The amount of forest lost around the world has reduced by millions of hectares each year in recent decades, but countries are still off track to meet “important” deforestation targets.
These are the findings of the Global Forest Resources Assessment – a major new report from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization – which says that an estimated 10.9m hectares (Mha) of land was deforested each year between 2015 and 2025.
This is almost 7Mha less than the amount of annual forest loss over 1990-2000.
Since 1990, the area of forest destroyed each year has halved in South America, although it still remains the region with the highest amount of deforestation.
Europe was the only region in the world where annual forest loss has increased since 1990.
Agriculture has historically been the leading cause of deforestation around the world, but the report notes that wildfires, climate change-fuelled extreme weather, insects and diseases increasingly pose a threat.
The Global Forest Resources Assessment is published every five years. The 2025 report compiles and analyses national forest data from almost every country in the world over 1990-2025.
Carbon Brief has picked out five key findings from the report around deforestation, carbon storage and the amount of forest held within protected areas around the world.
1. Rates of deforestation are declining around the world
Rates of annual deforestation, in thousands of hectares, in South America, Asia, Africa, North and Central America, Oceania and Europe over 1990-2000 (dark blue), 2000-15 (medium blue) and 2015-25 (light blue). Source: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025
In total, around 489Mha of forest have been lost due to deforestation since 1990, the new report finds. Most of this – 88% – occurred in the tropics.
This breaks down to around 10.9Mha of forest lost each year between 2015 and 2025, a reduction compared to 13.6Mha of loss over 2000-15 and 17.6Mha over 1990-2000.
Deforestation refers to the clearing of a forest, typically to repurpose the land for agriculture or use the trees for wood.
The chart above shows that South America experiences the most forest loss each year, although annual deforestation levels have halved from 8.2Mha over 1990-2000 to 4.2Mha over 2015-25.
Annual deforestation in Asia also saw a sizable reduction, from 3.9Mha over 1990-2000 to 2Mha over 2015-25, the report says.
Europe had the lowest overall deforestation rates, but was also the only region to record an increase over the last 35 years, with deforestation rates growing from 126,000 hectares over 1990-2000 to 145,000 hectares in the past 10 years.
Despite the downward global trend, FAO chief Dr Qu Dongyu notes in the report’s foreword that the “world is not on track to meet important global forest targets”.
In 2021, more than 100 countries pledged to halt and reverse global deforestation by 2030. But deforestation rates in 2024 were 63% higher than the trajectory needed to meet this 2030 target, according to a recent report from civil society groups.
The goals of this pledge were formally recognised in a key text at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in 2023, which “emphasise[d]” that halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 would be key to meeting climate goals.
2. Global net forest loss has more than halved since 1990
Forest area net change by country between 1990 and 2025, in hectares. Source: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025
The new report finds that forests cover more than 4bn hectares of land, an area encompassing one-third of the planet’s land surface.
More than half of the world’s forested area is located in just five countries: Russia, Brazil, Canada, the US and China.
The map above shows that, overall, more forest is lost than gained each year around the world. There was 6.8Mha of forest growth over 2015-25, but 10.9Mha of forest lost.
The annual rate of this global net forest loss – the amount that deforestation has exceeded the amount regrown – has more than halved since 1990, dropping from 10.7Mha over 1990-2000 to 4.1Mha over 2015-25.
The report says this change was due to reduced deforestation in some countries and increased forest expansion in others. However, the rate of forest expansion has also slowed over time – from 9.9Mha per year in 2000-15 to 6.8Mha per year in 2015-25.
There are many driving factors behind continuing deforestation. Agriculture has historically been the leading cause of forest loss, but wildfire is increasingly posing a threat. Wildfires were the leading driver of tropical forest loss in 2024 for the first time on record, a Global Forest Watch report found earlier this year.
The new UN report says that an average of 261Mha of land was burned by fire each year over 2007-19. Around half of this area was forest. Around 80% of the forested land impacted by fires in 2019 was in the subtropics – areas located just outside tropical regions, such as parts of Argentina, the US and Australia.
The report notes that fire is widely used in land management practices, but uncontrolled fires can have “major negative impacts on people, ecosystems and climate”.
