New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.
Global opinion, global weather
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.
The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.
The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.
Public support for climate policies
The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.
Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.
Exposure to extreme weather events
The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.
Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.
In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.
Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.
In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.
Seeing the link between weather and climate change
In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.
Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).
Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.
Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.
This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.
A new flood barrier is being built to prevent climate-induced Flooding in Chittagong in Bangladesh. amdadphoto/Shutterstock.com
At a coastal port in Chittagong, Bangladesh, something remarkable is underway. With support from a US$850 million (£620 million) investment from the World Bank, engineers are building flood-resistant infrastructure that can survive rising seas and stronger storms. A new 3.7-mile-long barrier will protect people, homes, and trade in one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions.
Projects like this do more than save lives. They show why investing in climate
adaptation is one of the smartest financial opportunities of our time. There are plenty of global conferences where leaders discuss climate change and make big
promises. Yet, less than 5.5% ofglobal climate finance actually reaches the countries most at risk. That is not just a failure of fairness. It is a missed chance for real impact.
As the world gathers in Seville, Spain for the fourth international meeting on development financing, the focus must go beyond pledges and shift toward practical, on-the-ground investment in resilience.
At the previous UN climate finance meeting, also held in Seville, leaders focused
on fixing how public money flows through global institutions. But just as important is the need to invest in climate adaptation. This means helping people live with the changes already happening, including more floods, longer droughts, rising seas and intense heat.
While mitigation is about stopping climate change getting worse (by switching to clean energy or protecting forests that absorb carbon, for example), adaptation is about coping with the effects we can no longer avoid. It includes building stronger homes, growing more resilient crops, and improving hospitals and schools so they can keep working during extreme weather. Both approaches are necessary, but adaptation often gets less attention. And less money.
Private investors have already committed large sums to clean energy projects. But they have done much less to support communities on the frontlines of climate change. Many of these countries struggle with limited budgets, complex rules for accessing finance, and a lack of support to develop viable projects. So promising ideas often go unfunded.
That is beginning to change. New tools are helping investors take on less risk and back more projects. These include low-interest loans, partnerships between public and private institutions, and guarantees that reduce the risk of failure.
The Green Climate Fund is the largest source of dedicated climate finance for developing countries. By the end of 2023, it had approved US$13.5 billion in funding, rising to US$51.9 billion when co-financing is included. This money helps unlock adaptation efforts that were previously out of reach.
We can already see progress. In Kenya and Ethiopia, farmers are using drought-resistant seeds to grow more food in changing conditions. In the Caribbean, solar energy is powering schools and clinics in remote communities. And in Bangladesh, the new port infrastructure in Chittagong is protecting a vital economic hub while boosting local businesses.
Working with nature
In coastal areas, restoring mangrove forests can reduce the force of incoming storms, protect biodiversity and support fisheries. The Pollination Group, a climate investment firm, is helping turn “nature-based solutions” like these into projects that attract private finance.
In his previous role as the Prince of Wales, King Charles III launched the Natural Capital Investment Alliance, an initiative that aims to mobilise US$10 billion for projects that restore and protect nature while offering solid financial returns. The alliance also helps investors better understand these kinds of opportunities by creating clearer guidance and standards. This supports the Terra Carta, a charter created by King Charles III that offers a roadmap for businesses to align with the needs of both people and the planet by 2030.
Investors who step into these emerging spaces gain more than financial returns. They build long-term relationships with governments and local communities. They help shape future policy. And they create lasting foundations for growth in places that are ready to lead if given the chance.
Adaptation projects also bring real benefits to people. They improve access to clean water, protect food supplies, create jobs, strengthen education and support healthcare systems. For families already facing climate disruption, these changes are not just improvements. They are lifelines.
By creating stable and welcoming environments for responsible investment, governments can accelerate this shift. By simplifying how money is accessed, international institutions can make it easier for good ideas to become funded projects. Philanthropic groups and development agencies can help build local skills and prepare projects for funding. Private investors can bring capital, innovation and experience.
Investing in climate adaptation is no longer just a moral issue. It is a smart, scalable and necessary response to a changing world.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Ali Serim does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The UK is now more than halfway (50.4%) to achieving a net zero carbon economy, which means it has reduced its national emissions significantly compared to 1990.
We should even celebrate that 0.4%. Why? Because every tonne of carbon saved from the atmosphere and every fraction of a degree celsius of warming avoided saves lives and leaves more life-sustaining ecosystems intact for our children and grandchildren.
It also reduces the risk of triggering irreversible, devastating tipping points in the Earth system. We absolutely do not want to go there. Though, it may already be too late to save 90% of warm-water coral reefs, on which hundreds of millions of people depend for food and protection from storms.
Luckily, tipping points can also work in our favour. Researchers like us call them positive tipping points, which kickstart irreversible, self-propelling change towards a more sustainable future.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Solar energy has already crossed a tipping point, having become the cheapest source of power in most of the world. Because it is quick to deploy widely and in a variety of formats and settings, solar is expanding exponentially, including to the roughly 700 million people who don’t have electricity.
Electric vehicle sales have also crossed tipping points in China and several European markets, as evidenced by the abrupt acceleration of their shares in national vehicle fleets. The more people buy them, the cheaper and better they get, which makes even more people buy them – a self-propelling change towards a low-carbon road transport system.
Recent findings from the Climate Change Committee, independent advisers to the UK government on climate policy, show that the UK too may be on the cusp of a positive tipping point for electric vehicles (EVs), but that further work is needed to reach a tipping point for heat pumps.
EV sales are racing ahead
According to the CCC, more than half of the UK’s success in decarbonising its economy since 2008 can be attributed to the energy sector. Here, the transition from electricity generated by coal to gas and, increasingly, renewable sources like solar and wind, has occurred “behind the scenes”, without much disruption to daily life.
However, over 80% of the greenhouse gas emission cuts needed between now and 2030 (the UK aims to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030) need to come from other sectors that require the involvement and support of the public and businesses.
The adoption of low-carbon technologies by households, including the buying of EVs and installing of heat pumps, is a critical next step to determining the success or failure of the UK’s ability to achieve net zero. Cars account for about 15% of the UK’s emissions and home heating a further 18%.
Encouragingly, and despite concerted misinformation campaigns to discredit EVs, sales in the UK accounted for 19.6% of all new cars in 2024, which puts this sector close to the critical 20-25% range for triggering the phase of self-propelling adoption, according to positive tipping points theory.
This rise in EV sales is happening for two main reasons. First, the UK has a rule that bans the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, which gives carmakers and buyers a clear deadline to switch.
Second, they are becoming a better choice all round. They’re getting cheaper (some are expected to cost the same as petrol cars between 2026 and 2028), more appealing (with longer ranges and faster charging), and easier to use (thanks to more charging points and better infrastructure).
If this positive trend continues, emissions saved by EV adoption will be sufficient to achieve the UK road transport sector’s 2030 emissions target.
