As the final gavel came down at 5.30am on Sunday morning, the COP29 UN climate change conference in Baku closed with many unsettled grievances and some ruffled feathers.
From the controversial new climate finance goal, to the adoption of rules for a global carbon market and stalled efforts on cutting planet-heating emissions, the summit’s outcomes were contested and widely seen as inadequate to tackle the urgency of the climate crisis.
The finance deal was hailed as “the start of a new era on climate finance” by the EU’s climate commissioner, but condemned as a “joke” by Nigeria – and India rejected it fiercely as being “too little, too late”.
Climate Home News unpacks COP29’s successes and failures, most of which require further work next year on the path to COP30 in Brazil.
New climate finance goal
Tagged the “Finance COP”, all eyes in Baku were on negotiations towards a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) for climate finance to kick in from 2026. The final deal for wealthy governments to channel at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to developing countries replaced the previous $100-billion annual target set in 2009 for the 2020-2025 period.
From the very beginning, developed countries were strategically silent, as they avoided revealing the amount of finance – or “quantum” – they would be prepared to offer for the new target. Developing-country asks ranged from $440 billion, $600 billion and $900 billion of government finance per year. They proposed an overall target of $1.3 trillion which would include private finance mobilised by governments, but not market-rate loans, export credits or private investment in general.
As negotiations moved into the second week and towards the final days, developing countries became impatient with the lack of clarity. As whispers of a number ranging from $200bn-$300bn spread through the conference, Bolivian negotiator Diego Pacheco labelled the $200bn figure “a joke” during a press conference in the sidelines of COP29.
Reaching an agreement at #COP29 was essential to keep the 1.5°C global warming limit alive.
I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome – on both finance & mitigation – to meet the scale of the great challenge we face, but the agreement reached provides a base on which to build.…
— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) November 23, 2024
On Friday, the last official day of the conference, a number was finally put on the table by the COP29 presidency, suggesting $250bn a year – to the disappointment of developing countries. The African Group’s lead negotiator Ali Mohamed said this was “totally unacceptable”.
The talks took a further dramatic turn on Saturday when governments received a draft text containing a slightly higher offer of $300bn a year for the core government-led finance goal. This and other issues infuriated the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), who stormed out of the negotiations in protest just hours before the closing plenary.
Namibia uses COP29 climate summit to push for oil and gas investments
After LDCs and SIDs won some concessions – but not on the size of the goal – the presidency gavelled through the deal pledging at least $300 billion a year by 2035, with developed countries “taking the lead” on providing it. The text says the money will come “from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources”.
The existing $100bn goal includes direct government finance, a proportion of the public funding that flows through multilateral development banks (MDBs) and private finance “mobilised” by government money and export credits. It is unclear if the $300bn covers the same elements or more, experts said.
Under the $100bn goal, only 70% of MDB climate finance is counted, which excludes the share contributed by large emerging economies like China, India and Brazil.
But to the anger of some developing countries – especially India – the new goal recognises “the voluntary intention” of governments “to count all climate-related outflows from and climate-related finance mobilized by multilateral development banks towards achievement of the goal”.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell hugs COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev at the closing plenary in Baku, Azerbaijan. (Photo: UNFCCC)
SIDS finance negotiator Michai Robertson told Climate Home that how MDB finance is counted and which private sources would be included in the $300bn will only be decided by the UNFCCC’s Standing Committe on Finance when countries report the first post-2025 figures, which will not be until 2028.
Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest
A larger target of $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 was also set in Baku to scale up all sources of spending to combat climate change, including private investments in the Global South that are not linked to governments. How this broader target will be reached is uncertain, and will be discussed in the coming year under a “Baku to Belem Roadmap to 1.3T”.
The roadmap will look into “grants, concessional and non debt-creating instruments, and measures to create fiscal space” and produce a report by COP30 next year in Belem. It was first announced at a press conference in Baku by ministers from Colombia, Kenya, Barbados, Honduras and Panama. Barbados’ minister said it would consider measures such as redirecting fossil fuel subsidies in rich countries to climate action in the Global South.
