Welcome to Carbon Brief’s Cropped.
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
Mass coral bleaching event
GLOBAL EVENT: The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced last week that the “world is currently experiencing a global coral bleaching event” – the fourth ever and the second this decade. “Mass bleaching” of reefs in every major ocean basin has been documented since early 2023, according to NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch. Dr Derek Manzello, the Coral Reef Watch coordinator, said: “When these events are sufficiently severe or prolonged, they can cause coral mortality, which hurts the people who depend on the coral reefs for their livelihoods.” However, death is not a foregone conclusion for bleached reefs – corals can recover if the heat stress diminishes. According to the New York Times, “scientists say it’s too soon to estimate what the extent of global mortality will be”.
-
Sign up to Carbon Brief’s free “Cropped” email newsletter. A fortnightly digest of food, land and nature news and views. Sent to your inbox every other Wednesday.
‘MAKE YOU WEEP’: In order to declare a global bleaching event, the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans must all have experienced bleaching in the past year and at least 12% of each basin’s reefs must be at temperatures that can cause bleaching, the New York Times reported. It added: “Currently, more than 54% of the world’s coral area has experienced bleaching-level heat stress in the past year.” Prof Terry Hughes, a coral-reef scientist at James Cook University in Australia, tweeted: “The extent AND severity of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 2024 is by far the worst ever recorded.” Hughes added that the results of the surveys “would make you weep”. Australia’s ABC News reported that “the devastation couldn’t be more clear”.
BROADER IMPACTS: ABC News noted that the widespread bleaching “is a clear reflection of the extraordinary ocean temperatures in 2023, which have been rising for decades due to the burning of fossil fuels”. The onset of El Niño also “deserve[s] the blame”, according to Prof Matt England, a physical oceanographer from the University of New South Wales, who was quoted in the article. In the Conversation, four researchers from the University of Sydney wrote that “the damage done by heat underwater goes much further” than the reefs alone. They have already noted changes in algae and water chemistry at their research station, while “mobile macroinvertebrates”, such as starfish and sea urchins, “are in widespread decline”. They added: “Much of the damage done this summer [to reef ecosystems] will take months or even years to manifest.”
Oceans in focus
PIVOTAL PROTECTION: The Dominican Republic has become the first Caribbean nation to designate 30% of its marine areas as protected, El País reported – expanding its protected area coverage from 10.8% to 30.8% of its territorial waters. That includes a new protected area that spans the border between the Dominican Republic and Colombia, fulfilling an agreement that the two countries signed in 2022, the Spanish-language newspaper added. This part of the ocean “functions as a pivotal region for species connectivity”, Oceanographic wrote. The magazine added that it is “both a feeding ground and travel route” for seabirds, whales and other diverse marine species.
BOTTOM-TRAWLING BAN: Greece will ban bottom trawling – a destructive form of fishing – in its national marine parks by 2026 and in all of its marine protected areas by 2030, making it “the first country to pledge to this”, Euractiv reported. Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis also announced two new marine national parks, increasing the country’s protected waters by 80%. Mitsotakis said: “The ocean has paid a heavy price for its service to humankind. It has been a vital source of life and livelihood. We have not been kind to it in return.” The announcement was made at the “Our Ocean” world conference in Athens.
RATIFICATION RACE: The Our Ocean conference also saw “more than 400 new commitments” of finance for ocean protection, totalling $10bn, according to Reuters. This included 40 commitments from the EU for many activities, “rang[ing] from fighting marine pollution to supporting sustainable fisheries and investments in the so-called blue economy”, the newswire added. At the conference, the EU and 13 other countries’ governments “urged nations…to prioritise the ratification” of the High Seas Treaty, Reuters said. According to the ratification tracker maintained by the High Seas Alliance, the total number of ratifications increased in April to four, with Belize and Seychelles joining early-adopters Palau and Chile. Sixty countries must ratify the agreement before it can take effect.
Spotlight
Latin America and the Caribbean have a new action plan for protecting environmental defenders
In this spotlight, Carbon Brief reports on the main outcomes of the ongoing Conference of the Parties to the Escazú Agreement, established by Latin America and the Caribbean to protect environmental defenders.
The third Conference of the Parties (COP3) to the Escazú Agreement is taking place in Santiago, Chile, from 22 to 24 April.
The Escazú Agreement is a legally binding regional treaty established by Latin American and Caribbean countries in order to protect environmental defenders and promote public participation and access to information on environmental issues. It has the support of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and came into force on 22 April 2021.
Since then, 15 countries have ratified the agreement, including Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico and Ecuador, as well as several Caribbean countries, such as Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for 88% of the world’s environmental and land defenders killings over the previous decade, according to a 2023 report from campaign group Global Witness. The region saw 1,910 killings of defenders between 2012 and 2022, the report noted.
On Tuesday, COP3 saw the approval of the regional action plan on human rights defenders in environmental matters. The document sets out priority areas and strategies to enact article 9 of the Escazú Agreement, which establishes that each party should take action to recognise and protect the rights of environmental defenders and prevent and punish attacks against them.
Graciela Martínez, regional campaigner for the Americas at Amnesty International, told Carbon Brief that the action plan “may be an important step towards the implementation of the Escazú Agreement”. She added that the plan “provides more specific routes for the parties to meet” the agreement – for example, establishing cooperation between parties and recognition of defenders.
Teresita Antazú López, an Indigenous environmental defender of the Yanesha people of the central Peruvian rainforest, told Carbon Brief that Indigenous peoples have a number of demands at this COP. According to López, who was attending the COP as a member of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle, the highest priority is to ensure their effective participation within the negotiations going forward. This includes having an Indigenous caucus to represent them and an Indigenous peoples rapporteur to report on violations in their territories.
As well as public participation and the protection of environmental and land defenders, COP3 has also addressed transparency and access to environmental information.
During a side event hosted by Article 19 Mexico and Central America – an organisation that promotes freedom of expression and access to information – Lourdes Medina, a lawyer specialising in environmental and Indigenous rights, said that if the right to access environmental information is not protected and guaranteed, then other rights are at risk. Medina said:
“The participation of citizens in resistance cannot be guaranteed. There is no adequate mechanism for access to justice and this produces danger and different forms of violence against defenders of human rights in environmental matters.”
News and views
FEELING THE HEAT: Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill preventing local governments in the state from requiring heat-exposure protections for outdoor workers, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The bill was introduced in response to a proposal in Miami-Dade county that would have required employers to provide water and shade breaks to agricultural and construction workers when the heat index is above 95F (35C). More than 90 organisations signed an open letter to the governor saying that removing “local governments’ ability to protect workers from climate-caused extreme heat is inhumane”, according to the newspaper. USA Today wrote that the new law has “frustrated and angered some experts and advocates for construction workers and farmworkers”. It added that “extreme heat kills more people in the US each year than all forms of extreme weather combined”.
ATTRIBUTION IN AFRICA: BBC News covered two new rapid attribution studies from the World Weather Attribution group that focused on Africa. The first found that the ongoing drought in southern Africa that has resulted in crop failures, disease outbreaks and emergency declarations in several countries was influenced by El Niño and not climate change. The second study found that last month’s “deadly heatwave” in west Africa and the Sahel region would have been “impossible” in the absence of human-driven climate change. Meanwhile, “erratic” rain and rising temperatures are putting winegrowers in South Africa’s Western Cape province at risk, according to Agence-France Presse. One winemaker told the website: “If people don’t believe in global warming, they should come to South Africa.”
FOOD CONTROVERSY: Academics from Leiden University and New York University sent a letter to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) “urgently requesting a retraction” of its report on pathways towards lower emissions from livestock, which cites their work. They said the report “seriously distorts” their findings regarding the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of dietary changes and pointed out errors in framing, methodology and data. According to the Guardian, although FAO reports are consulted by international bodies, the organisation “is also mandated to increase livestock productivity so as to bolster nutrition and food security”. A FAO spokesperson told the outlet the institution “will look into the issues raised by the academics and undertake a technical exchange of views with them”.
RE-PEAT: A bill introduced in the UK’s House of Commons last week was the government’s “last chance” to fulfil its promise to ban the sale of peat for gardening uses by the end of the current Parliament, according to the Wildlife Trusts. The legislation was introduced by former environment secretary Theresa Villiers, who noted that “peatlands are the UK’s largest carbon store”, according to the ENDS Report. One conservative politician “asked that it be put on the record that the bill ‘will not go unopposed’”, the outlet added. In the Yorkshire Post, Villiers noted that 95% of respondents to the government’s consultation in 2021 supported such a ban. The bill will be presented in the House of Commons again on Friday, 26 April.
‘SOUND’ EVIDENCE: Energy Monitor covered a recent Nature study revealing that forest-based solutions, including forest carbon credits, are supported by more “sound” scientific evidence than other types of nature-based solutions. The outlet noted that forest carbon credits have come under scrutiny for their accounting methods and their impacts on forest communities. The study examined the mitigation potential of 43 nature-based solutions and found that four of them – all related to the conservation and restoration of tropical and temperate forests – “offer the greatest certainty in carbon mitigation potential”.
‘BETTER’ MEAT: The World Resources Institute thinktank published a new report aimed at helping food companies achieve climate, sustainability and ethical goals by sourcing “better” meat – where “better” refers to “environmental, social, ethical and/or economic attributes”. The report recommended six steps companies can take, including calculating the emissions baselines of their food purchases, assessing the potential environmental impacts of their new strategies and engaging with suppliers. The report noted that “better” meat is often associated with higher environmental impacts alongside possible improvements in animal welfare. It also laid out strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from meat production.
Watch, read, listen
WILDLIFE CROSSINGS: A feature in CBS news explored how wildlife crossings throughout the US are reducing roadkill and helping preserve the genetic diversity of species.
GULLIES EXPANSION: BBC News explained how soil degradation has swallowed entire neighbourhoods in Latin America and Africa.
PROTECTING THE AMAZON: A documentary by Al Jazeera showed how the Indigenous Yanomami tribe fight to protect Brazil’s Amazon rainforest from illegal gold mining.
HIMALAYAN DISPUTE: A CNN World multimedia article addressed how herders in a northern Indian community are losing their lands to climate change and border tensions with China.
New science
Frugivores enhance potential carbon recovery in fragmented landscapes
Nature Climate Change
New research found that fruit-eating animals – “frugivores” – play an important role in dispersing the seeds of carbon-dense trees, but this is being put at risk by forest fragmentation. Using ground-based data gathered in the Atlantic forest of Brazil, scientists showed that large fruit-eating birds are responsible for dispersing the seeds of trees with the highest carbon-storing potential, but that the animals are restricted from doing this when tree cover falls below 40%. The restricted movement of large fruit-eating birds has the potential to reduce forest “biomass” – the total weight of plants in a given area – by up to 38%, the researchers estimated. They concluded: “Active restoration (for example, planting trees) is required in more fragmented landscapes to achieve carbon and biodiversity targets.”
Impacts of fire and prospects for recovery in a tropical peat forest ecosystem
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Fires in tropical peatland forests lead to the proliferation of non-forest vegetation and the erosion of biodiversity – although some affected forests may show “some signs of recovery” after a 12-year period, according to a new study. The researchers tracked ecosystem properties and biodiversity variables in a tropical peatland in Indonesia over 16 years. The analysis showed that most ecosystems and biodiversity are “sensitive to recurrent high-intensity fire”. The paper concluded: “If left uncontrolled, fire may be a pervasive threat to the ecological functioning of tropical forests, underscoring the importance of fire prevention and long-term restoration efforts.”
Emergency policies are not enough to resolve Amazonia’s fire crises
Communications Earth & Environment
Emergency “fire bans” in Brazil – such as those implemented in 2019 – have been “largely ineffective” and must be combined with longer-term strategies to reduce the risks of fire, new research said. Scientists compared the number of observed “fire counts” in the Brazilian Amazon over 2019-21 to the number of expected fires based on climatic conditions. They found that while the 2019 ban did significantly reduce the number of fires, the same intervention was “much less effective” in 2020 and 2021. The authors argued that solving the “fire crisis” will require “target[ing] the underlying causes of fire”, engaging with local communities and building long-term management strategies and education campaigns.
In the diary
- 24 April: Webinar: Gender dimensions of post-harvest losses: Insights from a systematic review | Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT and CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform
- 3 May: World Press Freedom Day
- 6-10 May: 19th session of the UN Forum on Forests | New York City
- 11 May: World Migratory Bird Day
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyer and Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org
The post Cropped 24 April 2024: Mass coral bleaching; FAO report retraction request; Escazú Agreement appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Cropped 24 April 2024: Mass coral bleaching; FAO report retraction request; Escazú Agreement
Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.
We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.
Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.
A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.
But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.
Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.
So what are these standards, exactly?
The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.
In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:
- What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
- How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
- When should a project simply not go ahead?
- What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
- How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?
If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.
But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.
The biggest problem: process over outcomes
The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.
Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?
But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.
This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.
A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed
Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.
Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.
But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.
For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.
Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting
Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.
You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.
The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.
Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature
The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.
Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.
Strong standards could help turn things around by:
- stopping destruction in critical habitat,
- setting firm limits on environmental harm,
- requiring genuine recovery for nature,
- and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.
If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.
What needs to change?
The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:
- ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
- ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
- ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
- ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort
Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.
Climate Change
Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’
The small project is underway at Central Campus, with room for expansion. Its energy usage could complicate the university’s climate goals.
DURHAM, N.C.—Duke University plans to build a small data center at Central Campus, potentially the first of several similar-size projects, which has raised questions among some faculty about whether the energy- and water-intensive endeavors could derail the institution’s climate commitments.
The UN General Assembly on Wednesday adopted a “historic” resolution calling on countries to comply with their climate obligations, as outlined in a landmark advisory opinion issued last year by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Last July, in the opinion first requested by the Pacific island state of Vanuatu, the world’s top court ruled that harming the climate by increasing fossil fuel production may constitute an “international wrongful act”. This could result in affected countries claiming compensation from those responsible, the court said.
To follow up on the ICJ ruling, a dozen nations led by Vanuatu submitted a proposal to the UN’s main deliberative body to recognise the advisory opinion and identify ways of implementing it.
Several large oil-producing nations mounted a late push to weaken the text by introducing last-minute amendments, but the General Assembly rejected those and adopted the resolution with 141 countries in favour at a plenary session in New York.
The resolution urges countries to implement measures to cut carbon emissions, including by tripling renewable energy capacity, “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, and phasing out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.
It also requests the UN Secretary-General to draft a report “containing ways to advance compliance with all obligations in relation to the court’s findings” by next year’s UN General Assembly in September 2027.
Pacific islands celebrate “historic” resolution
The group of Pacific island nations, which led the diplomatic push for the resolution, as well as Latin American nations and the European Union, celebrated its adoption as a “historic” moment, while some countries noted the persistence of diverging views.
Belize’s UN representative Janine Coye-Felson said in a statement on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) that the General Assembly resolution, as well as the ICJ advisory opinion, are important because “climate change is not governed only” by the Paris Agreement, but that “climate justice requires the application of the full breath of international law”.
“When future generations look back at this moment, they will ask whether we rose to meet the defining crisis of our time with the full force of international law. Today, this General Assembly answers: yes,” she told the plenary.
-
Electrification emerges as COP31 priority
The Turkish COP31 President has called for “a truly global conversation” about shifting the global energy system from fossil fuels to electricity -
Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition
The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green
The EU said in a statement during the session that, with the adoption of the resolution, countries are moving beyond “simply recognising” the ICJ’s work and instead “actively upholding the legal integrity” of the multilateral system by seeking to implement the court’s recommendations.
Yet the bloc also warned the process that follows must not “seek to establish new mechanisms or engage in any determination of state responsibility”, referring in particular to the upcoming report by the Secretary-General. Earlier drafts of the resolution contained proposals to establish a register of climate-driven loss and damage and a dedicated compensation mechanism, but these were removed during negotiations on the text.
France’s ambassador to the UN, Jérôme Bonnafont, highlighted the resolution’s provision to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and said “science clearly establishes their role in climate change”. The recent increase in oil and gas prices, which have soared because of the war in Iran, “underscores the cost vulnerability of this dependence”, he added.
Push-back by oil-producing nations
Some oil-producing countries – among them the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia – were critical of the new resolution, arguing that it creates “quasi-binding” obligations from an advisory opinion that should be non-binding, and rejected the request for a report from the Secretary-General.
“This is a direct duplication of work that is being done at the [UN climate convention],” said Russia’s delegate. “Creating a parallel process will waste resources, will undermine the fragile consensus at the conference of the parties and will lead to the fragmentation of the climate regime.”
In an effort to weaken the resolution, a group of seven oil-producing Middle Eastern states – including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran – tabled four last-minute amendments proposing to delete certain paragraphs and softening the language on the obligations of states.
Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?
In response, Pacific island nations said these amendments sought to “reopen provisions that were [the] subject of extensive negotiation”, while the EU added that they were “difficult to reconcile with the spirit of cooperation”. They were all rejected in a series of votes.
The US, for its part, described the resolution as “highly problematic” and denied the obligation of preventing climate harm beyond its borders, as well as the assertion that climate change is an “unprecedented civilizational challenge”. The country urged others to vote against the resolution.
India, which abstained, said the text failed to address the need for climate finance flows from developed to developing countries, which is “a serious omission”. The Indian delegate pointed to the absence of the term “climate finance” in the text, which “deserves more attention in a resolution that deals with the obligations of states”.
“Turning point in accountability”, activists say
WWF’s climate chief and former COP president Manuel Pulgar-Vidal said the General Assembly’s vote was a step forward that “raises the pressure on all states to act in line with their obligations”.
Rebecca Brown, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the UN resolution shows that “multilateralism works” and with it, countries “carry the ICJ’s historic ruling forward as a roadmap for climate action and accountability”.
“By acting together, we can prevent further climate harm, in line with science and the law, by speeding up a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, protecting climate-vulnerable communities, and advancing climate justice,” she added in a statement.
Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change – a group of young people who first made the push for an advisory opinion from the ICJ – said “the world has not only reaffirmed that ruling, but committed to making it a reality”.
“This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate. Communities on the frontlines, like in the Pacific, have been waiting far too long and continue to pay too high a price for the actions of others,” he said. “The journey of this idea from classrooms in the Pacific to The Hague and the United Nations gives us continued hope that when people organise, the world can be moved to act.”
The post UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测