Where is the heat pump tipping point?
Heat pumps have been slower on the uptake in the UK, leading the CCC to identify their deployment as one of the biggest risks to achieving the 2030 emissions target.
The UK government has set a target of installing 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028. But despite 90% of British homes being suitable for a heat pump, only 1% have one.
There are signs that installations are picking up pace, however. In 2024, 98,000 heat pumps were installed – an increase of 56% from 2023. Deployment will need to be increased more than six times its current rate over the next three years to reach the installation target. In other words, we urgently need to trigger a positive tipping point in this sector.
The triggering of self-propelling change depends on the relative strength of feedbacks that either resist change (damping or negative feedback) or drive it forward (positive feedback).
One important negative feedback highlighted by the CCC is the UK’s high electricity-to-gas price ratio, which increases the running costs of a heat pump on top of the high upfront cost of buying and installing one. Addressing this issue has been at the top of the CCC’s policy recommendations for the last two years.
One positive feedback that needs to be strengthened is the perception among installers of household demand for heat pumps. When installers perceive demand, they are more likely to invest in the training and certifications needed to meet it.
Two ways the CCC suggests the government could encourage installer confidence are to extend the boiler upgrade scheme (which provides grants to households to install heat pumps) and clean heat mechanism (which obliges manufacturers and installers to prioritise heat pumps) and to reinstate the 2035 phase-out rule for new fossil fuel boilers.
An understanding of positive tipping points helps us identify key leverage points where intervention can be most effective in tackling the remaining half of the UK’s emissions. When implemented as part of a coherent national strategy, positive change can be accomplished at the pace and scale required. There is no time to lose.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Kai Greenlees receives funding from the Economic Social Research Council, through the South West Doctoral Training Partnership.
Steven R. Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The global ecosystem of climate finance is complex, constantly changing and sometimes hard to understand. But understanding it is critical to demanding a green transition that’s just and fair. That’s why The Conversation has collaborated with climate finance experts to create this user-friendly guide, in partnership with Vogue Business. With definitions and short videos, we’ll add to this glossary as new terms emerge.
Blue bonds
Blue bonds are debt instruments designed to finance ocean-related conservation, like protecting coral reefs or sustainable fishing. They’re modelled after green bonds but focus specifically on the health of marine ecosystems – this is a key pillar of climate stability.
By investing in blue bonds, governments and private investors can fund marine projects that deliver both environmental benefits and long-term financial returns. Seychelles issued the first blue bond in 2018. Now, more are emerging as ocean conservation becomes a greater priority for global sustainability efforts.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon border adjustment mechanism
Did you know that imported steel could soon face a carbon tax at the EU border? That’s because the carbon border adjustment mechanism is about to shake up the way we trade, produce and price carbon.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a proposed EU policy to put a carbon price on imports like iron, cement, fertiliser, aluminium and electricity. If a product is made in a country with weaker climate policies, the importer must pay the difference between that country’s carbon price and the EU’s. The goal is to avoid “carbon leakage” – when companies relocate to avoid emissions rules and to ensure fair competition on climate action.
But this mechanism is more than just a tariff tool. It’s a bold attempt to reshape global trade. Countries exporting to the EU may be pushed to adopt greener manufacturing or face higher tariffs.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is controversial: some call it climate protectionism, others argue it could incentivise low-carbon innovation worldwide and be vital for achieving climate justice. Many developing nations worry it could penalise them unfairly unless there’s climate finance to support greener transitions.
Carbon border adjustment mechanism is still evolving, but it’s already forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink emissions accounting, supply chains and competitiveness. It’s a carbon price with global consequences.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon budget
The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO₂ emissions allowed, if we want a 67% chance of staying within this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets amount to 400 billion tonnes of CO₂ from 2020 onwards.
Think of the carbon budget as a climate allowance. Once it has been spent, the risk of extreme weather or sea level rise increases sharply. If emissions continue unchecked, the budget will be exhausted within years, risking severe climate consequences. The IPCC sets the global carbon budget based on climate science, and governments use this framework to set national emission targets, climate policies and pathways to net zero emissions.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Carbon credits
Carbon credits are like a permit that allow companies to release a certain amount of carbon into the air. One credit usually equals one tonne of CO₂. These credits are issued by the local government or another authorised body and can be bought and sold. Think of it like a budget allowance for pollution. It encourages cuts in carbon emissions each year to stay within those global climate targets.
The aim is to put a price on carbon to encourage cuts in emissions. If a company reduces its emissions and has leftover credits, it can sell them to another company that is going over its limit. But there are issues. Some argue that carbon credit schemes allow polluters to pay their way out of real change, and not all credits are from trustworthy projects. Although carbon credits can play a role in addressing the climate crisis, they are not a solution on their own.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon credits explained.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting is a way for people or organisations to make up for the carbon emissions they are responsible for. For example, if you contribute to emissions by flying, driving or making goods, you can help balance that out by supporting projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This might include planting trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) or building wind farms to produce renewable energy.
The idea is that your support helps cancel out the damage you are doing. For example, if your flight creates one tonne of carbon dioxide, you pay to support a project that removes the same amount.
While this sounds like a win-win, carbon offsetting is not perfect. Some argue that it lets people feel better without really changing their behaviour, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as greenwashing.
Not all projects are effective or well managed. For instance, some tree planting initiatives might have taken place anyway, even without the offset funding, deeming your contribution inconsequential. Others might plant the non-native trees in areas where they are unlikely to reach their potential in terms of absorbing carbon emissions.
So, offsetting can help, but it is no magic fix. It works best alongside real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage low-carbon lifestyles or supply chains.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon offsetting explained.
Carbon tax
A carbon tax is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a direct price on CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.
A carbon tax is grounded in the concept of the social cost of carbon. This is an estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one tonne of CO₂, including climate-related health, infrastructure and ecosystem impacts.
A carbon tax is typically levied per tonne of CO₂ emitted. The tax can be applied either upstream (on fossil fuel producers) or downstream (on consumers or power generators). This makes carbon-intensive activities more expensive, it incentivises nations, businesses and people to reduce their emissions, while untaxed renewable energy becomes more competitively priced and appealing.
Carbon tax was first introduced by Finland in 1990. Since then, more than 39 jurisdictions have implemented similar schemes. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing mechanisms (that’s both carbon taxes and emissions trading systems) now cover about 24% of global emissions. The remaining 76% are not priced, mainly due to limited coverage in both sectors and geographical areas, plus persistent fossil fuel subsidies. Expanding coverage would require extending carbon pricing to sectors like agriculture and transport, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and strengthening international governance.
What is carbon tax?
Sweden has one of the world’s highest carbon tax rates and has cut emissions by 33% since 1990 while maintaining economic growth. The policy worked because Sweden started early, applied the tax across many industries and maintained clear, consistent communication that kept the public on board.
Canada introduced a national carbon tax in 2019. In Canada, most of the revenue from carbon taxes is returned directly to households through annual rebates, making the scheme revenue-neutral for most families. However, despite its economic logic, inflation and rising fuel prices led to public discontent – especially as many citizens were unaware they were receiving rebates.
Carbon taxes face challenges including political resistance, fairness concerns and low public awareness. Their success depends on clear communication and visible reinvestment of revenues into climate or social goals. A 2025 study that surveyed 40,000 people in 20 countries found that support for carbon taxes increases significantly when revenues are used for environmental infrastructure, rather than returned through tax rebates.
By Meilan Yan, associate professor and senior lecturer in financial economics, Loughborough University
Climate resilience
Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and rising seas are pushing our cities, towns and neighbourhoods to their limits. But there’s a powerful idea that’s helping cities fight back: climate resilience.
Resilience refers to the ability of a system, such as a city, a community or even an ecosystem – to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
Sometimes people say resilience is about bouncing back. But it’s not just about surviving the next storm. It’s about adapting, evolving and thriving in a changing world.
Resilience means building smarter and better. It means designing homes that stay cool during heatwaves. Roads that don’t wash away in floods. Power grids that don’t fail when the weather turns extreme.
It’s also about people. A truly resilient city protects its most vulnerable. It ensures that everyone – regardless of income, age or background – can weather the storm.
And resilience isn’t just reactive. It’s about using science, local knowledge and innovation to reduce a risk before disaster strikes. From restoring wetlands to cool cities and absorb floods, to creating early warning systems for heatwaves, climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our cities.
By Paul O’Hare, senior lecturer in geography and development, Manchester Metropolitan University
The meaning of climate resilience.
Climate risk disclosure
Climate risk disclosure refers to how companies report the risks they face from climate change, such as flood damage, supply chain disruptions or regulatory costs. It includes both physical risks (like storms) and transition risks (like changing laws or consumer preferences).
Mandatory disclosures, such as those proposed by the UK and EU, aim to make climate-related risks transparent to investors. Done well, these reports can shape capital flows toward more sustainable business models. Done poorly, they become greenwashing tools.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Emissions trading scheme
An emissions trading scheme is the primary market-based approach for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and Mexico.
Part of a government’s job is to decide how much of the economy’s carbon emissions it wants to avoid in order to fight climate change. It must put a cap on carbon emissions that economic production is not allowed to surpass. Preferably, the polluters (that’s the manufacturers, fossil fuel companies) should be the ones paying for the cost of climate mitigation.
Regulators could simply tell all the firms how much they are allowed to emit over the next ten years or so. But giving every firm the same allowance across the board is not cost efficient, because avoiding carbon emissions is much harder for some firms (such as steel producers) than others (such as tax consultants). Since governments cannot know each firm’s specific cost profile either, it can’t customise the allowances. Also, monitoring whether polluters actually abide by their assigned limits is extremely costly.
An emissions trading scheme cleverly solves this dilemma using the cap-and-trade mechanism. Instead of assigning each polluter a fixed quota and risking inefficiencies, the government issues a large number of tradable permits – each worth, say, a tonne of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) – that sum up to the cap. Firms that can cut greenhouse gas emissions relatively cheaply can then trade their surplus permits to those who find it harder – at a price that makes both better off.
By Mathias Weidinger, environmental economist, University of Oxford
Emissions trading schemes, explained by climate finance expert Mathias Weidinger.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing
ESG investing stands for environmental, social and governance investing. In simple terms, these are a set of standards that investors use to screen a company’s potential investments.
ESG means choosing to invest in companies that are not only profitable but also responsible. Investors use ESG metrics to assess risks (such as climate liability, labour practices) and align portfolios with sustainability goals by looking at how a company affects our planet and treats its people and communities. While there isn’t one single global body governing ESG, various organisations, ratings agencies and governments all contribute to setting and evolving these metrics.
For example, investing in a company committed to renewable energy and fair labour practices might be considered “ESG aligned”. Supporters believe ESG helps identify risks and create long-term value. Critics argue it can be vague or used for greenwashing, where companies appear sustainable without real action. ESG works best when paired with transparency and clear data. A barrier is that standards vary, and it’s not always clear what counts as ESG.
Why do financial companies and institutions care? Issues like climate change and nature loss pose significant risks, affecting company values and the global economy.
However, gathering reliable ESG information can be difficult. Companies often self-report, and the data isn’t always standardised or up to date. Researchers – including my team at the University of Oxford – are using geospatial data, like satellite imagery and artificial intelligence, to develop global databases for high-impact industries, across all major sectors and geographies, and independently assess environmental and social risks and impacts.
For instance, we can analyse satellite images of a facility over time to monitor its emissions effect on nature and biodiversity, or assess deforestation linked to a company’s supply chain. This allows us to map supply chains, identify high-impact assets, and detect hidden risks and opportunities in key industries, providing an objective, real-time look at their environmental footprint.
The goal is for this to improve ESG ratings and provide clearer, more consistent insights for investors. This approach could help us overcome current data limitations to build a more sustainable financial future.
By Amani Maalouf, senior researcher in spatial finance, University of Oxford
Environmental, social and governance investing explained.
Financed emissions
Financed emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions linked to a bank’s or investor’s lending and investment portfolio, rather than their own operations. For example, a bank that funds a coal mine or invests in fossil fuels is indirectly responsible for the carbon those activities produce.
Measuring financed emissions helps reveal the real climate impact of financial institutions not just their office energy use. It’s a cornerstone of climate accountability in finance and is becoming essential under net zero pledges.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Green bonds
Green bonds are loans issued to fund environmentally beneficial projects, such as energy-efficient buildings or clean transportation. Investors choose them to support climate solutions while earning returns.
Green bonds are a major tool to finance the shift to a low-carbon economy by directing finance toward climate solutions. As climate costs rise, green bonds could help close the funding gap while ensuring transparency and accountability.
Green bonds are required to ensure funds are spent as promised. For instance, imagine a city wants to upgrade its public transportation by adding electric buses to reduce pollution. Instead of raising taxes or slashing other budgets, the city can issue green bonds to raise the necessary capital. Investors buy the bonds, the city gets the funding, and the environment benefits from cleaner air and fewer emissions.
The growing participation of government issuers has improved the transparency and reliability of these investments. The green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the green bond market reached US$2.9 trillion (£2.1 trillion) in 2024 – nearly six times larger than in 2018. At the same time, annual issuance (the total value of green bonds issued in a year) hit US$700 billion, highlighting the increasing role of green finance in tackling climate change.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Just transition
Just transition is the process of moving to a low-carbon society that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In a broad sense, a just transition means focusing on creating a more fair and equal society.
Just transition has existed as a concept since the 1970s. It was originally applied to the green energy transition, protecting workers in the fossil fuel industry as we move towards more sustainable alternatives.