It adds that researchers gathered information on fires up as far as 2023, but chose to focus on 2007-19 due to a lack of more recent data for some countries.
A different report from an international team of scientists recently found that fires burned at least 370Mha of land – an area larger than India – between March 2024 and February 2025.
3. Many countries are hugely increasing their forest area
Top 10 countries for annual net gain (blue) and net loss (red) of forest area over 2015-25, in 1,000 hectares per year. Source: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025
Globally, deforestation is declining, but the trend varies from country to country.
The chart above shows that some nations, such as China and Russia, added a lot more forest cover than they removed in the past decade through, for example, afforestation programmes.
But in other countries – particularly Brazil – the level of deforestation far surpasses the amount of forest re-grown.
Deforestation in Brazil dropped by almost one-third between 2023 and 2024, news outlet Brasil de Fato reported earlier this year, which was during the time Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took over as president. The new UN report finds that, on average, Brazil lost 2.9Mha of forest area each year over 2015-25, compared to 5.8Mha over 1990-2000.
Russia’s net gain of forest cover increased significantly since 1990 – growing from 80,400ha per year in 1990-2000 to 942,000ha per year in 2015-25.
In China, although it is also planting significant levels of forest, the forest level gained has dropped over time, from 2.2Mha per year in 2000-15 to 1.7Mha per year in 2015-25.
Levels of net forest gain in Canada also fell from 513,000ha per year in 2000-15 to 82,500ha per year in 2015-25.
In the US, the net forest growth trend reversed over the past decade – from 437,000ha per year of gain in 2000-15 to a net forest loss of 120,000ha per year from 2015 to 2025.
Oceania reversed a previously negative trend to gain 140,000ha of forests per year in the past decade, the report says. This was mainly due to changes in Australia, where previous losses of tens of thousands of hectares each year turned into an annual net gain of 105,000ha each year by 2015-25.
4. The world’s forests hold more than 700bn tonnes of carbon
Changes in forest carbon stock by region and subregion of the world over 1990-2025. Source: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025
The “carbon stock” of a forest refers to how much carbon is stored in its trees and soils. Forests are among the planet’s major carbon sinks.
The new report estimates that forests stored an estimated 714bn tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon (GtC) in 2025.
Europe (including Russia) and the Americas account for two-thirds of the world’s total forest carbon storage.
The global forest carbon stock decreased from 716GtC to 706GtC between 1990 and 2000, before growing slightly again by 2025. The report mainly attributes this recent increase to forest growth in Asia and Europe.
The report notes that the total amount of carbon stored in forests has remained largely static over the past 35 years, but with some regional differences, as highlighted in the chart above.
The amount of carbon stored in forests across east Asia, Europe and North America is “significantly higher” now due to expanded forest areas, but it is lower in South America, Africa and Central America.
Several studies have shown that there are limitations on the ability of forests to keep absorbing CO2, with difficulties posed by hotter, drier weather fuelled by climate change.
A 2024 study found that record heat in 2023 negatively impacted the ability of land and ocean sinks to absorb carbon – and that the global land sink was at its weakest since 2003.
Another study, published in 2022, said that drying and warming as a result of deforestation reduces the carbon storage ability of tropical forests, especially in the Congo basin and the Amazon rainforest.
5. Around one-fifth of the world’s forests are located in protected areas
The percentage of forest land in Asia, Africa, Europe, South America, Oceania and North and Central America contained inside protected areas (dark blue) and outside protected areas (light blue) in 2025. Source: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025
The amount of forested land located in protected areas increased across all regions between 1990 and 2025.
For an area to be considered “protected”, it must be managed in a way that conserves nature.
Around 20% of the world’s forests are located in these protected areas, the new report finds, which amounts to 813Mha of land – an area almost the size of Brazil.
Nearly every country in the world has pledged to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and sea by 2030. However, more than half of countries have not committed to this target on a national basis, Carbon Brief analysis showed earlier this year.
Almost 18% of land and around 8% of the ocean are currently in protected areas, a UN report found last year. The level is increasing, the report said, but considerable progress is still needed to reach the 2030 goal.
The new UN report notes that Europe, including Russia, holds 235Mha of protected forest area, which is the largest of any region and accounts for 23% of the continent’s total forested land.
As highlighted in the chart above, 26% of all forests in Asia are protected, which is the highest of any region. The report notes that this is largely due to a vast amount of protected forested land in Indonesia.
Three countries and one island territory reported that upwards of 90% of their forests are protected – Norfolk Island, Saudi Arabia, Cook Islands and Uzbekistan.
The post UN report: Five charts showing how global deforestation is declining appeared first on Carbon Brief.
UN report: Five charts showing how global deforestation is declining
Climate Change
Maryland Passes Energy Bill That Delivers Short-Term Relief, Locks Ratepayers into Long-Term Nuclear Subsidy
Advocates say Maryland lawmakers passed consequential energy proposals without adequate analysis or public debate during the 2026 session.
Maryland lawmakers’ new solution for rising utility bills reduces a surcharge funding an effective energy-efficiency program, offers rebates by raiding the state’s clean energy fund and includes subsidies for nuclear power that advocates say may prove costly over time.
Climate Change
To avoid COP mistakes, Santa Marta conference must be shielded from fossil fuel influence
Rachel Rose Jackson is a climate researcher and international policy expert whose work involves monitoring polluter interference at the UNFCCC and advancing pathways to protect against it.
Next week, dozens of governments will gather in the Colombian city of Santa Marta for a conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The conference is a first of its kind, in name and in practice. It’s a welcome change to see a platform for global climate action actually acknowledge the primary cause of the climate crisis – fossil fuels. This sends a clear message about what needs to be done to avoid tumbling off the climate cliff edge we are precariously balancing on.
The agenda set for governments to hash out goes further than any other multilateral space has managed to date. Over the week, participants will discuss how to overcome the economic dependence on fossil fuels, transform supply and demand, and advance international cooperation to transition away from fossil fuels.
Alongside the conference, academics, civil society, movements and others are convening to put forward their visions of a just and forever fossil fuel phase out. The conference can help shape pathways and tools governments can use to achieve a fossil-fuel-free future, particularly if the dialogue begins with an honest assessment of “fair shares.”
-
Santa Marta: fossil fuel transition in an unstable world
Transitioning away from fossil fuels in an unstable world: how can Santa Marta deliver? -
Major oil producers among 46 nations joining fossil fuel phase-out summit
Canada, Australia, Brazil and Norway are set to attend the Santa Marta summit, but the world’s biggest fossil fuel producers are missing from the list -
Iran war could boost fossil fuel phase-out push, says Colombian minister
Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres said she hopes that a new fossil fuel phase out summit in Santa Marta can cement a coalition of countries
This means assessing who is most responsible for emissions and exploring truer means of international collaboration that can unlock the technology, resources and finances necessary for a just transition.
Fossil fuel-driven violence is spiraling in places like Palestine, Iran, and Venezuela. Climate disasters are causing billions and billions of dollars in damage annually with no climate reparations in sight. All of this remains recklessly unaddressed on account of corporate-funded fascism.
We know the world’s addiction to fossil fuels must end. Is it surprising that a global governmental convening chooses now to try to tackle fossil fuels? It shouldn’t be, but it is.
COP failures
By contrast, meetings of governments signed up to the longest-standing multilateral forum for climate action—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – took nearly three decades before it officially responded to the power built by movements and acknowledged the need to address fossil fuel use at COP28 in 2023.
Even then, this recognition came riddled with loopholes. It may seem illogical that a forum established by governments in 1992 to coordinate a response to climate change should take decades to acknowledge the root of the problem. Yet there are clear reasons why arenas like the UNFCCC have consistently failed to curb fossil fuels decade after decade.
What would the outcome be when a fossil fuel executive literally oversaw COP28 and when Coca-Cola was one of the sponsors for COP27?
How can strong action take hold when, year after year, the UNFCCC’s COPs are inundated with thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists?
And how can justice be achieved when there are zero safeguards in place to protect against the conflicts of interest these polluters have?
Colombia pledges to exit investment protection system after fossil fuel lawsuits
Justly transitioning off fossil fuels cannot be charted when the very actors that have knowingly caused the climate crisis are at the helm—the same actors that consistently spend billions to spread denial and delay.
Unless platforms like the UNFCCC take concerted action to protect climate policymaking from the profit-at-all-costs agenda of polluters, the world will not deliver the climate action people and the planet deserve.
The impacts of climate action failure are now endured on a daily basis in some way by each of us – and especially by frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples, youth, women, and communities in the Global South. We must be closing gaps and unlocking pathways for advancing the strongest, fairest and fastest action possible.
Learn from mistakes
Yet, as we chase a fossil-fuel-free horizon, it’s essential that we learn from the mistakes of the past. We do not have the luxury or time to repeat them. History shows us we must protect against the polluting interests that want the world addicted to fossil fuels for as long as humanly possible.
We must also reject their schemes that undermine a just transition—dangerous distractions like carbon markets and Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) that are highly risky and spur vast harm, all while allowing for polluters to continue polluting.
Fossil Free Zones can be on-ramps to the clean energy transition
We get to a fossil-fuel-free future by following the leadership of the movements, communities and independent experts who hold the knowledge and lived experience to guide us there.
We succeed by protecting against those who have a track record of prioritising greed over the sacredness of life.
And we arrive at a world liberated from fossil fuels by doing all of these things from day one, before the toxicity of the fossil fuel industry’s poison takes hold.
If this gathering in Santa Marta can do this, then it can help set a new precedent for what people-centered and planet-saving climate action looks like. When everything hangs in the balance, there can be no if’s, and’s, or but’s. There’s only here and now, what history shows us must be done, and what we know is lost if we do not.
The post To avoid COP mistakes, Santa Marta conference must be shielded from fossil fuel influence appeared first on Climate Home News.
To avoid COP mistakes, Santa Marta conference must be shielded from fossil fuel influence
The UK government has announced a series of measures to “double down on clean power” in response to the energy crisis sparked by the Iran war.
The conflict has caused a spike in fossil-fuel prices – and the high cost of gas is already causing electricity prices to increase, particularly in countries such as the UK.
In response, alongside plans to speed the expansion of renewables and electric vehicles, the UK government says it will “move…to break [the] link between gas and electricity prices”.
Ahead of the announcement, there had been speculation that this could mean a radical change to the way the UK electricity market operates, such as moving gas plants into a strategic reserve.
However, the government is taking a more measured approach with two steps that will weaken – but not completely sever – the link between gas and electricity prices.
- From 1 July 2026, the government will increase the “electricity generator levy”, a windfall tax on older renewable energy and nuclear plants, using part of the revenue to limit energy bills.
- The government will encourage older renewable projects to sign fixed-price contracts, which it says will “help protect families and businesses from higher bills when gas prices spike”.
There has been a cautious response to the plans, with one researcher telling Carbon Brief that it is a “big step in the right direction in policy terms”, but that the impact might be “relatively modest”.
Another says that, while the headlines around the government plans “suggest a decisive shift” in terms of “breaking the link” between gas and power, “the reality is more incremental”.
- Why are electricity prices linked to gas?
- What is the government proposing?
- What is not being proposed?
- What will the impact be?
Why are electricity prices linked to gas?
The price of electricity is usually set by the price of gas-fired power plants in the UK, Italy and many other European markets.
This is due to the “marginal pricing” system used in most electricity markets globally.
(For more details of what “marginal pricing” means and how it works, see the recent Carbon Brief explainer on why gas usually sets the price of electricity and what the alternatives are.)
As a result, whenever there is a spike in the cost of gas, electricity prices go up too.
This has been illustrated twice in recent years: during the global energy crisis after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022; and since the US and Israel attacked Iran in February 2026.
Notably, however, the expansion of clean energy is already weakening the link between gas and electricity, a trend that will strengthen as more renewables and nuclear plants are built.
The figure below shows that recent UK wholesale electricity prices have been lower than those in Italy, as a result of the expansion of renewable sources.
The contrast with prices in Spain is even larger, where thinktank Ember says “strong solar and wind growth [has] reduced the influence of expensive coal and gas power”.
The share of hours where gas sets the price of power on the island of Great Britain (namely, England, Scotland and Wales) has fallen from more than 90% in 2021 to around 60% today, according to the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). (Northern Ireland is part of the separate grid on the island of Ireland.)