SIDS negotiator Robertson criticised the roadmap as “a lot of smoke and mirrors”, adding that it was unclear how it would work.
Meanwhile the new finance goal also “encourages” developing countries to make contributions to climate finance “on a voluntary basis”, which they were not requested to do for the existing $100bn goal. While no countries are specified, the rich donor governments that pushed for this have said they want wealthier developing countries like China, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to chip in.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions
Last year at COP28 in the UAE, countries completed the first global review of climate policies under the 2015 Paris Agreement – a process known as the global stocktake (GST). Among other things, last year’s deal saw countries commit to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 and “transition away” from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair manner to achieve the goals of the Paris pact, including limiting global warming to “well below” 2C and ideally to 1.5C.
In Baku, countries were meant to launch the “UAE Dialogue” to work out how to implement the recommendations from the GST and inform the upcoming round of new and stronger national climate plans – known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – due in 2025.
However, at COP29 countries did not reach consensus on advancing the UAE Dialogue, after Saudi Arabia blocked any references to fossil fuels in the text, in what observers described as “destructive” opposition.
Governments were also split on whether the UAE Dialogue should address issues beyond financing the commitments made at COP28, which Saudi negotiators claimed was the main scope of the dialogue. They used this as an excuse to avoid discussions on the energy transition.
Negotiators in the hallways of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. (Photo: UNFCCC)
A watered-down draft text proposed to “reaffirm” last year’s pledge without calling out fossil fuels by name, and also emphasised the role of “transitional fuels” – which could be interpreted to mean fossil gas.
Latin American countries, developed countries and small islands opposed this text, meaning that the talks on the dialogue had to be pushed to June 2025, aiming for a new outcome at COP30 next November.
Without a deal in Baku, countries missed the chance to adopt two new targets viewed as key for the energy transition: one aiming to increase energy storage capacity to 1,500 gigawatts by 2030 and another pledging to add 25 million kilometres of power grids by 2030.
In a different strand of the talks – a “non-prescriptive” effort to enhance emissions reductions known as the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) – countries approved a weak text after Saudi negotiators almost managed to collapse talks on it earlier in the summit, causing the COP29 presidency to step in and revive them.
All mentions of fossil fuels were removed from the MWP, as well as any mention of COP28’s pledges to reverse deforestation by 2030, phase out fossil fuel subsidies and triple renewables by 2030.
The outcome frustrated developed countries which said the text failed to send strong signals for ambitious NDCs next year. Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan called the MWP decision a “big step back”.
Just transition
Countries also failed to reach an agreement on the just transition work programme (JTWP) at COP29 – a deal meant to support workers and communities affected by the transition away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energy.
Governments were divided on issues of human and labour rights, measures seen as restricting free trade, adaptation and emissions reductions. A major bone of contention was whether to designate finance to support plans for a just transition.
Fatuma Hussein, Africa’s lead negotiator on just transition, told Climate Home that developed countries wanted to keep discussions focused on “national dimensions” rather than what needs to be done internationally to enable just transition on a global scale. She added that the lack of finance was “the biggest departure point” causing developing countries to reject the draft text.
Negotiations on this issue fell down the COP29 presidency’s list of priorities as the finance talks became heated. It set up a last-minute contact group and presented a final draft to save the JTWP, but no agreement was reached. Talks will continue in June next year, with international trade unions expressing their concern over the lack of a decision on next steps in Baku.
Activists calling for “trillions” in climate finance at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. (Photo: UNFCCC)
Global goal on adaptation
Work on the global goal on adaptation (GGA) – which is enshrined in the Paris Agreement but has yet to be implemented – made little progress during most of COP29, due to a lack of consensus on the means of implementation, generally understood to mean finance. In the end, a procedure to move the goal forward was agreed, called the Baku Adaptation Road Map.
