What does it mean to be undocumented in the United States, to live in fear of loved ones being deported, to feel the formalized language of being ‘alien’ knowing it is a tactic to dehumanize us? When asked to share our stories, which ones do we tell?
I’ve learned over time how to decipher which version to share and which aspects to keep. For me, it depends on the community in which I tell it and the sense of ‘belonging’ I perceive from the places I share it.
Understanding climate change has meant digging into history, my ancestral knowledge, why my parents moved from Zacatecas, Mexico, to Minnesota, and embracing what makes a place ‘home.’ I learned that Zacatecas was a hot spot for mining, silver, copper, and gold as exports to Canada and the United States. My family held these jobs, which meant handling the TNT for land blasting and other unimaginable work. My dad was a worker in an open mine just a few miles from our home, a profession that left him with the scars to prove the physical demand. When I was born in 1992, both of my parents were already sick, and I was born with a lot of health complications. Doctors told my parents that if we remained in the community, it would be challenging to keep me healthy. I am not sure that my parents made the connection between heavy industry and our sickness. Still, my parents desperately wanted me to be healthy, so we migrated to the U.S. Now, I see the interconnections with corporations who positioned jobs that poisoned us as viable opportunities to make a living and that my parents had to choose between staying and remaining sick or migrating for the promise of health and a better life. I see the sacrifice that they made for me.
I know how people think and talk about immigrants, and I know the importance of what it means to share my story as part of this collective narrative. I know that it will resonate with so many others. I am holding the fear of wanting to protect my people while learning the importance of being more open so that we can be visible and represented in the climate conversation, too.
Moving to Minneapolis, we rented a room, and my school was near the HERC (Hennepin Energy Recovery Center), the state’s largest trash incinerator. We did not know the HERC was burning 1,000 tons of trash per day, with it emitting mercury, lead, carbon monoxide, and dioxins into the air. We did not know that the surrounding community had asthma rates in children five times the national average. I spent childhood years playing in the neighborhood, but I only learned about the dangers of the HERC a year ago. I now recall when we moved to the suburb of Richfield, that my sickness had gotten better. The HERC was built 34 years ago, and for a long time was positioned as “green energy.” I wonder how might things have been different if this information had been more openly available? I am grateful for the work of community groups, environmental justice activists and organizers who are dedicated to telling these truths. Yet, there is more work to do to make this environmental injustice and its importance known in the Latinx community. In my role, as Associate Executive Director of COPAL (Communities Organizing Latinx Power and Action), I have the power and privilege to do something about it.
This begins with recognizing the known patterns: who are the culprits in Minnesota and our homelands? When I was 9 years old, my mom was diagnosed with cancer. I began to unpack the layered and cumulative impacts of environmental injustice following our family from one community to the next. The commonalities are powerful corporations that share a greed that puts people last, extraction of land and labor, and monies made for profit first. Thinking about my origin story in Mexico, I now understand that there were policies in place to lessen harm to the health and viability of the community that could have made it possible for my family to stay, but they were not followed. Here in Minnesota, the Cumulative Impacts Environmental Justice Bill passed in the 2023 Legislative Session, yet there are still loopholes for industries to pollute without facing penalties. So, we must keep asking questions and showing up to hold those accountable. To implement laws that protect our people and put the community first. The journey of learning about who I am, the connections of environmental justice in my own story, and knowing what we have been through to be here fills me with mixed feelings about how people talk or think about immigrants as less than. In reality, climate change and the corporations responsible have played a significant role in migrant stories, and that connection is often overlooked.
In 2016, the hateful rhetoric coming from the President of the United States left an impact on me. I remember doing homework at the dining table after school, and my mom was in the kitchen. We listened as he talked on the news, saying that illegal immigrants were not people but animals. Something deeply stirred in me as I heard threats to make our existence here less visible. As a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipient, which granted me temporary protection, otherwise known as a “Dreamer.” This status and more were at stake, and it was deeply personal. I started teaching citizenship classes so that my community members in Minnesota could become eligible to vote and change the narrative to reflect more accurately seeing people as human beings worthy of that dignity.
With a group of friends, we started teaching courses in Spanish to address the language barrier for a test only offered in English. The first class had thirty participants, and it became an incredibly successful program. In 2018, I met Francisco Segovia, the Executive Director at COPAL. That began our work together at COPAL to address the immediate needs of the Latinx community through policy change. In my role, I work at the intersection of environmental justice, health, wellness, and communications. My pull into this work directly relates to my lived experiences, but making the climate connection to the migrant story is not always accessible to people. It requires deeper awareness and learning for people to unpack their own stories. A big part of this work is listening to people and asking curious questions: where is home? Where are our families from? What cultural aspects, favorite foods, and celebrations make us who we are? What represents home, and how can Minnesota be part of that?
Working on the cumulative impacts of environmental justice and with community members to pass legislation has shown me the importance of sharing our dreams and stories. Crafting stories to share in community are the powerful testimonies that will be essential in public commenting to impact rulemaking where the details and accountability matter and must reflect our lived realities and experiences. Unfortunately, I am not alone in deciphering which version of the story I can tell based on the audience. But I want to get better at leaning into the fullness of what I want to share, despite the reception level I receive or the willingness of mainstream audiences to hear my words. Mostly, I want to share my story in the presence of my beloved community to help others see themselves in my migrant story.
Written by Carolina Oritz, with story coaching support from Change Narrative LLC.
Carolina Ortiz has been with COPAL since its founding in 2018. She led the communications team for two years and is now the associate executive director. Carolina was born in Zacatecas, Mexico and is currently studying communications at the University of Minnesota. A DREAMer herself, her passion for social justice stems from her own experiences and those of her community.
Carolina is a Climate Generation Window Into COP delegate for COP28. To learn more, we encourage you to meet the full delegation and subscribe to the Window Into COP digest.
The post The Universal Right to a Healthy Environment appeared first on Climate Generation.
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a negligible fraction of the funding needed to preserve ecosystems, allowing industries to continue with their destructive business-as-usual practices.
-
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
Countries remain 70% off track to meet a goal to end deforestation by 2030, as progress in Latin America offset by failures in Africa -
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
Brazil’s environment minister said the Tropical Forest Forever Facility has raised billions in record time – which he hopes will convince more investors
In advanced economies, public funding often actively undermines biodiversity. In Europe, over €5.3 billion in public subsidies is funnelled annually into intensive forest biomass harvesting under renewable energy directives, degrading primary forest ecosystems and undermining long-term climate resilience. Pleading with private investors to fill a “finance gap” while pouring billions into ecological destruction is an exercise in futility.
Developing countries struggle with debt burden
For developing countries, reliance on private finance is further compounded by a crushing sovereign debt crisis. In 2024, public debt in developing economies reached record levels, with net interest payments alone absorbing $921 billion. A record 61 developing countries now spend more than 10% of government revenue on foreign debt service, with many climate-vulnerable nations spending twice as much servicing external debt as they receive in climate and biodiversity finance combined.
This burden acts as a structural driver of ecosystem destruction. Under pressure from external creditors and international financial institutions to avoid default and secure foreign exchange, governments are routinely forced into austerity measures and pushed to expand raw commodity exports into pristine biomes.
Comment: World Bank and IMF should lead the financial system in responding to the climate crisis
The current negotiations for a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC) also offer a way forward. An estimated $492 billion in tax revenue is lost every year to offshore tax havens. Multinational corporations account for around $348 billion of this total by shifting profits away from the countries where real economic extraction and environmental degradation occur.
In the mining sector alone, developing nations lose tens of billions annually to corporate tax dodging. Furthermore, international financial secrecy shields environmental criminals, with illicit financial flows from illegal logging draining between $51 billion and $152 billion annually.
At COP17, leaders must seize the opportunity to build a bridge between the two conventions and enhance cooperation. Governments must put the world on a firm path to securing predictable, sufficient, sovereign public finance for biodiversity conservation. It’s the only path to a restorative, rights-based future for people and the planet.
The post Protecting nature is a public duty, not a Wall Street profit opportunity appeared first on Climate Home News.
Protecting nature is a public duty, not a Wall Street profit opportunity
Climate Change
Greenpeace delivers 47 metre-long petition with half a million signatures to Woodside HQ following major gas protest
Greenpeace delivers 47 metre-long petition with half a million signatures to Woodside HQ following major gas protest
PERTH, Monday 19 October 2026 — Dozens of Perth community members delivered a giant petition, signed by almost half a million people, to Woodside’s corporate headquarters this morning, calling on the government to save Scott Reef from Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal.