In a surprise move, US president Joe Biden has announced a “temporary pause” on liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal expansion.
It has been described by some as an “election year decision” to please climate activists and by others as a distraction that might even raise global emissions.
In recent years LNG exports from the US have boomed, causing the country to leapfrog Australia and Qatar to become the world’s largest LNG exporter in 2023.
These exports have helped Europe make up the shortfall left behind by a drop in fossil-fuel supplies from Russia, following its invasion of Ukraine.
However, current and proposed EU climate policies imply a significant drop in demand for fossil fuels, including LNG imports. As such, a group of EU lawmakers have urged Biden not to use Europe as an “excuse” for further expansion.
Citing his reasons for the temporary pause in new terminal expansion, Biden said there is now “an evolving understanding of the market need for LNG, the long-term supply of LNG and the perilous impacts of methane on our planet”.
Indeed, there is already more than enough LNG export capacity to meet global demand for the fuel, if countries meet national and international climate goals.
But the move has drawn criticism from some commentators and fossil-fuel industry representatives, who have argued that it could lead to countries sourcing LNG from other countries with more polluting practices – or even encourage them to use more coal.
Below, Carbon Brief sets out the reasons why Biden has paused approvals of new LNG terminals, how much LNG capacity is currently in the global pipeline and whether the world really needs more US LNG exports.
It also explores how Biden’s move could affect global emissions, noting that criticisms put forward by oil industry representatives contradict evidence showing that all fossil fuels must rapidly be phased out to meet the world’s climate goals.
- Why has the Biden administration ‘paused’ new LNG expansion?
- How much new LNG capacity is currently in the US, and global, pipeline?
- Does the world need US LNG following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
- How will the supply of US LNG affect global greenhouse gas emissions?
- How will the move affect US politics in the coming months?
Why has the Biden administration ‘paused’ new LNG expansion?
On 9 January, Politico reported that Biden’s aides were considering conducting a review that “could tap the brakes on the booming US natural gas export industry”.
It said that the review was being led by the Department of Energy and would “examine whether regulators should take climate change into account when deciding whether a proposed gas export project meets the national interest”.
Examining Biden’s possible motivations for such a review, Politico said:
“US gas exports have jumped four-fold during the past decade as production has surged, turning the US into the world’s largest natural gas exporter and helping Europe replace Russian shipments after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. But Biden also faces growing pressure from environmental groups to live up to his pledge to transition away from fossil fuels – something the US also promised to do at last month’s climate summit in Dubai.”
(Nearly every country in the world agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels” at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in 2023 – with the US among countries at the talks having called for even stronger wording on a total phase-out of coal, oil and gas.)
On 25 January, several publications speculated that the Biden administration was set to announce a review of approvals for new LNG export terminals.
The next day, the Biden administration released a statement announcing “a temporary pause on pending decisions on exports of LNG to non-FTA [free trade agreement] countries until the Department of Energy can update the underlying analyses for authorisation”.
The Financial Times reported that the move will “temporarily halt pending applications from 17 projects awaiting approval to proceed”. (If these projects went ahead, they would together export enough gas to produce more emissions than the EU does in a year, according to one analysis.)
The EU is technically a non-FTA country. However, a senior EU figure told the FT that the European Commission was informed about the US announcement in advance and that an exemption would be made for “immediate national security emergencies”. The official added:
“Therefore, this pause will not have any short-to-medium term impacts on the EU’s security of supply.”
Explaining the reason for the pause, the official statement from the US government said that the analysis that currently underpins new approvals for LNG exports is “roughly five years old” and “no longer adequately account[s] for considerations” such as rising fossil fuel costs or “the latest assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions”. It added:
“Today, we have an evolving understanding of the market need for LNG, the long-term supply of LNG and the perilous impacts of methane on our planet.”
(Biden co-launched an international effort against methane, called the global methane pledge, at the COP26 climate summit in 2021 alongside European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. At COP27, he described action against methane as a key “gamechanger” for tackling climate change.)
In its coverage, the Associated Press described the move as an “election year decision”. It added that Biden might be keen to align himself with environmentally-conscious voters who fear US LNG exports are “locking in potentially catastrophic planet-warming emissions when the Democratic president has pledged to cut climate pollution in half by 2030”.
Speaking to this suggestion, the official statement from the Biden administration appears to try to make an appeal to voters by saying:
“As Republicans in Congress continue to deny the very existence of climate change while attempting to strip their constituents of the economic, environmental and health benefits of the president’s historic climate investments, the Biden-Harris administration will continue to lead the way in ambitious climate action while ensuring the American economy remains the envy of the world.”
The statement also references the impact of LNG exports on domestic gas prices, which have already affected US consumers.
It comes after a report from the US Energy Information Administration released this month noted that increasing US LNG exports could fuel domestic gas price rises.
Additionally, local communities living along parts of the US coastline that have seen LNG export terminal expansion have appealed to Biden to halt such projects.
Back in December, Travis Dardar, a fisherman and member of the Isle de Jean Charles tribal community off the coast of Louisiana, told Al Jazeera that LNG export terminal expansion threatened his community’s health and ability to fish for income.
The Biden administration references the impact of LNG export terminal expansion on local communities in its official statement, saying:
“We must adequately guard against risks to the health of our communities, especially frontline communities in the US who disproportionately shoulder the burden of pollution from new export facilities.”
How much new LNG capacity is currently in the US, and global, pipeline?
Unlike coal and oil, which are relatively easy to transport by ship, gas has historically been traded predominantly via pipelines.
This began to change with the development of the LNG industry, where gas is super-chilled to turn it into a liquid that can be transported globally by ship.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gave further impetus to the already-rapid expansion of LNG capacity around the world, as importing countries scrambled to secure supplies.
An “unprecedented surge” in LNG projects coming online around the world from 2025 is set to add more than 250bn cubic metres (bcm) of new annual “liquefaction” capacity by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
This is equivalent to increasing existing global LNG export capacity by roughly half, the IEA notes.
The US is the biggest driver of this trend, largely thanks to new projects in Texas and Louisiana that will nearly double its LNG export capacity by 2028, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). The nation has capitalised on its “shale boom”, which propelled it to become the world’s largest producer of oil and gas.
According to figures compiled by Global Energy Monitor (GEM), the US is responsible for 102bcm of the LNG export capacity currently under construction – 38% of the global total.
The US pulled ahead of Australia and Qatar to become the world’s largest exporter of LNG in the first half of 2023, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). It is expected to remain in this top spot through to 2030. (See this extensive timeline of how the US became the world’s top LNG exporter from Bloomberg reporter Stephen Stapczynski.)
Qatar and Russia are the other major LNG players, both accounting for around 17% of the capacity currently under construction, according to GEM data. Further contributors are set to come from Canada, Mexico, Iran and a handful of African nations.
(There are question marks over Russia’s LNG expansion plans, which have been hit by US sanctions linked to Russia’s ongoing occupation of Ukraine.)
On top of projects that are already underway, an additional 999bcm of LNG export capacity has been “proposed” by companies and governments worldwide, GEM data shows. If this is all given government approval and built, it would double existing capacity.
Again, the US dominates, accounting for 36% of this proposed capacity with 58 projects out of 156, according to GEM data. (The Biden administration’s pause only covers some of these proposed projects and does not cover projects that are already under construction.)
“On average it’s more likely than not that a proposed project won’t get built, but it depends on the country,” Robert Rozansky, an LNG expert at GEM, tells Carbon Brief. He notes that in some nations, such as Qatar, anything that is proposed is likely to be built, while elsewhere they face “slimmer odds”.
Does the world need US LNG following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine in early 2022 had far-reaching implications for the global energy system. As of that year, Russia was the world’s second-largest gas producer behind the US and the third-largest oil producer behind the US and Saudi Arabia.
Before the invasion, more than a third of Europe’s gas supplies came from Russia.
But afterwards, the EU brought in new sanctions against Russian fossil fuels, while Moscow restricted supplies, fuelling an energy crisis.
In a report in October, the European Commission said the EU expected imports of Russian gas to drop to 40-45bcm in 2023, compared with 155bcm in 2021, the year before the Ukraine war, according to Reuters.
The drop in supplies from Russia left Europe scrambling for new sources of fossil fuels, with LNG exports from the US helping to make up some of the shortfall.
In December 2023, Europe received 61% of US LNG exports, according to Reuters.
But analysts have noted that Europe’s need for US LNG might be rapidly diminishing.
After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a rapid rise of renewables and a drop in energy demand also helped to make up the shortfall left by falling supplies from Russia.
Energy analyst Pavel Molchanov told trade publication S&P Global that “[energy] conservation and increased renewable power may wean Europe off Russian natural gas permanently” in coming years.
Wind and solar supplied more of the EU’s electricity than any other power source for the first time ever in 2022, according to Carbon Brief analysis of figures from the thinktank Ember. Molchanov told S&P Global that he “expected this trend to continue”.
Lars Nitter Havro, a senior analyst for clean technology at energy consultancy Rystad Energy, agreed, saying that the transition to renewable power offered “an unparalleled opportunity for the EU to flip the switch and secure its energy sovereignty”, according to S&P Global.
The European Commission is currently drawing up a proposal to reduce EU emissions by an expected 90% by 2040, on the way to net-zero by 2050. Under the proposals, EU fossil-fuel use could drop 80% on 1990 levels by 2040, according to Reuters.
On Twitter, Dan Byers, vice president of climate and technology at the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, acknowledged that there would be no EU demand for further LNG expansion, if the bloc meets its 1.5C-aligned climate plans, according to scenarios compiled by Rystad.
Elsewhere on Twitter, Prof Jesse Jenkins, an energy researcher at Princeton University, noted that the scale of US LNG exports is on track to be large enough to “replace peak Russian gas exports to Europe 2.5-times over”.
On 25 January, a group of 60 members of the European parliament wrote to Biden arguing that “big oil” is trying to make Europe “the excuse” for surging LNG exports, the Hill reported. According to the publication, the letter said:
“Europe should not be used as an excuse to expand LNG exports that threaten our shared climate and have dire impacts on US communities.”
According to Reuters, Asia was the second-largest receiver of US LNG in December 2023, with the region taking 27% of exports.
On Twitter, Bloomberg reporter Stephen Stapczynski argued that much of future US LNG exports could go to Asia over Europe – with Asia’s shift away from coal and rapid economic growth potentially boosting the region’s demand for gas.
However, exports to Asia are currently being “depressed” by delays at the Panama canal, which have increased the cost of shipping to the region from the US, analysts told S&P Global.
The IEA has stated that the wave of new LNG projects on the horizon “raises the risk of significant oversupply” as the world heads towards net-zero.
Citing Rystad Energy analysis, Semafor’s climate and energy editor Tim McDonnell noted that the world is heading towards an LNG “supply glut”, potentially rendering new US export terminals unnecessary. He said:
“If every global LNG project under consideration now were to be built, the market would be oversupplied by 2028 and for the foreseeable future after that.”
He added that, if the world does not manage to ramp up renewable energy production to the level required to tackle climate change in the coming years, the world could be undersupplied with LNG by 2030, based on currently planned projects.
How will the supply of US LNG affect global greenhouse gas emissions?
The pause on new LNG infrastructure was widely framed as a boost for US climate policy. (Many outlets said “climate activists” were the chief beneficiaries.)
Indeed, the Biden administration cited “the climate crisis” as a key factor motivating its decision.
Nevertheless, some commentators and business groups have argued that pausing the construction of new LNG terminals will, in fact, lead to higher emissions.
“The US should not undercut our allies or fund our enemies with a policy that will increase global emissions,” said Karen Harbert, chief executive of fossil-fuel lobby group the American Gas Association, in a statement.
When it is burned, the gas that could be exported each year via US LNG terminals that are currently under construction would result in emissions of 198m tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2), according to Carbon Brief analysis of GEM data.
This would be equivalent to around 4% of annual US emissions – or the total amount emitted by Ethiopia.
If all the other US LNG terminals under consideration were built, these potential emissions would increase to 704MtCO2 – equivalent to roughly 17% of US annual emissions.
Crucially, however, stopping this new export capacity from being built would not automatically cut emissions by the same amount.
The final impact on emissions would depend on how the move affects gas prices in the US and in importing countries, how this affects the amount of gas being produced and consumer demand – and what would be used instead if less LNG is exported .
The Washington Post summarised much of the opposition to Biden’s policy in an editorial that stated the effect on overall emissions would be “likely marginal”. It said:
“You cannot change demand for energy by destroying supply: If the US did indeed curtail LNG exports, it would just drive customers into the arms of competitors such as Australia, Qatar, Algeria and, yes, Russia. Quite possibly, some potential customers would choose to meet their needs with coal instead.”
The fossil-fuel industry often argues against policies that curb supply on this basis – stating that consumers ultimately determine how much of their carbon-emitting products are used.
However, many studies indicate that despite “leakage” – where cuts in fossil-fuel supply lead to more being pumped elsewhere – curbing supply still reduces overall emissions.
At the same time, the UK government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) noted in 2022 that increases in North Sea oil and gas production would raise global emissions, even if UK production was cleaner – and even if higher supply only boosted global demand fractionally.
A 2023 paper from the thinktank Resources for the Future concluded that removing a barrel of oil from global supplies resulted in emissions cuts equivalent to 40-50% of the total lifecycle emissions of that barrel.
The IEA says focusing climate policy efforts exclusively on supply or demand alone is “unhelpful and risks postponing – perhaps indefinitely – the changes that are needed”.
In order to achieve both existing climate pledges and the 1.5C target, the IEA therefore emphasises the need for “a wide range of different policies…to scale up both the demand and supply of clean energy and to reduce the demand and supply of fossil fuels and emissions in an equitable manner”.
(In a separate report, the IEA finds that onshore wind and solar power are now cheaper to build than both gas and coal power in virtually all circumstances, globally.)
One key pro-LNG argument is that US gas produces fewer emissions overall than other fossil fuels. Therefore, if it displaces Russian gas – supplied by pipelines that leak large amounts of methane – or high-emitting coal, then it will lead to lower global emissions.
This ties into a wider debate about whether gas can and should serve as a “bridge” or “transition” fuel between coal and low-carbon electricity. The US itself has reduced CO2 emissions from its own power sector by switching from coal to gas.
However, US LNG’s environmental impacts compared to other fossil fuels is contested. Emissions from methane leaks and the energy used to liquify, ship and “regasify” gas traded around the world can add up, dampening – or even outweighing – the emissions savings of switching from coal.
A US government-commissioned study by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) showed that US LNG “will not increase greenhouse gas emissions from a lifecycle perspective” when replacing coal in Asian and European power systems.
However, it also showed that depending on how and where the gas was used, there was a large range of potential emissions outcomes. For example, if US LNG is used to heat German or UK homes, it will not be replacing coal, just other sources of gas.
At the upper end of the range, LNG resulted in roughly 50% less emissions than coal in both European and Asian settings. However, at the lower end, US LNG resulted in roughly the same lifecycle emissions as coal, the study found.
Other studies have concluded that, in fact, gas can match coal in terms of emissions, given gas infrastructure can leak the powerful greenhouse gas methane. Research affiliated with NGO the Rocky Mountain Institute found that a methane leakage rate of just 0.2% puts gas “on par with coal”.
(It is worth mentioning that the Biden administration launched a suite of new standards and monitoring for the oil and gas industry at the end of 2023, which it says will prevent 58m tonnes of methane leaking from oil-and-gas infrastructure over the next four years.)
A study by Cornell University biogeochemist Prof Robert Howarth, frequently cited by climate activists, goes even further, stating that emissions from LNG are “27% to two‐fold greater” than using coal. However, this research – which has yet to be published in a scientific journal – remains contentious.
Even assuming that gas has significantly lower emissions than coal, given the limited remaining carbon budget, researchers have demonstrated repeatedly that all fossil fuels need to be cut rapidly in order to meet the global Paris Agreement temperature goals.
In the IEA’s net-zero scenario, which aligns with the Paris Agreement 1.5C target, new LNG infrastructure that is currently under construction is “not necessary”, according to the agency’s recent oil-and-gas report. (This is even before considering the additional capacity subject to the Biden administration “pause”.)
This can be seen in the chart below, with LNG needs in the net-zero pathway (green line) met by existing capacity. Even if countries meet – but do not improve on – current climate pledges (yellow line), much of the LNG capacity currently being built would not be needed.
In effect, permits for further new LNG export capacity – in the US or elsewhere – would only be required to meet global gas demand if international climate goals are missed by a wide margin. This is shown by the blue line in the figure below, with the IEA’s “STEPS” pathway – representing current government policies – linked to warming of 2.4C this century.
This conclusion is echoed in a paper from 2022 led by Dr Shuting Yang of the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, which concluded that “long-term planned LNG expansion is not compatible with the Paris climate targets of 1.5C and 2C”.
The analysis suggests that LNG could help to keep emissions in line with a 3C warming scenario, as it would somewhat curb the use of coal.
The researchers therefore describe LNG infrastructure as “insurance against the potential lack of global climate action to limit temperatures to 1.5C or 2C”.
On the flip side, there are concerns that building such infrastructure could “lock in” the long-term use of gas, at levels incompatible with the 1.5C or 2C targets.
Moreover, there are question marks over the extent to which additional gas exports would, in fact, be used to displace coal, given demand for the fuel is already falling rapidly in many of the countries taking US LNG imports.
In a post on LinkedIn, gas scholar Anne-Sophie Corbeau at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy noted that it would be harder for LNG to displace coal in Asia than it has been for domestic gas to do the same in the US, as it is more expensive:
“As for LNG displacing existing coal in south-east Asia, unless it’s very cheap or you have a mandatory closure of coal plants or high CO2 prices, this won’t be as easy as gas displacing coal in the US. Not the same price levels.”
NRDC analysis concluded that, even among Asian nations, “only a small amount of US LNG exports is contractually obligated to countries that currently have a large amount of current coal electricity generation or are rapidly expanding”. (This analysis did not account for the wider market impact of US LNG sales, which could have knock-on effects on coal use.)
How will the move affect US politics in the coming months?
The pause on new LNG approvals is expected to be in place for months, possibly until after the November US presidential election. During this time, the Department of Energy will conduct a review of the pending applications and this will then be open to public comment.
The move has already attracted criticism from Republicans and could emerge as a talking point as Biden gears up to face his likely rival for the presidency – Donald Trump.
Responding to the decision, Reuters quoted Karoline Leavitt, a campaign spokesperson for Trump, who called it:
“One more disastrous self-inflicted wound that will further undermine America’s economic and national security.”
(Restricting LNG export capacity would tend to keep a lid on US gas prices and boost its energy security. Nevertheless, if Trump wins the election, he can be expected to reverse the decision of his predecessor. After winning the recent Iowa caucuses, he told the crowd: “We’re going to drill, baby drill, right away.”)
The response from climate campaigners has been largely positive. Veteran activist Bill McKibben wrote on his blog:
“This is the biggest check any president has ever applied to the fossil fuel industry, and the strongest move against dirty energy in American history.”
Commentators noted that the Biden administration had likely made the decision in order to appeal to young people and members of the Democrat base who prioritise climate action.
This comes as polling suggests that many young voters are turning against Biden, a trend partly attributed to his stance on the conflict in Gaza. Writing in Heatmap, editor Robinson Meyer noted that “the administration seems to be hoping a pause on LNG approvals will help reverse that dismal momentum”.
After signing up to “transition away from fossil fuels” at the COP28 summit in Dubai, the decision also sends an international message that the world’s largest oil-and-gas producer is taking action. “The pledge…was given actual meaning by Biden’s move,” McKibben wrote.
The post Q&A: What does Biden’s LNG ‘pause’ mean for global emissions? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does Biden’s LNG ‘pause’ mean for global emissions?
Antarctic sea ice has recorded its third-smallest winter peak extent since satellite records began 48 years ago, new data reveals.
Provisional data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that Antarctic sea ice hit its annual winter peak on 14 September, with an extent of 17.59m square kilometres (km2).
The organisation notes that the data is still preliminary, adding that “large fluctuations in extent are typical of Antarctic sea ice near the seasonal maximum”.
One expert tells Carbon Brief that it is “concerning to see these low values persisting”, but says that scientists need more time to determine whether this represents a “structural shift” in Antarctic sea ice extent.
Meanwhile, at the Earth’s other pole, Arctic sea ice reached its annual minimum on 12 September, ranking as the joint-10th lowest in the satellite record.
The NSIDC notes that the last 20 years have seen the lowest 20 Arctic sea ice extents in the satellite record.
Antarctic peak
Dr Lettie Roach, a polar climate scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, tells Carbon Brief that this year’s Antarctic sea ice maximum was “well below average for the season”. She warns that, “after several decades of stable or increasing winter Antarctic sea ice conditions, it is concerning to see these low values persisting”.
She adds:
“Compared with the Arctic, it’s less clear how recent changes in Antarctic sea ice are attributable to human-caused warming vs natural variability. We need more years of observations to better understand whether this is truly a structural shift.”
Dr Clare Eayrs, a postdoctoral researcher at the Korea Polar Research Institute (KOPRI), tells Carbon Brief that, since recording a “near-average February minimum” extent, Antarctic sea ice has “returned to unusually low winter coverage”.
She notes that Antarctic sea ice extent in July and August this year were the fifth and fourth lowest on record, respectively, adding that “all five of the lowest July extents have occurred since 2022 and all four of the lowest August extents since 2023”.
The chart below shows Antarctic sea ice extent in 2025 (dark blue) and 2026 (red) so far. For comparison, the chart shows decadal averages (dotted lines) as well as 2023 (mid blue), the year of the smallest winter sea-ice maximum on record.
Eayrs tells Carbon Brief that the regional pattern of Antarctic sea ice cover “changed substantially during the growth season”.
For example, she says that “in April, the Bellingshausen Sea remained almost entirely ice-free, while the neighbouring Amundsen Sea had more ice than usual”.
However, by late August, changes in atmospheric pressure and wind meant that “the Bellingshausen deficit had largely recovered, while ice was unusually scarce in the Amundsen Sea and across much of East Antarctica”.
Arctic minimum
Meanwhile, the Arctic recorded its minimum summer sea ice extent on 12 September. At 4.60m km2, this year ties with 2025, 2010 and 2008 as the 10th-lowest sea ice extent on record.
The chart below shows Arctic sea ice extent in 2025 (dark blue) and 2026 (red) so far. For comparison, the chart shows decadal averages (dotted lines) as well as 2012 (mid blue), the year of the smallest summer sea-ice minimum on record.
Roach tells Carbon Brief that although this minimum is not “record setting”, it is still “lower than any sea ice minimum before 2007”. She adds:
“Human-caused climate change has reduced Arctic sea ice cover and thickness, so the region is fundamentally different compared to a few decades ago.”
Scientists have been tracking Arctic sea ice thickness using a reanalysis produced called the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) since 1979.
In March 2026, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) terminated a global dataset of air pressure that scientists relied upon to produce PIOMAS, forcing both datasets to stop publishing updates.
The PIOMAS website says it will take “considerable effort and time” to find alternative data to use in their reanalysis. It adds that “we don’t yet have a good sense if that’s possible with available funds and if so, when we will be able to resume production of a new PIOMAS timeseries”.
Roach also notes that August saw record-breaking heat sweep across much of the world, explaining that high temperatures “extended into Arctic coastal regions, close to regions with substantial sea ice loss – particularly the Barents-Kara and East Siberian seas”.
Dr Zack Labe, a scientist at Climate Central, tells Carbon Brief that the absence of a new record does not mean that ice cover is becoming more “resilient”. He says:
“Local weather patterns across the Arctic play a really important role in year-to-year sea-ice extent, even as the long-term trend is clearly downward.”
Labe tells Carbon Brief that weather in the Arctic this summer was “influenced mainly by lower pressure toward the central Arctic, which brought cloudier and cooler conditions that limited surface melt and delayed the start of the melt season”.
He explains that this “was most obvious across parts of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where the melt season didn’t really kick off until after early July, which was more than two weeks later than normal”.
In contrast, he says, the Atlantic side of the Arctic “had a much more extreme summer”, with sea ice in the Barents Sea recording its “earliest melt-out on record”.
This was partly due to “unusually warm air and ocean temperatures”, Labe says. He notes, for example, that parts of western Siberia saw unusually persistent temperatures more than 5C above the 1981-2010 average for much of the summer, which extended out over the Kara Sea and contributed to substantial ice melt in this area”.
Labe tells Carbon Brief that, going forward, scientists need “more data and observations of other sea-ice metrics, like ice thickness, which may give us better insight into the overall condition of the ice pack, especially during years like 2026 when it is very fragmented”.
(In March 2026, Arctic sea ice reached its peak extent for this winter, clocking in as the joint-smallest in a satellite record going back almost half a century.)
Related
Guest post: Climate change has caused one-fifth of Pine Island glacier retreat
‘Very alarming’ winter sees Arctic sea ice hit record-low for second year running
Q&A: How Trump is threatening climate science in Earth’s polar regions
Limiting warming to 2C is ‘crucial’ to protect pristine Antarctic Peninsula
The post ‘Concerning’ low sea ice persists as Antarctic hits third-lowest winter peak appeared first on Carbon Brief.
‘Concerning’ low sea ice persists as Antarctic hits third-lowest winter peak
Participants at COP31 in Antalya will have a “duty” not to interfere in Türkiye’s internal affairs under the country’s hosting deal with the UN, reviving a clause dropped for last year’s climate summit in Brazil that human rights groups warn could put activists at risk.
Türkiye has faced growing criticism from human rights groups over the jailing of opposition figures, journalists and activists and imposed a blanket protest ban around July’s summit of the NATO military alliance in Ankara.
The contested provision is included in the binding agreement between the UN climate secretariat and the Turkish government that sets out responsibilities over logistical arrangements and details participants’ rights and obligations.
The document, signed in June but only made public on Wednesday, gives accredited COP31 attendees immunity from legal action over what they say, write or do in connection with the conference. Climate Home News understands that this safeguard can be applied to what takes place both inside and, in certain circumstances, outside of the UN-controlled COP “Blue Zone”. For the first time, this protection explicitly continues after the summit ends.
But participants enjoying these “privileges and immunities” also have a duty to respect Türkiye’s laws and regulations and not to interfere in its internal affairs, the agreement states. Rights groups fear its wide-ranging formulation could be used to discourage criticism of the host government.
Climate Home News understands that whether an action is covered by the immunity or infringes on the host’s internal affairs would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with close coordination between the country’s authorities and the UN climate change body.
A separate provision states that immunity shall be waived where the UN believes it would “impede the course of justice”.
‘Chilling effect’
Those same provisions featured in the host country agreements for COP28 in the United Arab Emirates and COP29 in Azerbaijan, both regarded as authoritarian regimes, before being dropped for COP30 in Brazil.
Ann Harrison, climate justice policy advisor at Amnesty International, said it is “extremely disappointing” that the COP31 agreement re-introduced clauses that could “hinder the ability of human rights defenders and civil society organisations to conduct their work safely”.
COP31 electrification pledge leaves out clean power commitment
She added the provisions could have a “wider chilling effect” on rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, given concerns over the human rights situation in Türkiye, including laws that “have shrunk civic space” and their “abusive” implementation by authorities.
The UN climate change body declined to comment.
Rights groups have documented blanket protest bans, unlawful use of force by the police and prosecutions of journalists, human rights defenders and lawyers across Türkiye in the last year.
Arrests and protest bans
Last July, environmental activist Esra Işık was sentenced to more than two years for “resisting” a public official over what Amnesty International described as a peaceful protest against an urgent expropriation order linked to the expansion of coal mining in south-western Türkiye. She is appealing the conviction.
Ahead of a summit of the NATO alliance in the capital Ankara in July, authorities put in place a 13-day blanket ban on demonstrations, citing “national security”, and arrested over 200 people. Human Rights Watch said the crackdown showed Türkiye’s “ruthless intolerance of freedom of speech and assembly”.
Earlier this month, Turkish police detained dozens of people as part of what rights groups described as the government’s widening crackdown on LGBTQ+ activists and venues.
Questioned by media as to how he would guarantee the right to protest at COP31, Kurum said earlier in September that his team would “try to meet” any request they receive from civil society and give them “a free space to express themselves”.
“Don’t worry, thinking you will not be able to voice your opinions or really share your thoughts,” he said in an attempt to reassure campaigners, adding that he had put former deputy environment minister Mehmet Birpinar in charge of liaising with civil society.
Civic space needed
Camilla Pollera, human rights and climate change campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said meaningful participation at COP31 is fundamental to the legitimacy of climate action.
“At a climate summit, civil society participation necessarily includes being present, speaking out, scrutinising governments’ decisions and climate policies, and advocating for communities most vulnerable to climate change,” she added.
At last year’s COP30 summit, thousands of Indigenous people and climate activists peacefully marched through the Amazonian city of Belém in the first major demonstration outside the UN venue in four years. Smaller-scale demonstrations were largely confined to the “Blue Zone” at COP27 in Egypt, COP28 in the UAE and COP29 in Azerbaijan.
In two other separate incidents in Belém, members of the Munduruku tribe blocked access to the conference centre for hours, demanding an end to development projects in their ancestral land, and protesters stormed through the venue clashing with UN security officials.
The COP31 hosting agreement keeps some of the safeguards previously hailed by civil society groups. The government and the UN secretariat commit to upholding “the fundamental human rights” of all participants in the agreement’s preamble.
Under the deal, Türkiye also needs to ensure that security personnel follow “the highest ethical and professional standards and are expected to behave with integrity and respect”.
The post COP31 attendees told not to interfere in Türkiye’s “internal affairs” appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP31 attendees told not to interfere in Türkiye’s “internal affairs”
As rising seas submerge growing swathes of land, countries that lose territory should still keep their national boundaries, sovereign rights and UN membership, according to a political declaration adopted at the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday.
The declaration, which was championed by climate-vulnerable small island states, affirms “the presumption in favour of continued statehood” in the face of sea level rise fuelled by climate change, and urges countries to work together to assist communities affected by encroaching oceans.
Speaking at a high-level UN meeting to address the existential threats posed by sea level rise, Cabo Verde’s Prime Minister Francisco Carvalho, one of the initiative’s co-facilitators along with Australia, said the adoption of the text by consensus sends “a message of hope”.
“This declaration has a very special meaning. For us, sea level rise is neither a distant threat nor a theoretical concern,” he said, adding that rising seas put at risk key infrastructure, water resources and economic growth in small island states.
In the Pacific, sea levels have risen at twice the global rate, dramatically increasing coastal flooding events from two to 20 a year in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and from zero to 102 events per year in American Samoa, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Surangel Whipps Jr., president of the Pacific island of Palau, said the summit in New York represents a “moment of international solidarity”, and highlighted that small island states will remain permanent members of the UN.
-
Push for cooking to be part of COP31’s electrification agenda
The President of Kenya and the British climate envoy said Africa should use the global electrification push to roll out clean cooking -
Germany unveils plan to end use of fossil fuels in energy sector by 2045
Germany became the third country to publish a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels after France and the Netherlands, as the UN chief calls on all governments to follow -
UN Climate Summit: UN chief says world has tools to end fossil fuel age
At the UN Secretary-General’s climate summit in New York, countries shared their energy transition plans while Nepal and island nations advocated for more international support
Declaration recognises statehood
An advisory opinion by the world’s top maritime court, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), first upheld in 2024 that countries do not have to shrink their maritime borders even if they lose land territory due to sea level rise. This was reiterated by the International Court of Justice in last year’s landmark ruling on the climate obligations of states.
The new declaration endorsed by all governments at the UN General Assembly stresses that sea level rise “is not a distant scenario but a real and lived experience for many”, and notes that international law must be implemented in global responses to rising seas.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the “milestone must now be translated into action”, adding that the declaration should encourage an “ongoing dialogue” at the “highest possible level” leading to practical outcomes. Pacific islands have proposed an international treaty on sea level rise that would provide more legal certainty.
“Those on the frontlines must be front and centre on every decision. We cannot allow countries and cultures to vanish beneath the waves,” he said. “The SOS has gone out. The world must answer.”
At regional summit, Pacific islands ask for COP31 support for clean energy and finance
Goodwin Friday, prime minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, said measures to protect vulnerable states will require adequate finance. “Investing in resilience now is more cost-effective than paying the far greater price for loss and damage later,” he added.
Championed by Australia’s COP31 co-presidency, Pacific islands have sought to put adaptation to sea level rise and ocean conservation at the top of the political agenda by inviting world leaders to attend the pre-COP31 summit co-hosted by Fiji and Tuvalu in October.
Tuvalu will also host the second global fossil fuel phase-out summit in April 2027, after around 60 governments met this year in Santa Marta, Colombia, to discuss ending their dependence on coal, oil and gas.
“Our coastlines, our reefs and our communities are living with the consequences of fossil fuel dependence every day, and our people have earned the right to help shape the way forward,” Lynda Tabuya, Fiji’s climate minister, said in a statement announcing details of the conference.
Ocean monitoring gets a boost in New York
Amid record-breaking marine heat and seas rising at unprecedented speed, governments in New York announced new commitments to protect the world’s ocean, as efforts to bolster marine ecosystems and coastal communities rise up the political agenda.
On Wednesday, the EU and Canada announced more funding for a new Europe-led ocean monitoring system called OceanEye, launched in the aftermath of a failed attempt by the Trump administration to dismantle the largest existing network of deep-sea observatories.
During an event at UN headquarters in New York, EU President Ursula von der Leyen and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced around $163 million in new funding for the initiative, with the EU pledging €92 million ($105m) on top of existing seed funding and Canada pledging C$82 million (US$58m) over five years.
According to an EU statement, while OceanEye will collaborate with the Global Ocean Observing System, that network “remains vulnerable to financial shortfalls and geopolitical disruptions”. A group of 30 countries from Europe, Africa and the Americas joined an international initiative in support of OceanEye, including large coastal nations like Brazil, Namibia and Mexico.
Von der Leyen said OceanEye “can make us the leading ocean data provider in a matter of years”, including by launching new satellites and installing new observatories in the deep ocean. “From outer space to the deepest ocean, our funding helps us keep watch beneath the waves,” she added.
Carney said the initiative would help protect Canada’s Arctic region with real-time monitoring operating year-round. “We can’t protect what we can’t see,” he said, also highlighting that Canada had expanded conservation of its ocean territory from 1% a decade ago to 15% now.
In New York, a group of 19 countries said they are either developing or implementing plans to sustainably manage all of their ocean territory, with 12 new nations joining the initiative. In a joint communiqué, they called on more countries to sign up ahead of COP31.
Warnings of El Niño-fuelled extreme heat
Scientists and world leaders have raised the alarm over this year’s record-breaking marine temperatures, which have persisted above historical peaks for more than 100 days as the naturally occurring El Niño phenomenon intensifies in the Pacific.
Extreme ocean heat could become a threat to coastal ecosystems and communities, experts fear. Water temperatures 1.5C above normal levels have also rapidly fuelled a strong hurricane in the Pacific in recent days.
Despite scientific calls for additional ocean conservation efforts, a report launched this week in New York warned that efforts to protect ocean ecosystems are lagging behind, with only 10% of the global ocean covered by conservation areas and just 3.5% designated as “effectively protected”.
The post Threatened by rising seas, small islands secure right to keep their statehood appeared first on Climate Home News.
Threatened by rising seas, small islands secure right to keep their statehood
-
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 Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19