Unwillingness from developed countries to put money on the table, as well as the difficulty of selecting indicators to measure progress, held back the talks at COP29, experts told Climate Home.
The GGA was adopted in 2015 with a view to enhancing resilience to climate change impacts, but countries defined a set of guidelines for it only last year, known as the UAE Framework. In Baku, countries were meant to advance on identifying indicators to measure progress, under a process known as the UAE-Belém Work Programme, which is due to be finalised next year at COP30.
However, in addition to the contention around finance, the role of transformational adaptation – meaning deep, long-term societal changes that influence sustainable development – was another obstacle to progress, as some developing countries like Senegal kicked back against it, saying it could throw up new barriers in accessing finance.
In the second week of COP29, countries agreed to defer a review of the GGA framework until after the second global stocktake in 2028. But the Baku Adaptation Road Map was launched to enable talks to continue in 2025.
Richard Klein, a senior researcher on adaptation at the Stockholm Environment Institute, told Climate Home that the GGA did not take substantive steps forward at COP29, further delaying implementation. Meanwhile, he said, “the gap between the adaptation action needed and what is being implemented continues to widen.”
India fires warning shot with rejection of finance deal at COP29
Gender work programme
This year, the main focus of the gender negotiations at the UN climate summit was the renewal of the Lima Work Programme (LWP), under which a Gender Action Plan is produced every five years – both of which establish guidelines for gender-responsive climate policies.
Some conservative countries, including the Vatican, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, successfully lobbied to remove some human rights-related language from the decision text on issues including diversity and intersectionality that had been being championed mainly by Latin American nations and the EU.
In the end, an agreement was reached, renewing the Lima Work Programme for another 10 years, with a review scheduled in five years, and a new gender action plan due to be drawn up in 2025.
Another topic of discussion was whether to house the LWP under the Paris Agreement or the UN climate convention. Some parties wanted it to be addressed in talks on both, but others argued that that would double the work. Countries decided to keep it just under the convention.
They also agreed to work on data that will be broken down by gender and age, gender-responsive implementation of just transitions, creating quality jobs for women that are aligned with national climate plans, and simplifying access to finance for grassroots women’s groups and Indigenous women.
Feminists call for climate justice at the COP29 negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan. (Photo: Mariel Lozada)
Carbon markets
At COP29, talks on setting up a new global carbon market made a significant breakthrough after nearly a decade of discussions, as countries agreed on a package of rules under the Paris Agreement’s “Article 6”.
On the first day of the Baku summit, the COP29 presidency scored an early win as countries approved guidelines laying the foundations for a regime to develop and trade carbon credits. This agreement was hailed by COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev as a “breakthrough” that “achieves full operationalisation of Article 6” – but experts criticised the procedure that was followed.
After failing to secure agreement in previous years, the rules were eventually crafted by a technical committee and then presented to governments at COP29.
With approval of the rules on Article 6.2, which regulates bilateral emissions trading between countries, and 6.4, which sets up an international carbon market, countries will now finalise technical details and could kick off the new markets from 2025.
But campaigners expressed concerns over the quality of the credits and how to deal with any problems. According to Carbon Market Watch, the rules agreed for Article 6.2 may not be strong enough to ensure real emissions reductions, as trades require less immediate transparency. Key technical information is not required to be disclosed until after trades have already happened, which could take years, the NGO warned.
The first batch of credits to be traded under the new Paris market is likely to consist of old offsets originally developed under the Kyoto Protocol-era’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), many of which were regarded as delivering little concrete benefit for the climate.
(Reporting by Vivian Chime, Mariel Lozada and Joe Lo; editing by Sebastian Rodriguez, Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)
The post What was decided at the COP29 climate summit in Baku? appeared first on Climate Home News.
N.C. Gov. Josh Stein wants state lawmakers to rethink tax breaks for data centers. The industry’s opacity makes it difficult to evaluate costs and benefits.