These days, it has so many overlapping issues of justice hidden within it, so the concept is hard to define. Even at the level of UN climate negotiations, global leaders struggle to agree on what a just transition means.
The big battle is between developed countries, who want a very restrictive definition around jobs and skills, and developing countries, who are looking for a much more holistic approach that considers wider system change and includes considerations around human rights, Indigenous people and creating an overall fairer global society.
A just transition is essentially about imagining a future where we have moved beyond fossil fuels and society works better for everyone – but that can look very different in a European city compared to a rural setting in south-east Asia.
For example, in a British city it might mean fewer cars and better public transport. In a rural setting, it might mean new ways of growing crops that are more sustainable, and building homes that are heatwave resistant.
By Alix Dietzel, climate justice and climate policy expert, University of Bristol
The meaning of just transition.
Loss and damage
A global loss and damage fund was agreed by nations at the UN climate summit (Cop27) in 2022. This means that the rich countries of the world put money into a fund that the least developed countries can then call upon when they have a climate emergency.
At the moment, the loss and damage fund is made up of relatively small pots of money. Much more will be needed to provide relief to those who need it most now and in the future.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains loss and damage.
Mitigation v adaptation
Mitigation means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Adaptation means adjusting to its effects, like building sea walls or growing heat-resistant crops. Both are essential: mitigation tackles the cause, while adaptation tackles the symptoms.
Globally, most funding goes to mitigation, but vulnerable communities often need adaptation support most. Balancing the two is a major challenge in climate policy, especially for developing countries facing immediate climate threats.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Nationally determined contributions
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris agreement, the global effort to collectively combat climate change. NDCs are individual climate action plans created by each country. These targets and strategies outline how a country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Each nation sets its own goals based on its own circumstances and capabilities – there’s no standard NDC. These plans should be updated every five years and countries are encouraged to gradually increase their climate ambitions over time.
The aim is for NDCs to drive real action by guiding policies, attracting investment and inspiring innovation in clean technologies. But current NDCs fall short of the Paris agreement goals and many countries struggle to turn their plans into a reality. NDCs also vary widely in scope and detail so it’s hard to compare efforts across the board. Stronger international collaboration and greater accountability will be crucial.
By Doug Specht, reader in cultural geography and communication, University of Westminster
Fashion depends on water, soil and biodiversity – all natural capital. And forward-thinking designers are now asking: how do we create rather than deplete, how do we restore rather than extract?
Natural capital is the value assigned to the stock of forests, soils, oceans and even minerals such as lithium. It sustains every part of our economy. It’s the bees that pollinate our crops. It’s the wetlands that filter our water and it’s the trees that store carbon and cool our cities.
If we fail to value nature properly, we risk losing it. But if we succeed, we unlock a future that is not only sustainable but also truly regenerative.
My team at the University of Oxford is developing tools to integrate nature into national balance sheets, advising governments on biodiversity, and we’re helping industries from fashion to finance embed nature into their decision making.
Natural capital, explained by a climate finance expert.
By Mette Morsing, professor of business sustainability and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Net zero
Reaching net zero means reducing the amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to zero. This concept was popularised by the Paris agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the UN climate summit (Cop21) in 2015 to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are some emissions, from farming and aviation for example, that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach absolute zero. Hence, the “net”. This allows people, businesses and countries to find ways to suck greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere, effectively cancelling out emissions while trying to reduce them. This can include reforestation, rewilding, direct air capture and carbon capture and storage. The goal is to reach net zero: the point at which no extra greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains net zero.
For more expert explainer videos, visit The Conversation’s quick climate dictionary playlist here on YouTube.
Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Amani Maalouf receives funding from IKEA Foundation and UK Research and Innovation (NE/V017756/1).
Narmin Nahidi is affiliated with several academic associations, including the Financial Management Association (FMA), British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA), American Finance Association (AFA), and the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CMBE). These affiliations do not influence the content of this article.
Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.
Alix Dietzel, Dongna Zhang, Doug Specht, Mathias Weidinger, Meilan Yan, and Sankar Sivarajah do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.
Global opinion, global weather
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.
The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.
The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.
Public support for climate policies
The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.
Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.
Exposure to extreme weather events
The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.
Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.
In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.
Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.
In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.
Seeing the link between weather and climate change
In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.
Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).
Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.
Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.
This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.
The global ecosystem of climate finance is complex, constantly changing and sometimes hard to understand. But understanding it is critical to demanding a green transition that’s just and fair. That’s why The Conversation has collaborated with climate finance experts to create this user-friendly guide, in partnership with Vogue Business. With definitions and short videos, we’ll add to this glossary as new terms emerge.
Blue bonds
Blue bonds are debt instruments designed to finance ocean-related conservation, like protecting coral reefs or sustainable fishing. They’re modelled after green bonds but focus specifically on the health of marine ecosystems – this is a key pillar of climate stability.
By investing in blue bonds, governments and private investors can fund marine projects that deliver both environmental benefits and long-term financial returns. Seychelles issued the first blue bond in 2018. Now, more are emerging as ocean conservation becomes a greater priority for global sustainability efforts.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon border adjustment mechanism
Did you know that imported steel could soon face a carbon tax at the EU border? That’s because the carbon border adjustment mechanism is about to shake up the way we trade, produce and price carbon.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a proposed EU policy to put a carbon price on imports like iron, cement, fertiliser, aluminium and electricity. If a product is made in a country with weaker climate policies, the importer must pay the difference between that country’s carbon price and the EU’s. The goal is to avoid “carbon leakage” – when companies relocate to avoid emissions rules and to ensure fair competition on climate action.
But this mechanism is more than just a tariff tool. It’s a bold attempt to reshape global trade. Countries exporting to the EU may be pushed to adopt greener manufacturing or face higher tariffs.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is controversial: some call it climate protectionism, others argue it could incentivise low-carbon innovation worldwide and be vital for achieving climate justice. Many developing nations worry it could penalise them unfairly unless there’s climate finance to support greener transitions.
Carbon border adjustment mechanism is still evolving, but it’s already forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink emissions accounting, supply chains and competitiveness. It’s a carbon price with global consequences.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon budget
The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO₂ emissions allowed, if we want a 67% chance of staying within this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets amount to 400 billion tonnes of CO₂ from 2020 onwards.
Think of the carbon budget as a climate allowance. Once it has been spent, the risk of extreme weather or sea level rise increases sharply. If emissions continue unchecked, the budget will be exhausted within years, risking severe climate consequences. The IPCC sets the global carbon budget based on climate science, and governments use this framework to set national emission targets, climate policies and pathways to net zero emissions.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Carbon credits
Carbon credits are like a permit that allow companies to release a certain amount of carbon into the air. One credit usually equals one tonne of CO₂. These credits are issued by the local government or another authorised body and can be bought and sold. Think of it like a budget allowance for pollution. It encourages cuts in carbon emissions each year to stay within those global climate targets.
