Connect with us

Published

on

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

This week

Trump leaves Paris pact

US EXIT: Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, the New York Times reported. By exiting, the world’s biggest historic emitter will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only countries not committed to the global deal to keep global warming well-below 2C by the end of the century. The decision will take one year to take effect, the newspaper added.

‘FATAL SIGNAL’: European leaders speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week condemned Trump’s decision, Bloomberg said. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said the Paris Agreement was “the best hope for all humanity”, while Germany’s economy minister described Trump’s exit as a “fatal signal to the world”, according to the publication. The Times reported that UK prime minister Keir Starmer refused to condemn Trump’s withdrawal from the pact.

CHINA ‘CONCERN’: The Associated Press reported that China expressed concern over Trump’s move, with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun saying: “Climate change is a common challenge facing mankind. No country can be outside of it. No country can be immune to it.” At a press conference, however, he said China’s “resolve” to act was “unchanged”. African Business reported that the chair of the African climate negotiating bloc said the group was “deeply disappointed” by the decision.

US climate regime shift

WIND WOES: Amid shattering the record for the number of executive orders signed in one day, Trump also signed a bill temporarily halting offshore wind lease sales in federal waters and pausing the issuance of approvals, permits and loans for both onshore and offshore wind projects, the Associated Press reported. The Washington Post examined how the move could “significantly curtail” wind power growth over the next four years.

OIL AND GAS ‘UNLEASHED’: Trump became the first president to announce an “energy emergency”, as part of “a barrage of pro-fossil fuel actions to unleash already booming US energy production”, the Guardian reported. This included lifting the moratorium on new US licenses to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) put in place by Joe Biden, Bloomberg reported. The Financial Times reported that Trump could be thwarted by Wall Street’s “reluctance to approve another drilling binge” due to “investor pressure…[and] economic realities”.

EVS AXED: Reuters reported that Trump also signed an order to revoke a 2021 bill signed by Joe Biden, which sought to ensure half of all new vehicles sold in the US were electric by 2030. A Lex opinion article in the Financial Times said the move could be enough to have a “chilling effect on the market”. An FT editorial contrasted Trump’s approach with China’s push for EVs, calling it a “bet on the energy status quo, not on the future”.

Around the world

  • COP30 HEAD: Brazil appointed André Aranha Corrêa do Lago – an “experienced climate negotiator” and the country’s secretary for climate, energy and environment – as incoming president of the COP30 climate talks, the Guardian reported.
  • HEATHROW SPAT: The UK Labour Party is “split” over a plan from chancellor Rachel Reeves to approve a third runway at Heathrow airport, with energy secretary Ed Miliband and the mayors of London and Manchester strongly opposed to the move, according to the Independent.
  • INDONESIA FLOODS: At least 21 people have been killed and 300 more displaced in flash floods and landslides in Indonesia’s Java province, the Associated Press reported.
  • NIGERIA OIL PROTESTS: More than 20 environmental groups and local communities are protesting the planned return of oil drilling to Ogoniland, Nigeria – an area already deeply affected by pollution from oil spills, Reuters said.
  • LA ABLAZE: Multiple new fires have erupted amid continuing dry conditions in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times reported. It added that rain is now forecast for the weekend.

One-third

The proportion of Arctic tundra and ecosystems that has become a source of emissions, rather than a carbon sink, according to research covered by the Guardian.


Latest climate research

  • Anti-climate change groups are more likely to develop in countries with strong environmental plans, according to an analysis drawing on 30 years of data published in PLOS One.
  • A study in Limnology and Oceanography Letters recorded how corals in one area of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef fared after facing their most widespread bleaching event on record in 2024.
  • Arctic “ice roads” – temporary roads formed from the build up of snow that act as lifelines for isolated communities – have reduced because of climate change and are likely to decline further this century, according to research in Communications Earth and 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

EU electricity generation from coal, gas, wind and solar, terawatt hours, 1990-2024.

The EU generated more electricity from solar than coal for the first time ever in 2024, according to analysis by the thinktank Ember covered by Carbon Brief. Solar power output in the EU more than tripled between 2014 and 2024, while coal has plummeted by 61%. The analysis also found that wind and solar growth over the past decade has pushed EU fossil-fuel generation in 2024 to its lowest level in 40 years, despite a long-term decline of nuclear power.

Spotlight

Tracing climate fingerprints on tropical storms

This week, Carbon Brief explores a new tool that could be used to calculate the economic damages from tropical storms that can be attributed to climate change.

Tropical storms – known as hurricanes, typhoons or cyclones depending on what part of the ocean they form in – are typically the most costly of all extreme weather events.

Amid a growing field aimed at understanding the influence of climate change on extreme weather, they have also emerged as one of the most difficult events for scientists to study.