Tax breaks for data centers in North Carolina keep as much as $57 million each year into from state and local government coffers, state figures show, an amount that could balloon to billions of dollars if all the proposed projects are built.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), a multilateral fund that provides climate and nature finance to developing countries, has raised $3.9 billion from donor governments in its last pledging session ahead of a key fundraising deadline at the end of May.
The amount, which is meant to cover the fund’s activities for the next four years (July 2026-June 2030), falls significantly short of the previous four-year cycle for which the GEF managed to raise $5.3bn from governments. Since then, military and other political priorities have squeezed rich nations’ budgets for climate and development aid.
The facility said in a statement that it expects more pledges ahead of the final replenishment package, which is set for approval at the next GEF Council meeting from May 31 to June 3.
Claude Gascon, interim CEO of the GEF, said that “donor countries have risen to the challenge and made bold commitments towards a more positive future for the planet”. He added that the pledges send a message that “the world is not giving up on nature even in a time of competing priorities”.
-
UK imports of “green” jet fuel linked to Amazon deforestation
A Texas refinery shipping sustainable aviation fuel to Europe has sourced beef tallow with links to a meatpacking firm fined over illegal cattle purchases -
Italy pushes coal exit back after gas prices rise
Analysts say the move sends a negative signal, but its impact will be limited given coal’s marginal role in Italy’s energy mix
Donors under pressure
But Brian O’Donnell, director of the environmental non-profit Campaign for Nature, said the announcement shows “an alarming trend” of donor governments cutting public finance for climate and nature.
“Wealthy nations pledged to increase international nature finance, and yet we are seeing cuts and lower contributions. Investing in nature prevents extinctions and supports livelihoods, security, health, food, clean water and climate,” he said. “Failing to safeguard nature now will result in much larger costs later.”
At COP29 in Baku, developed countries pledged to mobilise $300bn a year in public climate finance by 2035, while at UN biodiversity talks they have also pledged to raise $30bn per year by 2030. Yet several wealthy governments have announced cuts to green finance to increase defense spending, among them most recently the UK.
As for the US, despite Trump’s cuts to international climate finance, Congress approved a $150 million increase in its contribution to the GEF after what was described as the organisation’s “refocus on non-climate priorities like biodiversity, plastics and ocean ecosystems, per US Treasury guidance”.
The facility will only reveal how much each country has pledged when its assembly of 186 member countries meets in early June. The last period’s largest donors were Germany ($575 million), Japan ($451 million), and the US ($425 million).
The GEF has also gone through a change in leadership halfway through its fundraising cycle. Last December, the GEF Council asked former CEO Carlos Manuel Rodriguez to step down effective immediately and appointed Gascon as interim CEO.
Santa Marta conference: fossil fuel transition in an unstable world
New guidelines
As part of the upcoming funding cycle, the GEF has approved a set of guidelines for spending the $3.9bn raised so far, which include allocating 35% of resources for least developed countries and small island states, as well as 20% of the money going to Indigenous people and communities.
Its programs will help countries shift five key systems – nature, food, urban, energy and health – from models that drive degradation to alternatives that protect the planet and support human well-being by integrating the value of nature into production and consumption systems.
The new priorities also include a target to allocate 25% of the GEF’s budget for mobilising private funds through blended finance. This aligns with efforts by wealthy countries to increase contributions from the private sector to international climate finance.
Niels Annen, Germany’s State Secretary for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a statement that the country’s priorities are “very well reflected” in the GEF’s new spending guidelines, including on “innovative finance for nature and people, better cooperation with the private sector, and stable resources for the most vulnerable countries”.
Aliou Mustafa, of the GEF Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), also welcomed the announcement, adding that “the GEF is strengthening trust and meaningful partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities” by placing them at the “centre of decision-making”.
The post GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget appeared first on Climate Home News.
GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget
Tropical cyclones that rapidly intensify when passing over marine heatwaves can become “supercharged”, increasing the likelihood of high economic losses, a new study finds.
Such storms also have higher rates of rainfall and higher maximum windspeeds, according to the research.
The study, published in Science Advances, looks at the economic damages caused by nearly 800 tropical cyclones that occurred around the world between 1981 and 2023.
It finds that rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones that pass near abnormally warm parts of the ocean produce nearly double – 93% – the economic damages as storms that do not, even when levels of coastal development are taken into account.
One researcher, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new analysis is a “step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future” in an increasingly warm world.
As marine heatwaves are projected to become more frequent under future climate change, the authors say that the interactions between storms and these heatwaves “should be given greater consideration in future strategies for climate adaptation and climate preparedness”.
‘Rapid intensification’
Tropical cyclones are rapidly rotating storm systems that form over warm ocean waters, characterised by low pressure at their cores and sustained winds that can reach more than 120 kilometres per hour.
The term “tropical cyclones” encompasses hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, which are named as such depending on which ocean basin they occur in.
When they make landfall, these storms can cause major damage. They accounted for six of the top 10 disasters between 1900 and 2024 in terms of economic loss, according to the insurance company Aon’s 2025 climate catastrophe insight report.
These economic losses are largely caused by high wind speeds, large amounts of rainfall and damaging storm surges.
Storms can become particularly dangerous through a process called “rapid intensification”.
Rapid intensification is when a storm strengthens considerably in a short period of time. It is defined as an increase in sustained wind speed of at least 30 knots (around 55 kilometres per hour) in a 24-hour period.
There are several factors that can lead to rapid intensification, including warm ocean temperatures, high humidity and low vertical “wind shear” – meaning that the wind speeds higher up in the atmosphere are very similar to the wind speeds near the surface.
Rapid intensification has become more common since the 1980s and is projected to become even more frequent in the future with continued warming. (Although there is uncertainty as to how climate change will impact the frequency of tropical cyclones, the increase in strength and intensification is more clear.)
Marine heatwaves are another type of extreme event that are becoming more frequent due to recent warming. Like their atmospheric counterparts, marine heatwaves are periods of abnormally high ocean temperatures.
Previous research has shown that these marine heatwaves can contribute to a cyclone undergoing rapid intensification. This is because the warm ocean water acts as a “fuel” for a storm, says Dr Hamed Moftakhari, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Alabama who was one of the authors of the new study. He explains:
“The entire strength of the tropical cyclone [depends on] how hot the [ocean] surface is. Marine heatwave means we have an abundance of hot water that is like a gas [petrol] station. As you move over that, it’s going to supercharge you.”
However, the authors say, there is no global assessment of how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves interact – or how they contribute to economic damages.
Using the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) – a database of tropical cyclone paths and intensities – the researchers identify 1,600 storms that made landfall during the 1981-2023 period, out of a total of 3,464 events.
Of these 1,600 storms, they were able to match 789 individual, land-falling cyclones with economic loss data from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and other official sources.
Then, using the IBTrACS storm data and ocean-temperature data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the researchers classify each cyclone by whether or not it underwent rapid intensification and if it passed near a recent marine heatwave event before making landfall.
The researchers find that there is a “modest” rise in the number of marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones globally since 1981, but with significant regional variations. In particular, they say, there are “clear” upward trends in the north Atlantic Ocean, the north Indian Ocean and the northern hemisphere basin of the eastern Pacific Ocean.
‘Storm characteristics’
The researchers find substantial differences in the characteristics of tropical cyclones that experience rapid intensification and those that do not, as well as between rapidly intensifying storms that occur with marine heatwaves and those that occur without them.
For example, tropical cyclones that do not experience rapid intensification have, on average, maximum wind speeds of around 40 knots (74km/hr), whereas storms that rapidly intensify have an average maximum wind speed of nearly 80 knots (148km/hr).
Of the rapidly intensifying storms, those that are influenced by marine heatwaves maintain higher wind speeds during the days leading up to landfall.
Although the wind speeds are very similar between the two groups once the storms make landfall, the pre-landfall difference still has an impact on a storm’s destructiveness, says Dr Soheil Radfar, a hurricane-hazard modeller at Princeton University. Radfar, who is the lead author of the new study, tells Carbon Brief:
“Hurricane damage starts days before the landfall…Four or five days before a hurricane making landfall, we expect to have high wind speeds and, because of that high wind speed, we expect to have storm surges that impact coastal communities.”
They also find that rapidly intensifying storms have higher peak rainfall than non-rapidly intensifying storms, with marine heatwave-influenced, rapidly intensifying storms exhibiting the highest average rainfall at landfall.
The charts below show the mean sustained wind speed in knots (top) and the mean rainfall in millimetres per hour (bottom) for the tropical cyclones analysed in the study in the five days leading up to and two days following a storm making landfall.
The four lines show storms that: rapidly intensified with the influence of marine heatwaves (red); those that rapidly intensified without marine heatwaves (purple); those that experienced marine heatwaves, but did not rapidly intensify (orange); and those that neither rapidly intensified nor experienced a marine heatwave (blue).
Dr Daneeja Mawren, an ocean and climate consultant at the Mauritius-based Mascarene Environmental Consulting who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new study “helps clarify how marine heatwaves amplify storm characteristics”, such as stronger winds and heavier rainfall. She notes that this “has not been done on a global scale before”.
However, Mawren adds that other factors not considered in the analysis can “make a huge difference” in the rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, including subsurface marine heatwaves and eddies – circular, spinning ocean currents that can trap warm water.
Dr Jonathan Lin, an atmospheric scientist at Cornell University who was also not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that, while the intensification found by the study “makes physical sense”, it is inherently limited by the relatively small number of storms that occur. He adds:
“There’s not that many storms, to tease out the physical mechanisms and observational data. So being able to reproduce this kind of work in a physical model would be really important.”
Economic costs
Storm intensity is not the only factor that determines how destructive a given cyclone can be – the economic damages also depend strongly on the population density and the amount of infrastructure development where a storm hits. The study explains:
“A high storm surge in a sparsely populated area may cause less economic damage than a smaller surge in a densely populated, economically important region.”
To account for the differences in development, the researchers use a type of data called “built-up volume”, from the Global Human Settlement Layer. Built-up volume is a quantity derived from satellite data and other high-resolution imagery that combines measurements of building area and average building height in a given area. This can be used as a proxy for the level of development, the authors explain.
By comparing different cyclones that impacted areas with similar built-up volumes, the researchers can analyse how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves contribute to the overall economic damages of a storm.
They find that, even when controlling for levels of coastal development, storms that pass through a marine heatwave during their rapid intensification cause 93% higher economic damages than storms that do not.
They identify 71 marine heatwave-influenced storms that cause more than $1bn (inflation-adjusted across the dataset) in damages, compared to 45 storms that cause those levels of damage without the influence of marine heatwaves.
This quantification of the cyclones’ economic impact is one of the study’s most “important contributions”, says Mawren.
The authors also note that the continued development in coastal regions may increase the likelihood of tropical cyclone damages over time.
Towards forecasting
The study notes that the increased damages caused by marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones, along with the projected increases in marine heatwaves, means such storms “should be given greater consideration” in planning for future climate change.
For Radfar and Moftakhari, the new study emphasises the importance of understanding the interactions between extreme events, such as tropical cyclones and marine heatwaves.
Moftakhari notes that extreme events in the future are expected to become both more intense and more complex. This becomes a problem for climate resilience because “we basically design in the future based on what we’ve observed in the past”, he says. This may lead to underestimating potential hazards, he adds.
Mawren agrees, telling Carbon Brief that, in order to “fully capture the intensification potential”, future forecasts and risk assessments must account for marine heatwaves and other ocean phenomena, such as subsurface heat.
Lin adds that the actions needed to reduce storm damages “take on the order of decades to do right”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“All these [planning] decisions have to come by understanding the future uncertainty and so this research is a step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future.”
The post Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones
-
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