The aim is to put a price on carbon to encourage cuts in emissions. If a company reduces its emissions and has leftover credits, it can sell them to another company that is going over its limit. But there are issues. Some argue that carbon credit schemes allow polluters to pay their way out of real change, and not all credits are from trustworthy projects. Although carbon credits can play a role in addressing the climate crisis, they are not a solution on their own.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon credits explained.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting is a way for people or organisations to make up for the carbon emissions they are responsible for. For example, if you contribute to emissions by flying, driving or making goods, you can help balance that out by supporting projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This might include planting trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) or building wind farms to produce renewable energy.
The idea is that your support helps cancel out the damage you are doing. For example, if your flight creates one tonne of carbon dioxide, you pay to support a project that removes the same amount.
While this sounds like a win-win, carbon offsetting is not perfect. Some argue that it lets people feel better without really changing their behaviour, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as greenwashing.
Not all projects are effective or well managed. For instance, some tree planting initiatives might have taken place anyway, even without the offset funding, deeming your contribution inconsequential. Others might plant the non-native trees in areas where they are unlikely to reach their potential in terms of absorbing carbon emissions.
So, offsetting can help, but it is no magic fix. It works best alongside real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage low-carbon lifestyles or supply chains.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon offsetting explained.
Carbon tax
A carbon tax is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a direct price on CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.
A carbon tax is grounded in the concept of the social cost of carbon. This is an estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one tonne of CO₂, including climate-related health, infrastructure and ecosystem impacts.
A carbon tax is typically levied per tonne of CO₂ emitted. The tax can be applied either upstream (on fossil fuel producers) or downstream (on consumers or power generators). This makes carbon-intensive activities more expensive, it incentivises nations, businesses and people to reduce their emissions, while untaxed renewable energy becomes more competitively priced and appealing.
Carbon tax was first introduced by Finland in 1990. Since then, more than 39 jurisdictions have implemented similar schemes. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing mechanisms (that’s both carbon taxes and emissions trading systems) now cover about 24% of global emissions. The remaining 76% are not priced, mainly due to limited coverage in both sectors and geographical areas, plus persistent fossil fuel subsidies. Expanding coverage would require extending carbon pricing to sectors like agriculture and transport, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and strengthening international governance.
What is carbon tax?
Sweden has one of the world’s highest carbon tax rates and has cut emissions by 33% since 1990 while maintaining economic growth. The policy worked because Sweden started early, applied the tax across many industries and maintained clear, consistent communication that kept the public on board.
Canada introduced a national carbon tax in 2019. In Canada, most of the revenue from carbon taxes is returned directly to households through annual rebates, making the scheme revenue-neutral for most families. However, despite its economic logic, inflation and rising fuel prices led to public discontent – especially as many citizens were unaware they were receiving rebates.
Carbon taxes face challenges including political resistance, fairness concerns and low public awareness. Their success depends on clear communication and visible reinvestment of revenues into climate or social goals. A 2025 study that surveyed 40,000 people in 20 countries found that support for carbon taxes increases significantly when revenues are used for environmental infrastructure, rather than returned through tax rebates.
By Meilan Yan, associate professor and senior lecturer in financial economics, Loughborough University
Climate resilience
Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and rising seas are pushing our cities, towns and neighbourhoods to their limits. But there’s a powerful idea that’s helping cities fight back: climate resilience.
Resilience refers to the ability of a system, such as a city, a community or even an ecosystem – to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
Sometimes people say resilience is about bouncing back. But it’s not just about surviving the next storm. It’s about adapting, evolving and thriving in a changing world.
Resilience means building smarter and better. It means designing homes that stay cool during heatwaves. Roads that don’t wash away in floods. Power grids that don’t fail when the weather turns extreme.
It’s also about people. A truly resilient city protects its most vulnerable. It ensures that everyone – regardless of income, age or background – can weather the storm.
And resilience isn’t just reactive. It’s about using science, local knowledge and innovation to reduce a risk before disaster strikes. From restoring wetlands to cool cities and absorb floods, to creating early warning systems for heatwaves, climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our cities.
By Paul O’Hare, senior lecturer in geography and development, Manchester Metropolitan University
The meaning of climate resilience.
Climate risk disclosure
Climate risk disclosure refers to how companies report the risks they face from climate change, such as flood damage, supply chain disruptions or regulatory costs. It includes both physical risks (like storms) and transition risks (like changing laws or consumer preferences).
Mandatory disclosures, such as those proposed by the UK and EU, aim to make climate-related risks transparent to investors. Done well, these reports can shape capital flows toward more sustainable business models. Done poorly, they become greenwashing tools.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Emissions trading scheme
An emissions trading scheme is the primary market-based approach for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and Mexico.
Part of a government’s job is to decide how much of the economy’s carbon emissions it wants to avoid in order to fight climate change. It must put a cap on carbon emissions that economic production is not allowed to surpass. Preferably, the polluters (that’s the manufacturers, fossil fuel companies) should be the ones paying for the cost of climate mitigation.
Regulators could simply tell all the firms how much they are allowed to emit over the next ten years or so. But giving every firm the same allowance across the board is not cost efficient, because avoiding carbon emissions is much harder for some firms (such as steel producers) than others (such as tax consultants). Since governments cannot know each firm’s specific cost profile either, it can’t customise the allowances. Also, monitoring whether polluters actually abide by their assigned limits is extremely costly.
An emissions trading scheme cleverly solves this dilemma using the cap-and-trade mechanism. Instead of assigning each polluter a fixed quota and risking inefficiencies, the government issues a large number of tradable permits – each worth, say, a tonne of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) – that sum up to the cap. Firms that can cut greenhouse gas emissions relatively cheaply can then trade their surplus permits to those who find it harder – at a price that makes both better off.
By Mathias Weidinger, environmental economist, University of Oxford
Emissions trading schemes, explained by climate finance expert Mathias Weidinger.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing
ESG investing stands for environmental, social and governance investing. In simple terms, these are a set of standards that investors use to screen a company’s potential investments.
ESG means choosing to invest in companies that are not only profitable but also responsible. Investors use ESG metrics to assess risks (such as climate liability, labour practices) and align portfolios with sustainability goals by looking at how a company affects our planet and treats its people and communities. While there isn’t one single global body governing ESG, various organisations, ratings agencies and governments all contribute to setting and evolving these metrics.
For example, investing in a company committed to renewable energy and fair labour practices might be considered “ESG aligned”. Supporters believe ESG helps identify risks and create long-term value. Critics argue it can be vague or used for greenwashing, where companies appear sustainable without real action. ESG works best when paired with transparency and clear data. A barrier is that standards vary, and it’s not always clear what counts as ESG.
Why do financial companies and institutions care? Issues like climate change and nature loss pose significant risks, affecting company values and the global economy.
However, gathering reliable ESG information can be difficult. Companies often self-report, and the data isn’t always standardised or up to date. Researchers – including my team at the University of Oxford – are using geospatial data, like satellite imagery and artificial intelligence, to develop global databases for high-impact industries, across all major sectors and geographies, and independently assess environmental and social risks and impacts.
For instance, we can analyse satellite images of a facility over time to monitor its emissions effect on nature and biodiversity, or assess deforestation linked to a company’s supply chain. This allows us to map supply chains, identify high-impact assets, and detect hidden risks and opportunities in key industries, providing an objective, real-time look at their environmental footprint.
The goal is for this to improve ESG ratings and provide clearer, more consistent insights for investors. This approach could help us overcome current data limitations to build a more sustainable financial future.
By Amani Maalouf, senior researcher in spatial finance, University of Oxford
Environmental, social and governance investing explained.
Financed emissions
Financed emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions linked to a bank’s or investor’s lending and investment portfolio, rather than their own operations. For example, a bank that funds a coal mine or invests in fossil fuels is indirectly responsible for the carbon those activities produce.
Measuring financed emissions helps reveal the real climate impact of financial institutions not just their office energy use. It’s a cornerstone of climate accountability in finance and is becoming essential under net zero pledges.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Green bonds
Green bonds are loans issued to fund environmentally beneficial projects, such as energy-efficient buildings or clean transportation. Investors choose them to support climate solutions while earning returns.
Green bonds are a major tool to finance the shift to a low-carbon economy by directing finance toward climate solutions. As climate costs rise, green bonds could help close the funding gap while ensuring transparency and accountability.
Green bonds are required to ensure funds are spent as promised. For instance, imagine a city wants to upgrade its public transportation by adding electric buses to reduce pollution. Instead of raising taxes or slashing other budgets, the city can issue green bonds to raise the necessary capital. Investors buy the bonds, the city gets the funding, and the environment benefits from cleaner air and fewer emissions.
The growing participation of government issuers has improved the transparency and reliability of these investments. The green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the green bond market reached US$2.9 trillion (£2.1 trillion) in 2024 – nearly six times larger than in 2018. At the same time, annual issuance (the total value of green bonds issued in a year) hit US$700 billion, highlighting the increasing role of green finance in tackling climate change.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Just transition
Just transition is the process of moving to a low-carbon society that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In a broad sense, a just transition means focusing on creating a more fair and equal society.
Just transition has existed as a concept since the 1970s. It was originally applied to the green energy transition, protecting workers in the fossil fuel industry as we move towards more sustainable alternatives.
These days, it has so many overlapping issues of justice hidden within it, so the concept is hard to define. Even at the level of UN climate negotiations, global leaders struggle to agree on what a just transition means.
The big battle is between developed countries, who want a very restrictive definition around jobs and skills, and developing countries, who are looking for a much more holistic approach that considers wider system change and includes considerations around human rights, Indigenous people and creating an overall fairer global society.
A just transition is essentially about imagining a future where we have moved beyond fossil fuels and society works better for everyone – but that can look very different in a European city compared to a rural setting in south-east Asia.
For example, in a British city it might mean fewer cars and better public transport. In a rural setting, it might mean new ways of growing crops that are more sustainable, and building homes that are heatwave resistant.
By Alix Dietzel, climate justice and climate policy expert, University of Bristol
The meaning of just transition.
Loss and damage
A global loss and damage fund was agreed by nations at the UN climate summit (Cop27) in 2022. This means that the rich countries of the world put money into a fund that the least developed countries can then call upon when they have a climate emergency.
At the moment, the loss and damage fund is made up of relatively small pots of money. Much more will be needed to provide relief to those who need it most now and in the future.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains loss and damage.
Mitigation v adaptation
Mitigation means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Adaptation means adjusting to its effects, like building sea walls or growing heat-resistant crops. Both are essential: mitigation tackles the cause, while adaptation tackles the symptoms.
Globally, most funding goes to mitigation, but vulnerable communities often need adaptation support most. Balancing the two is a major challenge in climate policy, especially for developing countries facing immediate climate threats.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Nationally determined contributions
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris agreement, the global effort to collectively combat climate change. NDCs are individual climate action plans created by each country. These targets and strategies outline how a country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Each nation sets its own goals based on its own circumstances and capabilities – there’s no standard NDC. These plans should be updated every five years and countries are encouraged to gradually increase their climate ambitions over time.
The aim is for NDCs to drive real action by guiding policies, attracting investment and inspiring innovation in clean technologies. But current NDCs fall short of the Paris agreement goals and many countries struggle to turn their plans into a reality. NDCs also vary widely in scope and detail so it’s hard to compare efforts across the board. Stronger international collaboration and greater accountability will be crucial.
By Doug Specht, reader in cultural geography and communication, University of Westminster
Fashion depends on water, soil and biodiversity – all natural capital. And forward-thinking designers are now asking: how do we create rather than deplete, how do we restore rather than extract?
Natural capital is the value assigned to the stock of forests, soils, oceans and even minerals such as lithium. It sustains every part of our economy. It’s the bees that pollinate our crops. It’s the wetlands that filter our water and it’s the trees that store carbon and cool our cities.
If we fail to value nature properly, we risk losing it. But if we succeed, we unlock a future that is not only sustainable but also truly regenerative.
My team at the University of Oxford is developing tools to integrate nature into national balance sheets, advising governments on biodiversity, and we’re helping industries from fashion to finance embed nature into their decision making.
Natural capital, explained by a climate finance expert.
By Mette Morsing, professor of business sustainability and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Net zero
Reaching net zero means reducing the amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to zero. This concept was popularised by the Paris agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the UN climate summit (Cop21) in 2015 to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are some emissions, from farming and aviation for example, that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach absolute zero. Hence, the “net”. This allows people, businesses and countries to find ways to suck greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere, effectively cancelling out emissions while trying to reduce them. This can include reforestation, rewilding, direct air capture and carbon capture and storage. The goal is to reach net zero: the point at which no extra greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains net zero.
For more expert explainer videos, visit The Conversation’s quick climate dictionary playlist here on YouTube.
Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Amani Maalouf receives funding from IKEA Foundation and UK Research and Innovation (NE/V017756/1).
Narmin Nahidi is affiliated with several academic associations, including the Financial Management Association (FMA), British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA), American Finance Association (AFA), and the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CMBE). These affiliations do not influence the content of this article.
Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.
Alix Dietzel, Dongna Zhang, Doug Specht, Mathias Weidinger, Meilan Yan, and Sankar Sivarajah do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
About 600 miles off the west coast of Africa, large clusters of thunderstorms begin organizing into tropical storms every hurricane season. They aren’t yet in range of Hurricane Hunter flights, so forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on weather satellites to peer down on these storms and beam back information about their location, structure and intensity.
The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.
Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.
On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA’s Earth Science Division.
How hurricanes form. NOAA
I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.
Looking inside the clouds
At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.