There are several reasons for this. One is that tropical storms are rare in comparison to other types of extreme weather events, meaning scientists have less data to draw on to try to work out how they may have changed because of fossil-fuelled warming.

Another is that one of the main tools that scientists use to study climate change – climate models – are often not of high enough resolution to recreate the relatively small-scale structure of a storm. Global models can typically simulate Earth down to around a 100 kilometre (km) by 100km scale, whereas the eye of a storm tends to be just 30-40km wide.

To try to address these issues, researchers at Imperial College London have come up with a new tool for examining the influence of climate change on tropical storms.

Rapid attribution

The “Imperial College storm model” (IRIS) is a statistical technique that can be used to calculate how the potential intensity of any given tropical storm globally could have been affected by climate change.

IRIS has been used to create a database of millions of virtual tropical storms. The computing power for this is supported by a citizen science project, where people can download an app to donate the processing power of their smartphones.

Researchers can draw on this database to rapidly calculate how the potential intensity of a tropical storm occurring today compares to one in a hypothetical world without human-caused climate change.

IRIS works in a similar way to models used by the insurance sector, explained its creator Prof Ralf Toumi, co-director of the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment at Imperial. He told Carbon Brief:

“There’s been a few academic attempts to replicate these models. We’ve taken a very different approach to everyone else and that allows us to do this attribution quite quickly.”

Toumi’s team outlined the workings of IRIS in a paper published in Scientific Data in 2024. 

Earlier this month, they published their first climate attribution study using the tool in Atmospheric Science Letters.

This study found that Typhoon Haiyan, the second-strongest landfalling tropical storm on record, which struck the Philippines in 2013, was “very unlikely to have occurred without the increase in potential intensity driven by global warming”.

In addition to this, Toumi and his team have been using the model to calculate how climate change may have affected the intensity of a wide range of recent storms, choosing to publish the results directly on Imperial’s website.

“We feel we should communicate [our results] immediately,” he told Carbon Brief, adding that the peer-review process for publishing scientific papers is comparatively “slow and painful”.

Loss and damage

In a recent analysis using the tool, the team estimated that around 45% of the $50bn in economic damages caused by Hurricane Milton, which struck Florida in 2024, can be attributed to climate change. 

Toumi hopes that the tool could one day be used to inform discussions about how much money polluting countries should pay into a new fund for loss and damage from climate change agreed at UN climate talks. He told Carbon Brief:

“If a Pacific island says ‘we’ve just been hit by a category 5 storm, we need some money’, a donor country may argue ‘your nation is bound to be hit by hurricanes, how do we know the extra risk from climate change?’ With this model we could provide answers to such statements.”

Harjeet Singh, a UN climate veteran involved in aiding negotiations for the loss and damage fund, said that advances in attribution science could be a “game changer” in assigning responsibility for damages from climate change. He told Carbon Brief:

“However, rigorous, event-specific attribution studies can be time-consuming and may not always be feasible – especially for communities needing urgent support. Simpler frameworks based on historical emissions, technological capacity and GDP can be more practical, while still being guided by scientific insights.

“Ideally, a hybrid approach would apply detailed attribution for unprecedented or contested events, while a simpler, responsibility-based funding mechanism covers more frequent climate impacts to ensure fair and timely financing.”

Watch, read, listen

PARIS EXIT EXPLAINED: Veteran US climate diplomat, Sue Biniaz, explained the ramifications of the wording of Trump’s Paris Agreement exit order, in Just Security.

‘THIRSTY’ AI: The Guardian’s Today in Focus podcast explored what the UK government’s plan to boost artificial intelligence could mean for energy and water resources.

SAVIOUR OR VICTIM: In the Conversation, a group of female academics explained why the portrayal of women as either “climate victims” or “saviours of nature” can be problematic.

Coming up

Pick of the jobs

  • La Trobe University, river communities research fellow | Salary: Unknown. Location: Bundoora/Albury-Wodonga, Australia
  • Climate Litigation Network, science adviser | Salary: £42,500 or €50,000. Location: London or Amsterdam
  • British Antarctic Survey, marine biologist | Salary: £30,201. Location: Rothera, Antarctica

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 24 January 2025: Trump leaves Paris Agreement; EU solar outshines coal; Tracing climate fingerprints on tropical storms appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 24 January 2025: Trump leaves Paris Agreement; EU solar outshines coal; Tracing climate fingerprints on tropical storms

Continue Reading

Climate Change

A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won

Published

on

The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.

From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.

A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Published

on

SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million. 

ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.

Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.

“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”

The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]

ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]

Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.

“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”

Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.

-ENDS-

Images available in Greenpeace Media Library

Notes:

[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.

[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee

[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.

[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.

Media contact:

Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Published

on

The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.

In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com