally problematic. Because we’ve had a number of papers – I’m not going to necessarily name them – that are on a relentless crusade, claiming that net-zero is a culture war and a cost. They’ve got particular commentators who write personal attacks. There were a number of personal attacks written about my resignation in the mainstream press that were not balanced. I think there’s a challenge with those who are against or have an agenda in claiming the action in climate is [wrong] – they’re either the delayers or they’re the deniers. It’s a continual push. And, also, [they’re] trying to undermine, make it personal, use misinformation. Whereas, on the other hand, with certain charities and NGOs, once a decision that’s been made that is the right one, they bank it and move on. And they’re not fighting the same fight. On the one hand, negative information on climate and net-zero is relentless, whereas those who know that the case is the right one [aren’t doing anything], it’s not at the moment an equal process. There needs to be a greater challenge around how to push harder from those that know [what is right].

I try my best to do that myself. I go around the country making the case for net-zero. I will use the regional local press as well. I’m determined to make sure that I can play my part in 2024. Again, as I did with the net-zero review, showing that net-zero is an opportunity, it’s not a cost. That it is a benefit. It’s going to make people warmer, in terms of having better insulated homes, it’s going to make them wealthier, in terms of lower bills. It’s not going to make them richer or poorer. I don’t want to necessarily be fighting a culture war on the terms of the individuals that I know are wrong and creating false narratives. But equally, putting the case out there, the media needs to embrace that. Also, they need to not give an equal platform to people who’ve only got three mates in a pub or to a party that has no elected MPs. Why should they be given an equal platform to mainstream scientific opinion that recognises the challenge we face?

CB: Finally, where do you think that the UK’s climate policy will be in five to 10 years and how do you think it will sit within a global picture?

CS: I’m still optimistic that the UK can return to its leadership position if it wants to. We are world-leading in terms of the policy frameworks, the academics, the NGOs, the businesses, everybody looks to us and I think that’s still the case. I hope that, if we can get back to a stage of moving away from this culture war, if there’s a change in administration, if there’s an opportunity to signal that the UK is willing to lead again, then we can. We’ve still got the most ambitious NDC [nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement] and if we can reach that it’s totemic in demonstrating that we can deliver net-zero at the same time as growing the economy.

CB: Thank you so much for your time.

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: Chris Skidmore appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Interview: Chris Skidmore

Greenhouse Gases

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Published

19 hours ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

By Elissa Tennant

Healthy forests are a key part of the climate puzzle — and they’ve been a big part of our advocacy in 2025!

In January of this year, CCL volunteers sent 7,100 messages to Congress urging them to work together to reduce wildfire risk. Soon after, the Fix Our Forests Act was introduced in the House as H.R. 471 and passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 279–141.

At our Conservative Climate Conference and Lobby Day in March, we raised the Fix Our Forests Act as a secondary ask in 47 lobby meetings on Capitol Hill. The next month, an improved version of the bill was then introduced in the Senate as S. 1462 and referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee.

The bill was scheduled for a committee vote in October. CCLers placed more than 2,000 calls to senators on the committee and generated a flurry of local media in their states before the vote. In October, the bill passed the Senate Agriculture Committee with strong bipartisan support.

It’s clear that this legislation has momentum! As the Fix Our Forests Act now awaits a floor vote in the Senate, let’s take a look back at our 2025 advocacy efforts to advance this bill — and why it’s so important.

Protecting forests and improving climate outcomes

Wildfires are getting worse. In the U.S., the annual area burned by wildfires has more than doubled over the past 30 years. In California alone, the acreage burned by wildfires every year has more than tripled over the past 40 years.

American forests currently offset 12% of our annual climate pollution, with the potential to do even more. We need to take action to reduce wildfire, so forests can keep doing their important work pulling climate pollution out of the atmosphere.

The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act:

Protects America’s forests by supporting time-tested tools, like prescribed fire and reforestation, that make our forests healthy and able to better withstand and recover from severe wildfire and other extreme weather.
Protects communities across the nation by reducing wildfire risks to people, homes, and water supplies and adopting new technologies.
Protects livelihoods by supporting rural jobs and recreation areas and sustaining the forests that house and feed us.

CCL supports this bill alongside many organizations including American Forests, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Western Fire Chiefs Association, The Federation of American Scientists and more.

A deeper dive into our efforts

All year long, CCL’s Government Relations staff has been in conversation with congressional offices to share CCL’s perspective on the legislation and understand the opportunities and challenges facing the bill. Our Government Relations team played a key role in helping us understand when and how to provide an extra grassroots push to keep the bill moving.

Starting Sept. 9 through the committee vote, CCLers represented by senators on the Senate Agriculture Committee made 2,022 calls to committee members in support of FOFA. CCL also signed a national coalition letter to Senate leadership in support of the bill, joining organizations like the American Conservation Coalition Action, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and more.

In October, we launched a local media initiative in support of FOFA, focused on states with senators on the Agriculture Committee. Volunteers published letters to the editor and op-eds in California, Minnesota, Colorado, and more. In one state, the senator’s office saw a CCLer’s op-ed in the local newspaper, and reached out to schedule a meeting with those volunteers to discuss the bill! CCL’s Government Relations team joined in to make the most of the conversation.

As soon as the committee vote was scheduled for October 21, our Government Relations staff put out a call for volunteers to generate local endorsement letters from trusted messengers. CCL staff prepared short endorsement letter templates for each state that chapters could personalize and submit to their senator’s office. Each version included clear instructions, contact info, and space for volunteers to add their local context, like a short story or relevant example of how wildfires have impacted their area.

Then, CCL state coordinators worked with the CCL chapters in their states to make sure they prepared and sent the signed letters to the appropriate senate office, and to alert CCL’s Government Affairs staff so they could follow up and keep the conversation going on Capitol Hill.

Individually, our voices as climate advocates struggle to break through and make change. But it’s this kind of coordinated nationwide effort, with well-informed staff partnering with motivated local volunteers, that makes CCL effective at moving the needle in Congress.

On October 21, the Fix Our Forests Act officially passed the Senate Agriculture Committee with a vote of 18-5.

Building on the momentum

After committee passage, FOFA is now waiting to be taken up by the full Senate for a floor vote. It’s not clear yet if it will move as a standalone bill or included in a package of other legislation.

But to continue building support, we spent a large portion of our Fall Conference training our volunteers on the latest information about the bill, and we included FOFA as a primary ask in our Fall Lobby Week meetings.

Volunteers are now messaging all senators in support of FOFA. If you haven’t already, add your voice by sending messages to your senators about this legislation. With strategy, organization, and a group of dedicated people, we can help pass the Fix Our Forests Act, reducing wildfire risk and helping forests remove more climate pollution.

Help us keep the momentum going! Write to your Senator in support of the Fix Our Forests Act.

The post Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025 appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Greenhouse Gases

DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out

Published

1 day ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week

Deadly floods in Asia

MOUNTING DEVASTATION: The Associated Press reported that the death toll from catastrophic floods in south-east Asia had reached 1,500, with Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand most affected and hundreds still missing. The newswire said “thousands” more face “severe” food and clean-water shortages. Heavy rains and thunderstorms are expected this weekend, it added, with “saturated soil and swollen rivers leaving communities on edge”. Earlier in the week, Bloomberg said the floods had caused “at least $20bn in losses”.

CLIMATE CHANGE LINKS: A number of outlets have investigated the links between the floods and human-caused climate change. Agence France-Presse explained that climate change was “producing more intense rain events because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and warmer oceans can turbocharge storms”. Meanwhile, environmental groups told the Associated Press the situation had been exacerbated by “decades of deforestation”, which had “stripped away natural defenses that once absorbed rainfall and stabilised soil”.

‘NEW NORMAL’: The Associated Press quoted Malaysian researcher Dr Jemilah Mahmood saying: “South-east Asia should brace for a likely continuation and potential worsening of extreme weather in 2026 and for many years.” Al Jazeera reported that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies had called for “stronger legal and policy frameworks to protect people in disasters”. The organisation’s Asia-Pacific director said the floods were a “stark reminder that climate-driven disasters are becoming the new normal”, the outlet said.

Around the world

REVOKED: The UK and Netherlands withdrew $2.2bn of financial backing from a controversial liquified natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique, Reuters reported. The Guardian noted that TotalEnergies’ “giant” project stood accused of “fuelling the climate crisis and deadly terror attacks”.
REVERSED: US president Donald Trump announced plans to “significantly weaken” Biden-era fuel efficiency requirements for cars, the New York Times said.
RESTRICTED: EU leaders agreed to ban the import of Russian gas from autumn 2027, the Financial Times reported. Meanwhile, Reuters said it is “likely” the European Commission will delay announcing a plan on auto sector climate targets next week, following pressure to “weaken” a 2035 cut-off for combustion engines.
RETRACTED: An influential Nature study that looked at the economic consequences of climate change has been withdrawn after “criticism from peers”, according to Bloomberg. [The research came second in Carbon Brief’s ranking of the climate papers most covered by the media in 2024.]
REBUKED: The federal government of Canada faced a backlash over an oil pipeline deal struck last week with the province of Alberta. CBC News noted that First Nations chiefs voted “unanimously” to demand the withdrawal of the deal and Canada’s National Observer quoted author Naomi Klein as saying that the prime minister was “completely trashing Canada’s climate commitments”.
RESCHEDULED: The Indonesian government has cancelled plans to close a coal plant seven years early, Bloomberg reported. Meanwhile, Bloomberg separately reported that India is mulling an “unprecedented increase” in coal-power capacity that could see plants built “until at least 2047”.

$518 billion a year

The projected coastal flood damages for the Asia-Pacific region by 2100 if current policies continue, according to a Scientific Reports study covered this week by Carbon Brief.

Latest climate research

More than 100 “climate-sensitive rivers” worldwide are experiencing “large and severe changes in streamflow volume and timing” | Environmental Research Letters
Africa’s forests have switched from a carbon sink into a source | Scientific Reports
Increasing urbanisation can “substantially intensify warming”, contributing up to 0.44C of additional temperature rise per year through 2060 | Communications Earth & Environment

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

A new target for developed nations to triple adaptation finance by 2035, agreed at the COP30 climate summit, would not cover more than a third of developing countries’ estimated needs, Carbon Brief analysis showed. The chart above compares a straight line to meeting the adaptation finance target (blue), alongside an estimate of countries’ adaptation needs (grey), which was calculated using figures from the latest UN Environmental Programme adaptation gap report, which were based on countries’ UN climate plans (called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs).

Spotlight

Inclusivity at the IPCC

This week, Carbon Brief speaks to an IPCC lead author researching ways to improve the experience of global south scientists taking part in producing the UN climate body’s assessments.

Hundreds of climate scientists from around the world met in Paris this week to start work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) newest set of climate reports.

The IPCC is the UN body responsible for producing the world’s most authoritative climate science reports. Hundreds of scientists from across the globe contribute to each “assessment cycle”, which sees researchers aim to condense all published climate science over several years into three “working group” reports.

The reports inform the decisions of governments – including at UN climate talks – as well as the public understanding of climate change.

The experts gathering in Paris are the most diverse group ever convened by the IPCC.

Earlier this year, Carbon Brief analysis found that – for the first time in an IPCC cycle – citizens of the global south make up 50% of authors of the three working group reports. The IPCC has celebrated this milestone, with IPCC chair Prof Jim Skea touting the seventh assessment report’s (AR7’s) “increased diversity” in August.

But some IPCC scientists have cautioned that the growing involvement of global south scientists does not translate into an inclusive process.

“What happens behind closed doors in these meeting rooms doesn’t necessarily mirror what the diversity numbers say,” Dr Shobha Maharaj, a Trinidadian climate scientist who is a coordinating lead author for working group two (WG2) of AR7, told Carbon Brief.

Global south perspective

Motivated by conversations with colleagues and her own “uncomfortable” experience working on the small-islands chapter of the sixth assessment cycle (AR6) WG2 report, Maharaj – an adjunct professor at the University of Fiji – reached out to dozens of fellow contributors to understand their experience.

The exercise, she said, revealed a “dominance of thinking and opinions from global north scientists, whereas the global south scientists – the scientists who were people of colour – were generally suppressed”.

The perspectives of scientists who took part in the survey and future recommendations for the IPCC are set out in a peer-reviewed essay – co-authored by 20 researchers – slated for publication in the journal PLOS Climate. (Maharaj also presented the findings to the IPCC in September.)

The draft version of the essay notes that global south scientists working on WG2 in AR6 said they confronted a number of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) issues, including “skewed” author selection, “unequal” power dynamics and a “lack of respect and trust”. The researchers also pointed to logistical constraints faced by global south authors, such as visa issues and limited access to journals.

The anonymous quotations from more than 30 scientists included in the essay, Maharaj said, are “clear data points” that she believes can advance a discussion about how to make academia more inclusive.

“The literature is full of the problems that people of colour or global south authors have in academia, but what you don’t find very often is quotations – especially from climate scientists,” she said. “We tend to be quite a conservative bunch.”

Road to ‘improvement’

Among the recommendations set out in the essay are for DEI training, the appointment of a “diversity and inclusion ombudsman” and for updated codes of conduct.

Marharaj said that these “tactical measures” need to occur alongside “transformative approaches” that help “address value systems, dismantle power structures [and] change the rules of participation”.

With drafting of the AR7 reports now underway, Maharaj said she is “hopeful” the new cycle can be an improvement on the last, pointing to a number of “welcome” steps from the IPCC.

This includes holding the first-ever expert meeting on DEI this autumn, new mechanisms where authors can flag concerns and the recruitment of a “science and capacity officer” to support WG2 authors.

The hope, Maharaj explained, is to enhance – not undermine – climate science.

“The idea here was to move forward and to improve the IPCC, rather than attack it,” she said. “Because we all love the science – and we really value what the IPCC brings to the world.”

Watch, read, listen

BROKEN PROMISES: Climate Home News spoke to communities in Nigeria let down by the government’s failure to clean up oil spills by foreign companies.

‘WHEN A ROAD GOES WRONG’: Inside Climate News looked at how a new road from Brazil’s western Amazon to Peru has become a “conduit for rampant deforestation and illegal gold mining”.

SHADOWY COURTS: In the Guardian, George Monbiot lamented the rise of investor-state dispute settlements, which he described as “undemocratic offshore tribunals” that are already having a “chilling effect” on countries’ climate ambitions.

Coming up

1-12 December: UN Environment Assembly 7, Nairobi, Kenya
7 December: Hong Kong legislative elections
11 December: Falkland Islands legislative assembly elections

Pick of the jobs

Greenpeace International, engagement manager – climate and energy | Salary: Unknown. Location: Various
The Energy, newsletter editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Australia (remote)
University of Groningen, PhD position in motivating people to contribute to societal transitions | Salary: €3,059-€3,881 per month. Location: Groningen, the Netherlands

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

The post DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out

Greenhouse Gases

Cropped 3 December 2025: Extreme weather in Africa; COP30 roundup; Saudi minister interview

Published

3 days ago

December 3, 2025

Alice Rush

We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

Key developments

COP30 roundup

FOOD OFF THE MENU: COP30 wrapped up in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém, with several new announcements for forest protection, but with experts saying that food systems were seemingly “erased” from official negotiations, Carbon Brief reported. Other observers told the Independent that the lack of mention of food in some of the main negotiated outcomes was “surprising” and “deeply disappointing”. The outlet noted that smallholder farmers spend an “estimated 20 to 40% of their annual income on adaptive measures…despite having done next to nothing to contribute to the climate crisis”.

‘BITTERSWEET’: Meanwhile, Reuters said that the summit’s outcomes for trees and Indigenous peoples were “unprecedented”, but “bittersweet”. It noted that countries had “unlocked billions in new funds for forests” through the Tropical Forest Forever Facility. (For more on that fund, see Carbon Brief’s explainer.) However, the newswire added, “nations failed to agree on a plan to keep trees standing as they have repeatedly promised to do in recent summits”. Mongabay noted that pledges to the new forest fund totalled “less than a quarter of the $25bn initially required for a full-scale rollout”.

‘MIXED OUTCOMES’: A separate piece in Mongabay said that COP30 “delivered mixed outcomes” for Indigenous peoples. One positive outcome was a “historic pledge to recognise Indigenous land tenure rights over 160m hectares” of tropical forest land, the outlet said. This was accompanied by a monetary pledge of $1.8bn to support “Indigenous peoples, local and Afro-descendant communities in securing land rights over the next five years”, it added. However, Mongabay wrote, there were some “major disappointments” around the summit’s outcomes, particularly around the absence of mention of critical minerals and fossil-fuel phaseout in the final texts.

Africa on edge

SOMALIA DROUGHT: Somalia officially declared a drought emergency last month “after four consecutive failed rainy seasons left millions at risk of hunger and displacement”, allAfrica reported, with 130,000 people in “immediate life-threatening need”. According to Al Jazeera, more than 4.5 million people “face starvation”, as “failed rains and heat devastated” the country, with displaced communities also “escaping fighting” in their villages and aid cuts impacting relief. Down to Earth, meanwhile, covered an Amnesty International report that demonstrated that Somalia failed to “implement a functional social-security system for the marginalised, particularly those negatively affected by drought”.

COCOA CRASH: Ivory Coast’s main cocoa harvest is expected to “decline sharply for [the] third consecutive year” due to erratic rainfall, crop disease, ageing farms and poor investment, Reuters reported. Africa Sustainability Matters observed that the delayed implementation of the EU’s deforestation law – announced last week – could impact two million smallholder farmers, who may see “delays in certification processes ripple through payment cycles and export volumes”. Meanwhile, SwissInfo reported that the “disconnect between high global cocoa prices and the price paid to farmers” is leading to “unprecedented cocoa smuggling” in Ghana.

‘FERTILISER CRISIS’: Nyasa Times reported that, “for the first time”, Malawian president Peter Mutharika admitted that the country is “facing a planting season…for which his government is dangerously unprepared”. According to the paper, Mutharika acknowledged that the country is “heading into the rains without adequate fertiliser and with procurement dangerously behind schedule” at a meeting with the International Monetary Fund’s Africa director. “We are struggling with supplies… We are not yet ready in terms of fertiliser,” Mutharika is quoted as saying, with the paper adding that his administration is “overwhelmed” by a fertiliser crisis.

News and views

PLANT TALKS COLLAPSE: “Decade-long” talks aimed at negotiating new rules for seed-sharing “collapsed” after week-long negotiations in Lima, Euractiv reported. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture allows “any actor to access seed samples of 64 major food crops stored in public gene banks”, but “virtually no money flows back to countries that conserve and share seed diversity”, the outlet said. Observers “criticised the closed-door nature of the final talks”, which attempted to postpone a decision on payments until 2027, it added.

UNSUSTAINABLE: The UK food system is driving nature loss and deepening climate change, according to a new WWF report. The report analysed the impacts on nature, climate and people of 10 UK retailers representing 90% of the domestic grocery market. Most of the retailers committed in 2021 to halving the environmental impact of the UK grocery market by 2030. However, the report found that the retailers are “a long way off” on reducing their emissions and sourcing products from deforestation-free areas.

GREY CARBON: A “flurry” of carbon-credit deals “covering millions of hectares of landmass” across Africa struck by United Arab Emirates-based firm Blue Carbon on the sidelines of COP28 “have gone nowhere”, according to a joint investigation by Agence-France Presse and Code for Africa. In Zimbabwe – where the deal included “about 20% of the country’s landmass” – national climate change authorities said that the UAE company’s memorandum of understanding “lapsed without any action”. AFP attempted multiple ways to contact Blue Carbon, but received no reply. Meanwhile, research covered by New Scientist found that Africa’s forests “are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb”.

UK NATURE: The UK government released an updated “environmental improvement plan” to help England “meet numerous legally binding goals” for environmental restoration, BusinessGreen reported. The outlet added that it included measures such as creating “wildlife-rich habitats” and boosting tree-planting. Elsewhere, a study covered by the Times found that England and Wales lost “almost a third of their grasslands” in the past 90 years. The main causes of grassland decline were “increased mechanisation on farms, new agrochemicals and crop-growing”, the Times said.

IN DANGER: The Trump administration proposed changes to the US Endangered Species Act that “could clear the way for more oil drilling, logging and mining” in key species habitats, reported the New York Times. This act is the “bedrock environmental law intended to prevent animal and plant extinctions”, the newspaper said, adding that one of the proposals could make it harder to protect species from future threats, such as the effects of climate change. It added: “Environmental groups are expected to challenge the proposals in court once they are finalised.”

‘ALREADY OVERSTRETCHED’: Producing enough food to feed the world’s growing population by 2050 “will place additional pressure on the world’s already overstretched” resources, according to the latest “state of the world’s land and water resources” report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The report said that degradation of agricultural lands is “creating unprecedented pressure on the world’s agrifood systems”. It also found that urban areas have “more than doubled in size in just two decades”, consuming 24m hectares “of some of the most fertile croplands” in the process.

Spotlight

Saudi minister interviewed

During the second week of COP30 in Belém, Carbon Brief’s Daisy Dunne conducted a rare interview with a Saudi Arabian minister.

Dr Osama Faqeeha is deputy environment minister for Saudi Arabia and chief adviser to the COP16 presidency on desertification.

Carbon Brief: Thank you very much for agreeing to this interview. You represent the Saudi Arabia COP16 presidency on desertification. What are your priorities for linking desertification, biodiversity and climate change at COP30?

Dr Osama Faqeeha: First of all, our priority is to really highlight the linkages – the natural linkage – between land, climate and biodiversity. These are all interconnected, natural pillars for Earth. We need to pursue actions on the three together. In this way, we can achieve multiple goals. We can achieve climate resilience, we can protect biodiversity and we can stop land degradation. And this will really give us multiple benefits – food security, water security, climate resilience, biodiversity and social goals.

CB: Observers have accused Saudi Arabia, acting on behalf of the Arab group, of blocking an ambitious outcome on a text on synergies between climate change and biodiversity loss, under the item on cooperation with international organisations. [See Carbon Brief’s full explanation.] What is your response?

OF: We support synergies in the action plans. We support synergies in the financial flows. We support synergies in the political [outcome]. What we don’t support is trying to reduce all of the conventions. We don’t support dissolving the conventions. We need a climate convention, we need a biodiversity convention and we need a desertification convention. There was this incident, but the discussion continued after that and has been clarified. We support synergies. We oppose dissolution. This way we dilute the issues. No. This is a challenge. But we don’t have to address them separately. We need to address them in a comprehensive way so that we can really have a win-win situation.

CB: But as the president of the COP16 talks on desertification, surely more close work on the three Rio conventions would be a priority for you?

OF: First of all, we have to realise the convention is about land. Preventing land degradation and combating drought. These are the two major challenges.

CB: We’re at COP30 now and we’re at a crucial point in the negotiations where a lot of countries have been calling for a roadmap away from fossil fuels. What is Saudi Arabia’s position on agreeing to a roadmap away from fossil fuels?

OF: I think the issue is the emissions, it’s not the fuel. And our position is that we have to cut emissions regardless. In Saudi Arabia, in our nationally determined contribution [NDC], we doubled [the 2030 emissions reductions target] – from 130MtCO2 to 278MtCO2 – on a voluntary basis. So we are very serious about cutting emissions.

CB: The presidency said that some countries see the fossil-fuel roadmap as a red line. Is Saudi Arabia seeing a fossil-fuel roadmap as a red line for agreement in the negotiations?

OF: I think people try to put pressure on the negotiation to go in one way or another. And I think we should avoid that because, trying to demonise a country, that’s not good. Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Paris Agreement. Saudi Arabia made the Paris Agreement possible. We are committed to the Paris Agreement.

[Carbon Brief obtained the “informal list” of countries that opposed a fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30, which included Saudi Arabia.]

CB: You mention that you feel sometimes the media demonises Saudi Arabia. So could you clarify, what do you hope to be Saudi Arabia’s role in guiding the negotiations to conclusion here at this COP?

OF: I think we have to realise that there is common but differentiated responsibilities. We have developed countries and developing countries. We have to realise that this is very well established in the convention. We can reach the same end point, but with different pathways. And this is what the negotiation is all about. It’s not one size fits all. What works with a certain country may not work with another country. So, I think people misread the negotiations. We, as Saudi Arabia, officially announced that we will reach carbon neutrality by 2060 – and we are putting billions and billions of dollars to reach this goal. But it doesn’t mean that we agree on everything. On every idea. We agree to so many things, you never hear that. Saudi Arabia agrees on one thousand points and we disagree on one point, then suddenly it becomes the news. Now, why does the media do that? Maybe that gives them more attention. I don’t know. But all I can tell you is that Saudi Arabia is part of the process. Saudi Arabia is making the process work.

This interview has been edited for length.

Watch, read, listen

NEW CHALLENGE: CNN discussed the environmental impacts of AI usage and how scientists are using it to conserve biodiversity.

AMAZON COP: In the Conversation, researchers argued that hosting COP30 in the Amazon made the “realities of climate and land-use change jarringly obvious” and Indigenous voices “impossible to ignore”.

DUBIOUS CLAIMS: DeSmog investigated an EU-funded “campaign blitz” that “overstated the environmental benefits of eating meat and dairy, while featuring bizarre and misleading claims”.

WASP’S NEST: In a talk for the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, Prof Seirian Sumner explained the “natural capital” of wasps and why it is important to “love the unlovable parts of nature”.

New science

Climate change can “exacerbate” the abundance and impacts of plastic pollution on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems | Frontiers in Science
The North Sea region accounts for more than 20% of peatland-related emissions within the EU, UK, Norway and Iceland, despite accounting for just 4% of the region’s peatland area | Nature Communications
Economic damages from climate-related disasters in the Brazilian Amazon rose 370% over 2000-22, with farming experiencing more than 60% of total losses | Nature Communications