These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane’s structure, but only during daylight hours.
Hurricane Flossie spins off the Mexican coast on July 1, 2025. Images show the top of the hurricane from space as day turns to night. NOAA GOES
Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.
But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It’s like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.
Infrared bands show more detail of Hurricane Flossie’s structure on July 1, 2025. NOAA GOES
For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.
The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm’s low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.
Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm’s future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.
About 80% of major hurricanes – those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour) – rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.
Where are the defense satellites going?
NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate “a significant cybersecurity risk.”
The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.
The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.
The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm’s location or estimating its intensity.
Images of Hurricane Erick off the coast of Mexico, viewed from NOAA-20’s ATMS (left) and DMPS SSMIS (right) on June 18 show the difference in resolution and the higher detail provided by the SSMIS data. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, via Michael Lowry
ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites’ capabilities. However, the government hasn’t announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.
Why are satellite replacements last minute?
Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.
Scientists prepare a GOES-R satellite for packing aboard a rocket in 2016. NASA/Charles Babir
Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.
The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.
Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with other cuts to data, funding and staffing, could ultimately put more lives at risk.
Chris Vagasky is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George has welcomed the Green Climate Fund’s (GCF) approval of the South African National Biodiversity Institute’s (SANBI) Eco Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco DRR) project.
The project was approved during its 42nd board meeting, currently being held in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
The project, funded by a grant of just over US$40 million, reflects South Africa’s commitment to harnessing ecosystem-based approaches to tackle climate-induced disasters.
Over the next eight years, the Eco DRR initiative will benefit more than five million South Africans, particularly in vulnerable communities, by embedding ecosystem-based approaches into disaster risk planning.
This will bolster infrastructure resilience, safeguard livelihoods, and enhance adaptive capacity against climate change impacts.
“This is a monumental achievement for South Africa and a testament to SANBI’s expertise as a Direct Access Entity to the GCF. The Eco DRR project will empower millions of our citizens, ensuring that we build a resilient future where nature and communities thrive together,” said George.
As a Direct Access Entity, SANBI has showcased leadership in securing this substantial funding, marking a proud milestone for both the institute and the nation.
The approval underscores South Africa’s dedication to sustainable development and climate resilience, positioning its institutions as key players in global climate action.
“By leveraging the power of ecosystems, this project not only mitigates disaster risks but also fosters inclusive growth and environmental stewardship. It is a beacon of hope for a greener, stronger South Africa,” said the Minister.
The Eco DRR project aligns with South Africa’s National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and its vision of fostering a climate-resilient society.
The initiative will deliver long-term benefits by integrating ecosystem-based approaches into national planning frameworks.
The Minister extended his congratulations to SANBI and all stakeholders involved, reaffirming the department’s commitment to supporting the project’s successful implementation.
“We will work tirelessly to ensure that the benefits of this initiative reach our most vulnerable communities, paving the way for a sustainable future,” he said. – SAnews.gov.za
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Omid Ghasemi, Research Associate in Behavioural Science at the Institute for Climate Risk & Response, UNSW Sydney
New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.
Global opinion, global weather
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.
The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.
The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.
Public support for climate policies
The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.
Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.
Exposure to extreme weather events
The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.
Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.
In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.
Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.
In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.
Seeing the link between weather and climate change
In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.
Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).
Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.
Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.
This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.
Source: Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association
Headline: Media release: Major Project Status for Bonaparte project recognises important role of CCS – Australian Energy Producers
The Federal Government’s awarding of Major Project Status to the INPEX-led Bonaparte Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project acknowledges the potential of CCS to advance Australia’s low-carbon future.
Australian Energy Producers Chief Executive Samantha McCulloch said Industry and Innovation Minister Tim Ayres’ announcement was welcome recognition of the essential role of CCS in driving large-scale emissions reductions in Australia and the region.
“The granting of Major Project Status to the Bonaparte CCS project recognises CCS is a key technology in driving progress to net zero, and of Australia’s role as a global leader in this proven technology,” Ms McCulloch said.
“Australia has a comparative advantage in CCS, with world class geology, industry experience, and strong links with regional trading partners looking to collaborate on CCS.”
Australia already hosts two of the world’s largest operational CCS projects, Chevron’s Gorgon and Santos–Beach Energy’s Moomba projects, which together store the equivalent of taking one million cars off the road every year.
According to a Net Zero Australia study, Australia will need between two and 20 Moomba-scale CCS projects to be built each year between now and 2050 to reach net zero.
“CCS is essential for achieving climate goals, with the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and CSIRO all clear that there is no pathway to net zero without CCS,” Ms McCulloch said.
“CCS is particularly important for manufacturing, because without it industries like fertiliser and chemical production, steel, bricks and cement will find it harder and more expensive to reach net zero.”
“CCS is delivering significant emissions reductions in Australia today, and the oil and gas sector stands ready to work with other industries to deliver real emissions reductions.”
Australian Energy Producers NT Director David Slama said the announcement is a major win for the Territory.
“This proposed project has the potential to be a game-changer for the Northern Territory, bringing new jobs, investment, and emissions reduction opportunities,” Mr Slama said.
“It underscores the importance of the oil and gas industry to the Territory’s long-term economic growth and energy security.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The Ministry of Water Resources has warned of the increased occurrence of torrential rains and flooding in northern China, as well as a drought-prone scenario in typically water-rich southern regions, as the nation enters peak flood season.
The weather pattern of a heightened risk of flooding in the north and significant potential for drought in the south is expected to persist through July and August, the ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.
Throughout this period, four to five typhoons are forecast to either make landfall on the country’s mainland or have a significant impact there. Some of the storms might extend into northern China, increasing the potential for disaster risks, the ministry said.
It highlighted the potential risk of flooding in the basins of four major rivers in northern China — the Yellow, Huaihe, Haihe and Songhua rivers. For instance, in the Haihe River Basin, where Beijing is located, the Zhangwei, Ziya, Daqing and Yongding rivers are expected to face significant flooding.
The areas around Poyang Lake, China’s largest freshwater lake, in Jiangxi province, the Qiantang River in Zhejiang province in eastern China, the Minjiang River in Fujian province in southern China, and central and northern parts of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region may suffer drought, the ministry said.
Chu Minghua, deputy director of the ministry’s Department of Flood and Drought Disaster Prevention, disclosed that so far this year, the overall runoff of major rivers across the country is about 20 percent below the normal level for this period.
However, Chu said that reservoirs across the country have stored more water to help cope with potential drought.
“In total, about 471.8 billion cubic meters of water are currently stored in 9,520 reservoirs across the country, creating a favorable condition for coping with drought,” he said.
He emphasized the measures that the ministry will roll out to reduce risks brought about by mountain torrents, which can occur suddenly and result in significant casualties.
The ministry will carry out inspections in a continuous manner to eliminate safety hazards, with special attention paid to densely populated settlements and tourist attractions along valleys and watercourses, he said.