This is largely because an increasing share of generation is coming from renewables with “contracts for difference” (CfDs), which offer a fixed price for each unit of electricity.
CfD projects are paid this fixed price for the electricity they generate, regardless of the wholesale price of power. As such, they dilute the impact of gas on consumer bills.
The rise of CfD projects means that the weeks since the Iran war broke out have coincided with the first-ever extended periods without gas-fired power stations in the wholesale market.
This shows how, in the longer term, the shift to clean energy backed by fixed-price CfDs will almost completely sever the link between gas and electricity prices.
The National Energy System Operator (NESO) estimated that the government’s target for clean power by 2030 could see the share of hours with prices set by gas falling to just 15%.
What is the government proposing?
For now, however, about one-third of UK electricity generation comes from renewable projects with an older type of contract under the “renewables obligation” scheme (RO).
It is these projects that the new government proposals are targeting.
The government hopes to move some of these projects onto fixed-price contracts, which would no longer be tied to gas prices, further weakening the link between gas and electricity prices overall.
When RO projects generate electricity, they earn the wholesale price, which is usually set by gas power. In addition, they are paid a fixed subsidy via “renewable obligation certificates” (ROCs).
This means that the cost of a significant proportion of renewable electricity is linked to gas prices. Moreover, it means that, when gas prices are high, these projects earn windfall profits.
In recognition of this, the Conservative government introduced the “electricity generator levy” (EGL) in 2022. Under the EGL, certain generators pay a 45% tax on earnings above a benchmark price, which rises with inflation and currently sits at £82 per megawatt hour (MWh).
The tax applies to renewables obligation projects and to old nuclear plants.
The current government will now increase the rate of the windfall tax to 55% from 1 July 2026, as well as extending the levy beyond its previously planned end date in 2028.
It says it will use some of the additional revenue to “support businesses and households with the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East on the cost of living”. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said:
“This ensures that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to government, providing a vital revenue stream so that money is available for government to support businesses and families with the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East.”
The increase in the windfall tax may also help to achieve the government’s second aim, which is to persuade older renewable projects to accept new fixed-price contracts.
Reeves made this aim explicit in her comments to MPs, saying the higher levy “will encourage older, low-carbon electricity generators, which supply about a third of our power, to move from market pricing to fixed-price contracts for difference”.
(This is an adaptation of a proposal for “pot zero” fixed-price contracts, made by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) in 2022, see below for more details.)
As with traditional CfDs, the new fixed-price contracts would not be tied to the price of gas power. Instead of earning money on the wholesale electricity market, these generators would take a fixed-price “wholesale CfD”. In addition, they would be exempted from the windfall tax and would continue to receive their fixed subsidy via ROCs.
The government says this will be voluntary. It will offer further details “in due course” and will then consult on the plans “later this year”, with a view to running an auction for such contracts next year.
It adds: “Government will only offer contracts to electricity generators where it represents clear value for money for consumers.”
(It is currently unclear if the proposals for new fixed-price contracts would also apply to older nuclear plants. Last month, the government said it intended to “enable existing nuclear generating stations to become eligible for CfD support for lifetime-extension activities”.)
What is not being proposed?
Contrary to speculation ahead of today’s announcement, the government is not taking forward any of the more radical ideas for breaking the link between gas and electricity prices.
Many of these ideas had already been considered in detail – and rejected – during the government’s “review of electricity market arrangements” (REMA) process.
This includes the idea of creating two separate markets, one “green power pool” for renewables and another for conventional sources of electricity.
It also includes the idea of operating the market under “pay as bid” pricing. This has been promoted as a way to ensure that each power plant is only paid the amount that it bid to supply electricity, rather than the higher price of the “marginal” unit, which is usually gas.
However, “pay as bid” would have been expected to change bidding behaviour rather than cutting bills, with generators guessing what the marginal unit would have been and bidding at that level.
Finally, the government has also not taken forward the idea of putting gas-fired power stations in a strategic reserve that sits outside the electricity market.
Last year, this had been proposed jointly by consultancy Stonehaven and NGO Greenpeace. In March, they shared updated figures with Carbon Brief showing that – according to their analysis – this could have cut bills by a total of around £6bn per year, or about £80 per household.
However, some analysts argued that it would have distorted the electricity market, removing incentives to build batteries and for consumers to use power more flexibly.
What will the impact be?
The government’s plan for voluntary fixed-price contracts has received a cautious response.
UKERC had put forward a similar proposal in 2022, under which older nuclear and renewable projects would have received a fixed-price “pot zero” CfD.
(This name refers to the fact that CfDs are given to new onshore wind and solar under “pot one”, with technologies such as offshore wind bidding into a separate “pot two”.)
In April 2026, UKERC published updated analysis suggesting that its “pot zero” reforms could have saved consumers as much as £10bn a year – roughly £120 per household.
Callum McIver, research fellow at the University of Strathclyde and a member of the UKERC, tells Carbon Brief that the government proposals are a “big step in the right direction in policy terms”.
However, he says the “bill impact potential is lower” than UKERC’s “pot zero” idea, because it would leave renewables obligation projects still earning their top-up subsidy via ROCs.
As such, McIver tells Carbon Brief that, in his view, the near-term impact “could be relatively modest”. Still, he says that the idea could “insulate electricity prices” from gas:
“The measures are very welcome and, with good take-up, they have the potential to insulate electricity prices further from the impact of continued or future gas price shocks, which should be regarded as a win in its own right.”
In a statement, UKERC said the government plan “stops short of the full pot-zero proposal, since it will leave the RO subsidy in place”. It adds:
“This makes the potential savings smaller, but it will break the link with gas prices. The devil will be in the detail, but provided the majority of generators join the scheme, most of the UK’s power generation fleet will have a price that is not related to the global price of gas.”
Marc Hedin, head of research for Western Europe and Africa at consultancy Aurora Energy Research, tells Carbon Brief that, while the headlines “suggest a decisive shift” in terms of “breaking the link” between gas and power, “the reality is more incremental”. He adds:
“In principle, moving a larger share of generation onto fixed prices would reduce consumers’ exposure to gas‑driven price spikes and aligns well with the direction already taken for new build [generators receiving a CfD].”
However, he cautioned that “poorly calibrated [fixed] prices would transfer value to generators at consumers’ expense, while overly aggressive pricing could result in low participation”.
In an emailed statement, Sam Hollister, head of UK market strategy for consultancy LCP, says that the principle of the government’s approach is to “bring stability to the wholesale market and avoid some of the disruption that a more radical break might have caused”.
However, he adds that the reforms will not “fundamentally reduce residential energy bills today”.
Johnny Gowdy, a director of thinktank Regen, writes in a response to the plans that while both the increased windfall tax and the fixed-price contracts “have merit and could save consumers money”, there were also “pitfalls and risks” that the government will need to consider.
These include that a higher windfall tax could “spook investors”. He writes:
“A challenge for policymakers is that, while the EGL carries an investment risk downside, unless there is a very significant increase in wholesale prices, the tax revenue made by the current EGL could be quite modest.”
Gowdy says that the proposed fixed-price contracts for older renewables “is not a new idea, but its time may have come”. He writes:
“It would offer a practical way to hedge consumers and generators against volatile wholesale prices. The key challenge, however, is to come up with a strike price that is fair for consumers and does not lock future consumers into higher prices, given that we expect wholesale prices to fall over the coming decade.”
Gowdy adds that it might be possible to use the scheme as a way to support “repowering”, where old windfarms replace ageing equipment with new turbines.
On LinkedIn, Adam Bell, partner at Stonehaven and former head of government energy policy, welcomes the principle of the government’s approach, saying: “The right response to yet another fossil fuel crisis is to make our economy less dependent on fossil fuels.”
However, he adds on Bluesky that the proposals were “unlikely to reduce consumer bills”. He says this is because they offered a weak incentive for generators to accept fixed-price contracts.
The post Q&A: How the UK government aims to ‘break link between gas and electricity prices’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How the UK government aims to ‘break link between gas and electricity prices’
Maryland Passes Energy Bill That Delivers Short-Term Relief, Locks Ratepayers into Long-Term Nuclear Subsidy
To avoid COP mistakes, Santa Marta conference must be shielded from fossil fuel influence
Rivian (RIVN) and Redwood Deploy 10 MWh Second-Life Battery Storage at Illinois Factory
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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 Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits