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.
In 2024, carbon emissions hit a record high, with more than 41 billion tonnes of planet-heating CO2 pumped into the Earth’s atmosphere. From aviation to agriculture, every industry contributed a share of those emissions, mainly through the use of fossil fuels.
If the world is to start reducing emissions and reach net zero in the second half of the century, as promised under the Paris climate agreement in 2015, we need to know exactly where those emissions are coming from. Crunching the data offers up estimates of which sectors release the most greenhouse gases – but this is a far harder task at the corporate level.
There are the major fossil fuel firms, both state-run and private – such as Shell, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil or Coal India – which we know play an outsized role. But according to the World Bank, 90% of global businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises.
Understanding their environmental impact – and how they contribute to the emissions of larger companies further up the value chain – is complex but essential if climate action goals set by both governments and the private sector are to be met, experts say.
While businesses have long been aware of the need to curb their emissions, the process of collecting data on their supply chains, and knowing what to do with it, can serve as a barrier to action. And without regulation to make companies set and meet targets to reduce their carbon pollution, monitoring and analysing emissions has so far been a voluntary effort.
Problem with a wide scope
The first attempt to properly account for company-level emissions started almost 25 years ago with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Its corporate standard was developed in 2001 in response to the UN’s Kyoto Protocol on limiting the emissions of wealthy countries, and covered reporting of the seven greenhouse gases covered by that agreement.
The GHG Protocol was formed by two non-profit organisations: the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Its work has become a standard bearer in the field of carbon accounting, with its guidance used by thousands of corporations, and updates to its rules closely followed.
The protocol’s lasting contribution was to create the concept of ‘scopes’, which separate a company’s emissions into three distinct categories. Scope 1 covers all emissions from direct sources a company owns or controls. Scope 2 is indirect emissions from purchasing energy. Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions within a company’s supply chain.
Comment: SBTi needs tighter rules on companies’ indirect emissions
Defining Scope 3 – and how to adequately account for and offset those emissions – has proved a difficult task. These emissions can include everything from business travel to a company’s financial investments. The GHG protocol has 15 separate categories on Scope 3 emissions, reflecting the wide range of where they might be found.
These categories are themselves divided into ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’; for example, upstream could include the use of any vehicle a company doesn’t own but is in the service of its business. Downstream can cover activities such as how products are treated at the end of their life.
“Scope 3 has proven to be one of the most challenging topics to be addressed among the business community,” said Ramiro Fernandez, campaign director at Race to Zero, a UN-backed climate campaign. “For years the climate business community has been developing methodologies and metric frameworks to account for the emissions of companies’ value chains.”
The knottiness of the issue means that many companies are reluctant to engage with tackling this category of emissions. A 2024 survey of 300 large public companies by consultancy firm Deloitte found that while three-quarters disclose their Scope 1 emissions, and around half Scope 2, the figure falls dramatically to 15% for Scope 3.
Threat to 1.5C goal
Sustainability experts warn that ignoring Scope 3 emissions is self-defeating and puts at risk the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial times, given that an estimated 75% of the average company’s emissions fall into that category, according to CDP, a non-profit that helps businesses disclose their environmental impact.
“If we fail to address Scope 3, corporate net-zero pledges cannot be achieved,” said Sanda Ojiambo, CEO and executive director of the UN Global Compact, a voluntary initiative supporting sustainability in business.
“Most business-related emissions come from Scope 3, which means neglecting them keeps us on a dangerous path to exceeding 1.5C [of global warming],” she added.
The Science Based Targets initiative, originally set up to ensure that corporate climate plans are in line with the Paris Agreement, has approved 7,000 targets over the past 10 years. Notably, the initiative requires all companies to include Scope 3 emissions in their long-term emissions reduction targets.
Ojiambo told Climate Home the UN Global Compact is working with thousands of businesses to ensure that Scope 3 emissions are “no longer an afterthought but a core pillar of corporate climate strategies”.
Comment: SBTi’s rigid emissions rules don’t reflect business reality
In tech we trust
The thorny challenge of reducing Scope 3 emissions has given rise to a host of solutions aimed at making it easier. Ways to tackle the problem include engaging with suppliers, investing in data collection and using technology to track emissions across the whole life cycle of products.
German software company SAP, for example, is attempting to integrate carbon data with financial data to create a “green ledger”. This system assigns carbon emissions to a company’s transactions, with a dashboard showing the impact of greenhouse gas intensity on operating income, gross margin and net revenue. The hope is that this process will generate real-world numbers rather than relying on estimates, as most businesses do today.
James Sullivan, global head of product management at SAP Sustainability, said the software will “change business practice… to accurately account for, analyse and report carbon footprints”. The ledger is the latest in a range of data-driven services the company and its peers are putting into the market to help businesses wrestle with emissions that are beyond their immediate control.
Locating accurate data on all Scope 3 emissions – and then calculating how they have reduced over time – can seem like a Herculean task. Where data gaps exist, the GHG Protocol advises using secondary data based on industry averages, government statistics, or public databases that are representative of a company’s activities. But using such generic data at scale may not provide an accurate picture of emissions or the impact of corporate action to stem them.
Sullivan believes that better data is key to solving the Scope 3 puzzle. “A major advancement is the widespread understanding that managing Scope 3 emissions requires high-quality data and transparency into supply chains,” he said. “It is crucial for businesses to integrate sustainability data into core business processes.”
Getting ahead of competitors
Companies like SAP are confident their technological solutions are having a tangible impact on that front. Sullivan pointed to one of its customers, Martur Fompak International, a Turkish supplier of seats for the automotive sector. As a result of using SAP’s technology, Sullivan said the company has reported a 52% reduction in transportation-related carbon emissions and a 34% decrease in emissions linked to its automotive seats.
Martur Fompak achieved this, in part, through tracking emissions across its products’ entire lifecycle, from where the materials were sourced to where they were sent and used. The software analysed the carbon footprint of different fabrics and suggested lower-impact alternatives. It also provided real-time monitoring of the company’s energy consumption at more than 600 work centres, and created new delivery routes for its drivers.
Ojiambo noted that many large companies are making emissions reductions a condition of doing business with them and weaving such criteria into their procurement contracts. This could give suppliers like Martur Fompak a major incentive to lower their emissions in order to gain a competitive edge.
“Suppliers are feeling the pressure, but the smartest ones see this as an opportunity rather than a burden,” she added.
Business contribution to NDCs
The current global political climate has made sustainability concerns a convenient punchbag, with US President Donald Trump’s anti-green agenda already encouraging many companies to scale back their environmental ambitions. Across the Atlantic, the European Commission is planning to water down a package of sustainability rules originally intended to be world-leading.
The mood music is not exactly positive. According to the Financial Times, some participants at January’s World Economic Forum in Davos reported that ambition around tackling Scope 3 emissions was “crumbling” among business executives.
This comes at a time of record heat and more frequent extreme weather events, when scientists are concerned at the pace of change in the Earth’s climate and its effects. To tackle this, countries are due to submit stronger national climate plans by September, including emissions reduction targets for 2035, as required by the Paris Agreement.
These plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), are a clear example of where businesses could play a bigger role in supporting government efforts to fight climate change but currently lack the capacity, partly due to a lack of data and other resources.
Tom Cumberlege, a director at The Carbon Trust, who leads the consultancy’s work on value chain analysis and strategy, said NDCs that are able to leverage both public and private funding for implementation “could be a win-win” for governments and businesses.
“It can reduce the risk of investing in projects – such as energy efficiency improvements or renewable assets in the supply chain – and contribute to effective emissions reductions at a national level,” he explained.
Achieving NDC targets will require businesses to align their own climate action plans with those of governments and their suppliers. “Companies have an increasingly important role to play in engaging and supporting their own value chain to be part of the contribution [to NDCs],” said Fernandez of Race to Zero.
“Transitioning to net zero requires a whole of society approach,” he added. “Even with all the uncertainties and lack of clarity, companies have to reduce their Scope 3 emissions if we want to have any chance of remaining within the 1.5C threshold.”
The post Neglecting ‘Scope 3’ emissions could sink corporate climate action appeared first on Climate Home News.
Neglecting ‘Scope 3’ emissions could sink corporate climate action
The United States will provide a $4.7-billion loan to a fossil gas plant in Mozambique that has been described as a “carbon bomb” and is beset by allegations of human rights abuses.
The US Export-Import Bank (EXIM), a government agency, on Thursday approved financial support for the liquefied natural gas (LNG) project run by French energy giant TotalEnergies in the country’s northern Cabo Delgado region.
US EXIM has yet to publicly confirm the deal, but its approval has been widely reported.
The US backing was seen as key to unlocking financing for what is set to be one of Africa’s largest-ever energy projects, with a total expected cost of $20 billion. The loan also marks a U-turn from a possible ban on public funding for oil and gas developments abroad that rich countries, including the US, were on the verge of agreeing at the end of last year.
Risky investment
The US export credit agency had already agreed to finance the Mozambique project in 2019 during President Donald Trump’s first stint in office, but fresh approval was required after TotalEnergies triggered a contractual “force majeure” pause in 2021.
The French energy giant halted construction on the facility following an attack by the Al-Shabaab militant group in the Cabo Delgado region where the plant is located. Up to 1,200 civilians are estimated to have died or gone missing in the assault.
Age of “climate whiplash” puts residents of Africa’s fast-growing cities in danger
French authorities began investigating Total last year for possible involuntary manslaughter after survivors of the attack accused the company of failing to ensure the safety of its subcontractors. Total has rejected the accusations.
An investigation by Politico also alleged that Mozambican soldiers operating out of Total’s plant abducted, raped and killed dozens of civilians. The company’s Mozambican subsidiary told Politico it had no knowledge of the events.
Total had hoped to restart construction at the site in 2024 but conceded this January that it would not begin operations before 2029 amid security concerns and funding uncertainties.
Rich nations ignore polluting past to claim climate plans are 1.5C-compatible
Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of TotalEnergies, launched a lobbying blitz at the end of last year, hoping to secure the backing of the Biden administration for the project, but his efforts ultimately failed.
Speaking to Bloomberg this week on the sidelines of CERAWeek, Poyuanné asserted, “now you have a functional US EXIM” after President Trump appointed a new board at the agency.
The Total boss added that “most of the contracts have been awarded to US companies”, which he described as the “driver” of the US government’s support for the project.
‘Carbon bomb’
Opposing the mega-project, climate campaigners have described the Mozambique LNG venture as a “carbon bomb” that threatens the world’s chances of keeping global warming in check. It could produce up to 121 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year over its life-cycle of close to four decades, including emissions generated from the final use of the gas, according to calculations by Friends of the Earth.
Collin Rees, US campaign manager at Oil Change International, called the project “a climate and human rights nightmare”.
“The Trump administration is committing billions in taxpayer funds to a fossil fuel project linked to severe human rights violations, while simultaneously cutting federal jobs and essential public services for working families [in the US],” he added.
Kate DeAngelis, economic policy deputy director at Friends of the Earth US, described EXIM’s decision as “the pinnacle of government waste and an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars”.
Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has cancelled more than 80% of US international aid programmes – including dozens of projects in Mozambique – claiming they did not serve the country’s national interests.
“Clearly, the only aid Trump supports is foreign aid for billionaires and foreign gas companies,” DeAngelis added.
Decision time for UK and Netherlands
Total’s LNG venture in Mozambique also won support from the British and Dutch export credit agencies before the project’s halt in 2021. The two lenders have been reportedly reassessing their financial commitment and have yet to announce a final decision.
The Financial Times reported last month that the UK government was taking legal advice on whether it could withdraw its £1.15-billion ($1.49-billion) support for the project without facing legal repercussions.
Oil Change’s Rees said UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer should “show courage and break with the previous UK government’s foolish decision to support this nightmare”.
Brazil decides leaders will speak before COP30, easing logistics crunch
US EXIM approved billions in support for oil and gas developments abroad under former President Joe Biden, even though the US had joined 33 other countries at the COP26 climate summit in pledging to end direct public finance for overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022.
The Biden administration made a late attempt to change course before Trump’s return to the White House by belatedly backing a proposal to ban export credit support for oil and gas abroad, put forward by member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
But the push, led primarily by the EU and the UK, failed after opposition from South Korea and Türkiye stalled the discussions. Negotiators met again in Paris this week, but an observer told Climate Home that the deal now appears to be off the table given the seismic geopolitical changes since Trump took office in January.
The post US approves multi-billion-dollar loan for troubled Mozambique gas plant appeared first on Climate Home News.
US approves multi-billion-dollar loan for troubled Mozambique gas plant
Climate Change
DeBriefed 14 March 2025: US’s ‘moral case for fossil fuels’; Rainforest felled for ‘COP30 road’; Myanmar’s energy crisis
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
US ‘180-degree pivot’
‘SIDE EFFECT’: US energy secretary Chris Wright promised a “180-degree pivot” on climate policy while speaking in front of oil and gas executives, the New York Times reported. Addressing an industry conference in Houston, he said there was a “moral case for fossil fuels” to alleviate poverty and was dismissive of renewables, the newspaper added. CNBC reported that Wright also said: “The Trump administration will treat climate change for what it is – a global physical phenomenon that is a side effect of building the modern world.”
MORE CUTS: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) terminated $20bn in grants for climate projects, awarded through a “green bank” known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Bloomberg reported. However, Inside Climate News said that a federal judge has “sharply criticised the agency for canceling the grants without presenting any evidence of wrongdoing, calling the administration’s justification weak and unsubstantiated”. It added: “The judge stopped short of issuing a ruling on reinstatement of the funds, leaving grant recipients in limbo.”
NASA CHANGES: NASA has dismissed its chief scientist, climate-science expert Katherine Calvin, along with 20 others as part of changes imposed by the Trump administration, says the New York Times. The newspaper also added the government “could be considering slashing the budget for NASA’s science activities by half”.
Road to COP30
COP30 HIGHWAY: Eight miles of “Amazon rainforest” are being cleared to build a four-lane highway ahead of the COP30 climate talks in Belém later this year, said the Times. BBC News, which broke the story, added the road is designed to ease traffic in the Brazilian city. However, the Brazilian government responded to say the media stories were “misleading” because the road was planned before COP30 was announced.
CLIMATE MULTILATERALISM: Meanwhile, the Times of India reported that, in the wake of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the Brazilian COP30 presidency has invited the hosts of all the UN climate summits since COP21 in Paris to form a “circle of presidencies” to enhance multilateral efforts to tackle climate change.
Carney for Canada
OH, CANADA: Mark Carney was elected leader of the Liberal party in Canada and will replace Justin Trudeau as prime minister, reported the Globe and Mail. CNN noted that the former governor of the banks of England and Canada has “advocated for the financial sector to invest in net-zero” and held the position of UN special envoy for climate action and finance in 2019.
BANKING ROLLBACKS: Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported that the Net-Zero Banking Alliance – the “top global climate alliance for banks” founded by Carney – will ask its members to vote on abandoning a pledge to align their $54tn in assets with the Paris Agreement aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. There has been an “exodus of many leading US banks” since Trump’s second term, but major players such as HSBC and Barclays remain in the alliance, the newspaper said.
Around the world
- FLASH FLOODS: Agence France-Presse reported that a flash flood in Bahía Blanca, Argentina has killed at least 16 people and caused $400m in damages.
- ENERGY BILLS: A UK bill introduced to parliament this week sought to speed up approval of clean-energy projects and reduce energy bills by £250 a year for people living near new or upgraded pylons, BBC News reported.
- TWO SESSIONS: China’s influential “two-sessions” political meetings ended on Tuesday, with new climate commitments, Carbon Brief reported.
- FEWER EMISSIONS: Emissions in Germany fell 3.4% in 2024, noted Reuters, adding that it puts the country “on track” to meet its 2030 climate targets.
3.6%
The amount that the UK’s emissions fell by in 2024, seeing emissions reach their lowest level since 1872, according to a new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- A study in Public Understanding of Science, co-authored by Carbon Brief’s Josh Gabbatiss, found that UK newspapers increased their support for climate action from 2011-21, but also featured “multiple discourses of delay”.
- New analysis from the World Weather Attribution group concluded that human-caused climate change increased recent heavy rainfall in Botswana by 60%.
- A study in PLOS Climate found smallholder farmers in rural northeast Madagascar witnessed increases in temperature and decreases in rainfall over a five-year period and are concerned about the effects of climate change on their livelihoods.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
New analysis by Carbon Brief revealed that nearly a tenth of global climate finance could be under threat, as Trump continues to cut spending on international aid. Since taking office in January, Trump has pulled the US out of multiple international climate funds and initiatives, including plans withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement. He has also threatened to cancel virtually all US Agency for International Development (USAid) projects, with climate funds identified as a prime target. These actions are likely to endanger global efforts to help developing countries tackle climate change.
Spotlight
Myanmar’s energy crisis
This week, Carbon Brief looks at energy challenges in Myanmar and whether solar power could help to provide a solution.
Earlier this year, military rulers in Myanmar slashed power supplies for two of the country’s major cities – the capital, Naypyidaw, and Yangon. The order said that Yangon, the country’s largest city, would only receive eight hours of electricity per day on a rotating power schedule.
However, the reality on the ground is more severe. The capital of Naypyidaw appears to have been prioritised, with 16 hours of power on and eight hours off, while residents in Yangon report sometimes only receiving two hours of electricity per day. Other parts of the country have also been affected.
‘In the dark’
Rolling blackouts in Myanmar are not new. Back in 2019, the country experienced widespread energy shortages due to a widening power supply-demand gap.
However, Myanmar’s power-sector challenges have grown since the country’s military coup in February 2021.
The national power grid has been attacked and damaged due to armed conflict resisting the coup. A Frontier Myanmar article from 2023 reported that there had been 229 attacks on electricity infrastructure since the 2021 coup, which the military blamed on rebel groups.
A loss of foreign investment, economic turmoil and mismanagement have also all contributed to Myanmar’s energy crisis, said Richard Harrison, former CEO of Smart Power Myanmar, an NGO aimed at providing solar power to small businesses. He told Carbon Brief:
“Governments and donors no longer have direct relations with the national government and most NGOs are badly underfunded. There is almost no energy-related funding in Myanmar.”
Slowing solar
The country’s electricity mix currently mostly consists of gas and hydropower.
Before the coup, multiple projects, including solar farms, had been planned to help reduce the growing power supply-demand and increase electrification rates.
According to a report by the World Bank, a “major solar tender was launched in May 2020 for 30 solar power plants to be constructed throughout the country”. But “only one of those was completed since the military takeover in 2021 and the other 29 were cancelled”, the report said.
Myanmar has also experienced shortages of gas for power generation, compounded by investor exits and the decline of Myanmar’s largest gas field.
The Irrawaddy, a Myanmar-focused news site in Thailand, reported that military leaders have called for solar panels to be installed on all new buildings in a bid to solve Myanmar’s energy crisis. However, it is worth noting that, according to the Irrawaddy, the junta leader’s son has “won licenses to sell solar panels and equipment while the regime has granted tax exemptions on solar imports”.
Yet, the Irrawaddy has also noted that the cost of solar is “beyond the reach of many small businesses, which form the backbone of Myanmar’s economy”.
Not-for-profits have continued to build solar projects in the country since the coup, aimed at supporting local businesses and powering rural healthcare facilities.
However, the situation is volatile as the civil war drags on, Harrison noted:
“The outlook is bleak. Myanmar has failed to invest in new generation capacity and current sources of energy (gas) are declining or curtailed. This means that, even if conflict were to end, we will continue to see declining energy access and major shortages through 2030. In other words, Myanmar’s energy crisis is almost guaranteed to get worse and be protracted.”
Watch, read, listen
REMOVING CARBON: The Solving for Climate podcast spoke to Carbon Brief climate science contributor Dr Zeke Hausfather about whether the use of carbon removal technologies should expand.
BLACKOUTS: Dialogue Earth reported on how extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change are causing more frequent power outages in Latin America.
SABOTAGE TACTICS: A feature in the Guardian said “tougher laws” are said to be “inspiring clandestine attacks [by climate protesters] on the ‘property and machinery’ of the fossil fuel economy”.
Coming up
- 16-20 March: Applied Power Electronics Conference (APEC), Atlanta, Georgia
- 17-18 March: First part of the 30th annual session of the International Seabed Authority, Kingston, Jamaica
- 21 March:UN observed International Day of Forests
Pick of the jobs
- Stockholm Environment Institute , climate project intern | Salary: Unknown. Location: Tallinn, Estonia (onsite, hybrid or remote)
- Doughnut Economics Action Lab , junior communications freelancer | Salary: £250 a day. Location: Remote (UK hours)
- EarthRights International, policy advisor | Salary: $85,000-$95,000. Location: Remote (US)
- Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust, conservation officer | Salary: £24,570. Location: Flexible
- British Antarctic Survey, field coordinator – Antarctica | Salary: £29,273 to £30,201. Location: Antarctica
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 14 March 2025: US’s ‘moral case for fossil fuels’; Rainforest felled for ‘COP30 road’; Myanmar’s energy crisis appeared first on Carbon Brief.
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months 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 Change10 months 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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Carbon Footprint11 months agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Farmers turn to tech as bees struggle to pollinate
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Clouds now contains plastic, contaminating ‘everything we eat and drink’