Researchers are using satellite images and AI-powered modelling to map global mining activity, seeking to plug gaps in existing data as the rush for “transition minerals” fuels concerns about the industry’s impact on the environment and local communities.

Countries are scrambling to shore up supplies of metals vital for the transition to renewables, such as lithium used in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, and copper – used in solar panels and wind turbines, many of which are produced in environmentally sensitive areas.

“New mines will likely be in areas of high biodiversity, or where water and Indigenous rights are at stake,” project lead Victor Maus from the Vienna University of Economics and Business told Climate Home News.

More than half of energy transition mineral resources are located on or near the lands of Indigenous peoples and subsistence farmers, according to a 2022 study published in the Nature journal.

“Monitoring those impacts is critical,” said Maus, whose team members have identified massive gaps in current data when it comes to what, how and even where minerals are being extracted around the world.

During a previous project, they compared global satellite imagery of 120,000 square kilometres of visible mine footprints with the S&P Capital IQ Pro database of mining production. The results were stark. More than half of the mining areas identified from space had no corresponding production data in the official record.

To address these gaps, Maus and his team are building a mining database using satellite images. The project, which is part of the European Union-funded Mine the Gap initiative, will be a vital tool for policymakers and help foster transparency in the mining industry, he added.

“We’re hoping to create not only a research tool but also a means of validating and complementing what companies report, supporting greater transparency across the sector.”

Mapping environmental impact

As well as counting mines and assessing overall production, the database will give a clearer picture about where the biggest environmental and social risks lie by tracking land use around mines, waste generation and signs of environmental degradation.

“Simply knowing how much is being produced isn’t a direct measurement of impact,” said Tim Werner, a senior lecturer at The University of Melbourne who has worked with Maus on previous research into critical minerals.

“We simply don’t have all the information we need to scientifically prove where impacts for one area are worse than others. This is a big problem for strategic environmental management at national and global scales,” he added, describing the data gaps as “mind-boggling”.

A range of satellites are being used to collect the required information, including multispectral imagery, radar and hyperspectral sensors, collected from sources including the EU’s Sentinel constellation and German DLR satellites, chosen for their global coverage and accuracy.

AI will then be used to scan these images, learning how to identify and track potential issues as the project develops.

The challenges of collecting mining data

There have been previous attempts to map the overlap between energy transition mineral mines and key biodiversity hotspots in different mineral-rich countries, as well as industry efforts to plug the gaps in data about global mining production.

But past efforts to map global mining more accurately have struggled to document small-scale and artisanal mining operations, which are often unregulated despite their significant social and environmental impacts.

In September, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) launched its global mining database – reportedly the most comprehensive mining resource to date, with information about more than 15,000 active facilities in 151 countries, but it does not include informal mining sites.

“We had to draw some scope boundaries,” said Emma Gagen, the ICMM’s data and research director. “The industry is huge and that’s been the challenge this whole time – people haven’t tried to collect this data before because it’s so vast.”

The case for clearer global standards

Despite such data initiatives, which reflect growing pressure on the industry to clean up its act, researchers say structural and legislative changes will be needed to reduce the harms caused by mining.

Gagen said more uniform regulatory standards would “drive performance improvements across the industry.”

“What’s most needed is alignment,” Maus said. “Clearer global standards on what should be measured and reported, and policies that encourage disclosure of mining data.”

For Maus and his team, having an accurate picture is a crucial first step.

“If we don’t even know how many materials are being produced, we’ve got very little basis to even understand the scale of possible impacts in an area,” Werner said.

Main image: Satellite image showing the expansion of nickel mining in Sulawesi, Indonesia (Photo: Sentinel-2 cloudless by EOX IT Services GmbH, which contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data 2024)

The post AI and satellite data help researchers map world’s transition minerals rush appeared first on Climate Home News.

AI and satellite data help researchers map world’s transition minerals rush

Last week, around 180 scientists, researchers and legal experts gathered in Laxenburg, Austria to attend the first-ever international conference focused on the controversial topic of climate “overshoot”.

This hypothesised scenario would see global temperatures initially “overshoot” the Paris Agreement’s aspirational limit of 1.5C, before they are brought back down through techniques that would remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

(For more on the key talking points, new research and discussions that emerged from the three-day conference, see Carbon Brief’s full write-up of the event.)

On the sidelines of the conference, Carbon Brief asked a range of delegates what they consider to be the key “unknowns” around overshoot.

Below are their responses, first as sample quotes, then, in full:

Dr James Fletcher

Former minister for public service, sustainable development, energy, science and technology for Saint Lucia and negotiator at COP21 in Paris.

The key unknown is where we’re going to land. At what point will we peak [temperatures] before we start going down, and how long will we stay in that overshoot period? That is a scary thing. Yes, there will be overshoot, but at what point will that overshoot peak? Are we peaking at 1.6C, 1.7C, 2.1C? All of these are scary scenarios for small island developing states – anything above 1.5C is scary. Every fraction of a degree matters to us. Where we peak is very important and how long we stay in this overshoot period is equally important. That’s when you start getting into very serious, irreversible impacts and tipping points.

Prof Shobha Maharaj

Adjunct professor at the University of Fiji and a coordinating lead author for Working Group II of the IPCC’s seventh assessment

First of all, there is an assumption that we’re going to go back down from overshoot. Back down is not a given. And secondly, we are still in the phase where we are talking about uncertainty. Climate scientists don’t like uncertainty. We are not acknowledging that uncertainty is the new normal… But because we’re so bogged down in terms of uncertainties, we are not moving towards [the issue of] what we do about it. We know it’s coming. We know the temperatures are going to be high. But there is little talk about the action.

The focus seems to be more on how we can understand this or how we can model this, but not what we do on the ground. Especially when it comes to adaptation planning – [and around] how does this modify whatever the plans are? There are lots of places in the world where adaptation plans have been made to a 1.5C ceiling. The fact is that these plans are going to need to be modified or probably redeveloped. And no one is talking about this, especially in the areas that are least resourced in the world – which sets up a big, big problem.

Sir Prof Jim Skea

Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and emeritus professor at Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy

There are huge knowledge gaps around overshoot and carbon dioxide removal. As it’s very clear from the themes of this conference, we don’t altogether understand how the Earth would react in taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We don’t understand the nature of the irreversibilities and we don’t understand the effectiveness of CDR techniques, which might themselves be influenced by the level of global warming, plus all the equity and sustainability issues surrounding using CDR techniques.

Prof Kristie Ebi

Professor of global health at the University of Washington‘s Center for Health and the Global Environment

There are all kinds of questions about adaptation and how to approach effective adaptation. At the moment, adaptation is primarily assuming a continual increase in global mean surface temperature. If there is going to be a peak – and of course, we don’t know what that peak is – then how do you start planning? Do you change your planning? There are places, for instance when thinking about hard infrastructure, [where overshoot] may result in a change in your plan – because as you come down the backside, maybe the need would be less. For example, when building a bridge taller. And when implementing early warning systems, how do you take into account that there will be a peak and ultimately a decline? There is almost no work in that. I would say that’s one of the critical unknowns.

Prof Lavanya Rajamani

Professor of international environmental law at the University of Oxford

I think there are several scientific unknowns, but I would like to focus on the governance unknowns with respect to overshoot. To me, a key governance unknown is the extent to which our current legal and regulatory architecture – across levels of governance, so domestic, regional and international – will actually be responsive to the needs of an overshoot world and the consequences of actually not having regulatory and governance architectures in place to address overshoot.

Prof Nebojsa Nakicenovic

Distinguished emeritus research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and executive director of The World In 2050.

One of my major concerns has been for a long time – as it was clear that we are heading for an overshoot, as we are not reducing the emissions in time – is whether, even after reaching net-zero, negative emissions can actually produce a temperature decline…In other words, there might be asymmetry on the way down [in the global-temperature response to carbon removal] – it might not be symmetrical to the way up [as temperature rise in response to carbon emissions]. And this is really my major concern, that we are planning measures that are so uncertain that we don’t know whether they will reach the goal.

The last point I want to make is that I think that the scientific community should, under all conditions, make sure that the highest priority is on mitigation.

Prof Debra Roberts

Honorary professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, coordinating lead author on the IPCC’s forthcoming special report on climate change and cities, board chair of the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and co-chair of Working Group II for the IPCC’s sixth assessment

Well, I think coming from the policy and practitioner community, what I’m hearing a lot about are the potential impacts that come from the exceedance component of overshoot. What I’m not hearing a lot about is the responses to overshoot and their impacts – and how those impacts might interact with the impacts from temperature exceedance. So there’s quite a complex risk landscape emerging. It’s three dimensional in many ways, but we’re only talking about one dimension and, for policymakers, we need to understand that three dimensional element in order to understand what options remain on the table. For me, the big unknown is how all of these areas of increased impact and risk actually intersect with one another and what that means in the real world.

Prof Oliver Geden

Senior fellow and head of the climate policy and politics research cluster at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and vice-chair of IPCC Working Group III

[A key unknown] is whether countries are really willing to commit to net-negative trajectories. We are assuming, in science, global pathways going net negative, with hardly any country saying they want to go there. So maybe it is just an academic thought experiment. So we don’t know yet if [overshoot] is even relevant. It is relevant in the sense that if we do, [the] 1.5C [target] stays on the table. But I think the next phase needs to be that countries – or the UNFCCC as a whole – needs to decide what they want to do.

Dr Carl-Friedrich Schleussner

Research group leader and senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

I’m convinced that there’s an upper limit of overshoot that we can afford – and it might be not far outside the Paris range [1.5C-2C] – before human societies will be overwhelmed with the task of bringing temperatures back down again. This [societal limit] is lower than the geophysical limits or the CDR limit.

The impacts of climate change and the challenges that will come with it will undermine society’s abilities to cooperatively engage in what is required to achieve long-term temperature reversal. This is a bigger concern that I have – that we are pushing the habitability in our societies on this planet above that limit and towards maybe existential limits. We may not be able to walk back from it, even if we wanted to. That is a big unknown to me.

I’m convinced that there is an upper limit to how much overshoot we can afford, and it might be just about 2C or a bit above – it might not be much more than that. But we do not have good evidence for this. But I think these scenarios of going to 3C and then assuming we can go back down – I have doubts that future societies grappling with the impacts of climate change will be in the position to embark on such an endeavour.

Dr Anna Pirani

Senior research associate at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC) and former head of the Technical Support Unit for Working Group I of the IPCC

I think that tracking global mean surface temperature on an overshoot pathway will be an important unknown – how to take account of natural variability in that context, to inform where we are on an overshoot pathway and how well we’re doing on it. I think, methodologically, that would prove to be a challenge. The fact that it occurs over many, many years – many decades – and, yet, we sort of think about it as a nice curve. We see these graphs that say “by the 2050s, we will be here and we’ll start declining and so on”. I think that what that actually translates to in the evolution of global surface temperatures is going to be very difficult to measure and track. Even how we report on that, internationally, in the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] context and what the WMO [World Meteorological Organization] does in terms of reporting an overshoot trajectory, that would be quite a challenge.

Prof Richard Betts

Head of climate impacts research in the Met Office Hadley Centre and professor at the University of Exeter

One of the key unknowns is are we going to continue to get the land carbon sink that the models produce. We have got model simulations of returning from an overshoot.

If you are lowering temperatures, you have got to reduce emissions. The amount you reduce emissions depends on how much carbon is taken up naturally by the system – by forests, oceans and so on. The models will do this; they give you an answer. But we don’t know whether they are doing the right thing. They have never been tested in this kind of situation.

In my field of expertise, one of the key [unknowns] is how these carbon sinks are going to behave in the future. That is why we are trying to get real-world data into the models – including through the Amazon FACE project – so we can really try and narrow the uncertainties in future carbon sinks. If the carbon sinks are weaker than the models think, it is going to be even harder to reduce emissions and we will need to remove even more by carbon capture and removal.

Prof Hannah Daly

Professor of sustainable energy at University College Cork

We know ever more about the profound – and often irreversible – damages that will be felt as we overshoot 1.5C. Yet we seem no closer to understanding what will unlock the urgent decarbonisation that remains our only way to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Global models can show, on paper, what returning temperatures to safer levels after overshoot might look like. The biggest unknown is whether countries can translate these global pathways into sustained domestic action – over decades and without precedent in history – that is politically and socially feasible.

Dr Andrew King

Associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne

I think, firstly, can we actually achieve net-negative emissions to bring temperatures down past a peak? It’s a completely different world and, unfortunately, it’s likely to be challenging and we’re setting ourselves up to need to do it more. So I think that’s a huge unknown.

But then, beyond that, I think also, whilst we’ve built some understanding of how global temperature would respond to net-zero or net-negative emissions, we still have a lot of uncertainty around other elements in the climate system that relate more to what people actually live through. In our warming world, we’ve seen that global warming relates to local warming being experienced by everyone at different amounts. But, in an overshoot climate, we would see quite diverse changes for different people, different areas of the world, experiencing very different changes in our local climates. And also definitely worsening of some climate hazards and possibly reversibility in others, so a very different risk landscape as well, emerging post net-zero – and I think we still don’t know very much about that as well.

Overshoot: Exploring the implications of meeting 1.5C climate goal ‘from above’

Global temperature

|

08.10.25

State of the climate: 2025 on track to be second or third warmest year on record

Global temperature

|

29.07.25

Guest post: Why 2024’s global temperatures were unprecedented, but not surprising

Global temperature

|

18.06.25

Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world

Attribution

|

18.11.24

The post Experts: The key ‘unknowns’ of overshooting the 1.5C global-warming limit appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Experts: The key ‘unknowns’ of overshooting the 1.5C global-warming limit

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

Forest fund delays and cuts

TFFF BEHIND SCHEDULE: Brazil’s flagship forest fund, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), is “running behind schedule as officials deliberate on how to structure the complex financial vehicle” in time for COP30, Bloomberg reported. The “ambitious” fund aims to raise $125bn to help countries protect rainforests “using investment returns from high-yielding fixed-income assets”, it explained. However, the outlet reported that investor events have either not been held or cancelled, while officials are still mulling “possible structures” for the fund.

CUTS DEEP: Environmentalists fear that “sweeping spending cuts for forest protection” by Argentina’s “pro-business libertarian” president, Javier Milei, could endanger the country’s forests, Climate Home News reported. The impacts of these cuts are “already becoming evident”, contributing to deforestation – particularly in the northern Gran Chaco region, environmentalists told the outlet. According to Argentine government data, the country lost about 254,000 hectares of forest nationwide in 2024. Milei – who has said he wants to withdraw Argentina from the Paris Agreement – faces a “crucial midterm election” in October that could make environmental deregulation even easier, the outlet wrote.

BANKING ON THE AMAZON: A new report found that 298 banks around the world “channelled $138.5bn” to companies developing new fossil-fuel projects in Latin America and the Caribbean, Mongabay reported. The experts behind the study told the outlet: “Some major banks have adopted policies to protect the Amazon, but these have had little impact, as they do not apply to corporate-level financing for oil and gas companies operating in the Amazon.” Mongabay approached every bank, but only JPMorgan Chase responded, declining to comment. 

‘Green to grey’

‘600 FOOTBALL PITCHES’: Europe is losing “green space…at the rate of 600 football pitches a day”, according to a new, cross-border investigation by the “Green to Grey Project”, the Guardian reported. The outlet – part of the Arena for Journalism in Europe collaboration of journalists and scientists behind the project – added that Turkey accounted for more than a fifth of the total loss in Europe. While nature “accounts for the majority of the losses”, the research showed that the EU is also rapidly building on agricultural land, “with grave consequences for the continent’s food security and health”, it continued. 

‘TWICE AS HIGH’: Conducted by 40 journalists and scientists from 11 countries, the investigation found that the “natural area” lost to construction in the EU was “twice as high as official estimates”, Le Monde reported. Despite Brussels setting a 2011 target to “reduce the EU’s yearly land take” to 800km2 – “more than 100,000 football fields” – the EU is “artificialising more than 1,000km2 of land per year”, it added.

KEY DRIVERS: While the “main drivers of land loss across Europe” are housing and road-building, Arena for Journalism in Europe found many instances of construction “that serve only a minority or that are not built based on public need”, such as luxury tourism sites. Between 2018 to 2023, “an area the size of Cyprus” in nature and cropland was lost to construction, they added. Researchers who “scrutinised millions of pixels in search of lost natural areas” found that Finland’s tourism boom is “encroaching on the last remaining sanctuaries” in Lapland, another Le Monde story reported.

News and views

‘INTRACTABLE’ OFFSETS: A new review paper found that the failure of carbon offsets to cut emissions is “not due to a few bad apples”, but “down to deep-seated systemic problems that incremental change will not solve”, the Guardian wrote. Study co-author Dr Stephen Lezak told the outlet: “We have assessed 25 years of evidence and almost everything up until this point has failed.” The worst of these “intractable problems” were with “issuing additional credits” for “non-additional”, “impermanent” and double-counted projects, the Guardian noted.

INSTITUTIONALISING AGROECOLOGY: The Cuban government issued a national decree providing a “more explicit legal framework” for the implementation of agroecological principles across the country, according to a release from the Caribbean Agroecology Institute. The decree also announced a new national fund for promoting agroecology. Yamilé Lamothe Crespo, the country’s deputy director of science, innovation and agriculture, “emphasised that agroecology is a model capable of responding to the global climate crisis”, teleSUR reported. 

ZERO PROGRESS TO ZERO HUNGER: The world has “made no improvement” towards achieving the “zero hunger” Sustainable Development Goal since it was set in 2015, according to a new report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The report said that “ongoing geopolitical tensions and weather-related disruptions” have contributed to “continued instability in global food markets”. Separately, a new report from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit thinktank estimated that a “year’s worth of bread” has been lost in the UK since 2020 due to extreme weather impacting wheat harvests, the Guardian reported.

MEATLESS MEDIA: More than 96% of analysed climate news stories across 11 (primarily US-based) outlets “made no mention of meat or livestock production as a cause of climate change”, according to analysis by Sentient Media. Sentient, a not-for-profit news organisation in the US, looked at 940 stories to assess the reported causes of greenhouse gas emissions. Around half of the stories included mention of fossil fuels, it said. Covering the report, the Guardian wrote: “The data reveals a media environment that obscures a key driver of the climate crisis.”

FRAUGHT PATH: One-fifth of migratory species “face extinction from climate change”, according to a new report by the UN’s migratory species convention, covered by Carbon Copy. The “warning” comes as climate change and extreme weather are “altering their ranges [and] shrinking habitats”, the Mail & Guardian wrote. Oceanographic Magazine noted that the North Atlantic right whale is “forced to make migratory detours into dangerous pockets of the ocean” due to warming seas. Down to Earth reported that the range of Asian elephants is “shifting east” in “response to anthropogenic land-use and climate change”. 

GOODBYE, GOODALL: Dr Jane Goodall, the groundbreaking English primatologist, died at the age of 91 last week. BBC News noted that Goodall “revolutionised our understanding” of chimpanzees, our “closest primate cousins. The outlet added that she “never wavered in her mission to help the animals to which she dedicated her life”. CNBC News reported that Goodall followed a vegan diet due to factory farming and the “damage done to the environment by meat production”. She also “encouraged” others to follow her example, the outlet said.

Spotlight

What the US government shutdown means for food, forests and climate

This week, Carbon Brief explains the US government shutdown – now in its second week – and its implications for food, forests, public lands and climate change.

The US federal government shut down at 12:01 eastern daylight time on 1 October, as Congress failed to agree on a bill to keep funding the government and its services.

This is the 11th time that the government has shut down in such a fashion; previous shutdowns have lasted anywhere from a few hours to longer than a month. 

As a result of the shutdown, 750,000 federal employees have been furloughed, or placed on unpaid leave. Others, whose work has been deemed “essential”, are working without pay.

(A law passed during a shutdown in US president Donald Trump’s first term guarantees back pay and benefit accrual for furloughed employees. However, the White House has argued that the law does not necessarily guarantee these benefits.)

Some agencies have seen close to 90% of their employees furloughed.

With a reopening date uncertain, Carbon Brief explored what the shutdown means for food, forests and climate.

Food and farming

According to the agency’s “lapse of funding” plan, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned to furlough about half of its employees for the duration of the shutdown. 

Among the activities put on hold during the funding lapse are the disbursement of disaster-assistance payments for farmers impacted by extreme weather events. The Farm Service Agency, which oversees these payments, will also not process any new loans during the shutdown, such as those that provide assistance to farmers during the harvest.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service, an arm of the USDA with a mission to help private landowners “restore, enhance and protect forestland resources”, has seen more than 95% of its staff furloughed, effectively halting all conservation efforts within the agency.

Certain animal-health programmes – such as the one addressing the highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak – will continue, but others will shutter for the duration of the funding lapse. Long-term research on animal and plant diseases will also cease.

Forests and fires

The US Forest Service falls under the purview of the USDA. Employees responsible for “responding [to] and preparing for wildland fires” will continue to work during the shutdown; however, “hazardous fuels treatments” – such as prescribed burns or pruning to reduce fuel loads – will be reduced under the agency’s plan. Furthermore, state grants for fire preparedness and forest management “may be delayed”.

Work on forest restoration projects may potentially continue “on a case-by-case basis”, the plan said.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a subdivision of the Department of the Interior, will furlough around 43% of its employees, according to its contingency plan. Staff dedicated to fire management will continue to work while “carryover balances” are available, but the number of staff working will be reduced once these funds are exhausted.

Climate change and research

Across the federal government, most research activities are being put on hold, including conference travel and the issuing of new grants.

Grant recipients may continue carrying out research “to the extent that doing so will not require federal staff” and while funds are available, according to the National Science Foundation’s operational plan. This does not include researchers at federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, US Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

The funding-lapse plan set out by the Department of Commerce said that NOAA will continue its prediction and forecasting activities, as well as maintain “critical and mission-related” programmes related to research satellites. However, “most research activities” will cease.

Similarly, NASA’s shutdown plan indicates continuing support for satellite operations, but a pause on research activities – except for those “aligned with presidential priorities”.  

Watch, read, listen

MORAINE DILEMMA: A new PBS documentary walked through ancient Inca paths in the Andes to understand how modern communities are confronting the loss of Peru’s glaciers.

SUBSIDISING ‘EXPLOITATION’: A DeSmog investigation revealed how farmers convicted of “exploiting migrant workers” continue to claim “millions in taxpayer-funded subsidies”. 

GROUND TRUTHING: A podcast from the Hindu looked back at 20 years of India’s Forest Rights Act, meant to “address historic injustices” towards the country’s Indigenous communities. 

DEEP DIVE MANUAL: Mongabay journalists shared how they investigated Brazil’s shark-meat purchases that were subsequently served in schools, prisons and hospitals. 

New science

• The frequency of “economically disastrous” wildfires increased sharply after 2015, with the highest disaster risk in “affluent, populated areas” in the Mediterranean and temperate regions | Science
• A “strictly protected” forest in Tuscany had maximum summertime temperatures that were, on average, nearly 2C cooler than those of nearby productive forests over 2013-23 | Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
• Between 2010 and 2020, the water consumed by global crop-growing increased by 9%, putting “additional pressure on limited water resources” | Nature Food

In the diary

• 9-15 October: 2025 World Conservation Congress of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) | Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
• 10-17 October: World Food Forum 2025 | Rome
• 16 October: World Food Day | Global 
• 25 October: Ivory Coast presidential election

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

Cropped 24 September 2025: High Seas Treaty milestone; ‘Erratic’ water cycle; Family food at COP30

Cropped

|

24.09.25

Cropped 10 September 2025: Flooded ‘food baskets’; Brazil eyes forest finance; Resilient rice

Cropped

|

10.09.25

Cropped 27 August 2025: ‘Frustrating’ Amazon summit; Workplace heat hazards; Record European wildfires

Cropped

|

27.08.25

Cropped 13 August 2025: Fossil-fuelled bird decline; ‘Deadly’ wildfires; Empty nature fund

Cropped

|

13.08.25

The post Cropped 8 October 2025: US government shutdown; EU loses green space; Migratory species extinction threat appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Cropped 8 October 2025: US government shutdown; EU loses green space; Migratory species extinction threat