One of the priorities, for example, is to create tailored evacuation plans for areas with large non-native, mobile populations, including construction sites and places that offer recreation and entertainment activities centered on agricultural themes, he said.
He also said the ministry will enhance the monitoring, forecasting and early warning of mountain torrents.
In addition to issuing mountain torrent disaster risk forecasts each day at 8 am and 6 pm for the following 24 hours, the ministry will also publish mountain torrent early warnings every two hours around the clock, he said. Furthermore, a list of areas at high risk will be sent to each provincial-level region on a daily basis.
The ministry will adopt a “grid-based” strategy to manage risks emerging from mountain torrents to ensure the timely evacuation of residents facing safety hazards.
“Those who need to be evacuated should be relocated as soon as possible, with no one left behind,” he said.
Excellencies, Dear colleagues, Champions of our shared cosmic future, Let me begin with a simple truth: every phone call you made to get here, every GPS route that guided your journey, every weather forecast that helped you pack – all of it depended on space. Space is not the final frontier. It is the foundation of our present. Without satellites orbiting overhead right now, global food systems would collapse within weeks. Emergency responders would lose their lifelines. Climate scientists would be flying blind. And our hopes of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals would be out of reach. This is why your work matters. This is why the work of this Committee – COPUOS – is not just important, but urgent. For over six decades, through shifting geopolitics and changing priorities, this Committee has consistently delivered. Five space treaties. Space sustainability guidelines. The Space 2030 Agenda. You don’t just talk about space governance – you create it. But today, we need to shift our focus to scale. The United Nations has identified six critical areas for SDG acceleration: food systems, energy transitions, digital connectivity, education and skills, environmental action, and jobs and social protection. Every single one depends on space technologies. This is a paradox when you consider that less than half of UN Member States have a satellite in orbit, yet all eight billion people on Earth benefit from space services daily. Through your work, and through UNOOSA, we can close this divide – not by putting a satellite in every nation’s hands, but by ensuring that the benefits of space technologies reach every community on our planet. Excellencies, I’m just coming from the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville, where the message was crystal clear: in an era of constrained investment, we must align capital with high-impact solutions. Space is one of them. But impact happens at every level – and I would like to share what I’ve seen. At the local level, UNOOSA’s programs are building the next generation of inclusive space leaders. They’re ensuring equal access for youth and women in developing countries, where small investments create enormous change. Through these programs, we’re enabling the next Carmen Chaidez, the next Kitaw Ejigu. At the national level, UNOOSA helps countries build their space capabilities from the ground up. Through space law workshops and direct support for emerging programs, nations develop the expertise they need to harness space for their own development priorities. UN-Spider shows what this looks like in practice. In Tonga, Tobago, and Ghana, satellite data is being used to create detailed digital models of entire cities. When disaster strikes, these virtual twins allow governments to see exactly where help is needed most, deploy resources much faster, and ultimately save more lives. Through innovative partnerships, UNOOSA has helped Kenya, Guatemala, Moldova, and Mauritius launch their first satellites. Each event was a catalyst – for new space agencies, developing robust legislation, and promoting gender equality in the space sector. Finally, at the international level, as reinforced by the Pact for the Future, we must work together to ensure COPUOS delivers the governance our rapidly evolving space environment demands of us. Excellencies, Here’s what’s happening right now: low-Earth orbit satellites are multiplying exponentially. Humanity is preparing to return to the Moon. We’re exploring beyond like never before. And your work has never been more vital and urgent. We stand at the threshold of potentially historic decision: UNISPACE IV in 2027. This isn’t just another conference. This could be the milestone that shapes the next sixty years of global space governance. And so I encourage us all to aim high. And aim even higher. The pressing space issues before us – traffic, debris, resources – each present both risk and opportunity for achieving the SDGs. Each requires the kind of multilateral cooperation that this Committee has proven it can deliver. We need a strong UNOOSA and a strong COPUOS to lead us into UNISPACE IV and beyond. But strength isn’t about institutions – it’s about the people within them and the systems that we run. As a practical next step, I encourage you to champion the implementation of the UNOOSA Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit for the Space Sector launched last year. Because when we leave talent on the sidelines, we will all lose. Let me leave you with one final message. The view from space shows no countries, no borders – only one shared planet, our common home. Let that aspect guide you as you build the governance frameworks for space exploration and use. Let us ensure that outer space remains safe and sustainable for everyone. Let us make space a catalyst for achieving our 2030 Goals with 5 years to go. And let us build governance frameworks that serve not just us, but generations to come. Thank you.
As some of the country’s senior lawyers and researchers in a range of disciplines (law, economics, Tiriti o Waitangi, public policy, environment), including a former Prime Minister and two New Zealanders of the Year, we cannot stand by as the Regulatory Standards Bill is rushed through a parliamentary select committee next week.
Each of us has written extensively and spoken out against this Bill from our respective areas of expertise. Many of us have done so for the three previous iterations of this Bill when it was promoted unsuccessfully by the Act Party and the Business Round Roundtable (later, the New Zealand Institute).
On each of those occasions Parliament has rejected the Bill as philosophically and legally unsound, profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This time the Act Party has sought to bypass rigorous parliamentary scrutiny by securing commitments from the National and New Zealand First parties to legislate the Bill into law.There was an opportunity for public submissions on the proposal late last year, where itsecured the support of only 0.33% of the over 23,000 New Zealanders who expressed their views on the consultation document. It is evident that the advice in virtually all the submissions was ignored by the government.
The Bill could have profound constitutional consequences.It establishes a set of principles as a benchmark for good legislation/regulation, many of which are highly questionable and designed to establish a presumption in favour of a libertarian view of the role of the state – one that ceased to have any currency globally more than a century ago.Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been excluded altogether. The power vested in the Minister for Regulation and a ministerial-appointed board is not subject to the normal accountabilities of Crown entities, conferring significant yet largely unaccountable authority on the executive.
Dr Jim Salinger, 2024 New Zealander of the Year, further notes the chilling effect the Bill will have on any future policy on climate change and adaptation following the almost $4 billion cost of the 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, the highest in our history.
Whilethere is a select committee review of the Bill, it is truncated and circumscribed.
The Coalition government has decided to submit the Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee rather than the Justice Committee, limiting the time to hear many tens of thousands of oral submissions to just 30 hours – at most 360 submissions – with 5 minutes per submitter, and truncating the period for those hearings and the committee’s report, further exposes the hypocrisy that this Bill is about good governance, better laws, improved regulation, greater transparency and enhanced governmental accountability. We are gravely concerned that the National Party and New Zealand First appear to be complicit in this undemocratic process.
We have each thought long and hard about whether to say we want to challenge this Bill before the select committee, lest it give some credibility to a process that is devoid of legitimacy. Some of us, such as Professor Dame Anne Salmond, 2013 New Zealander of the Year, and Professor Andrew Geddis, made written submissions, but feel there is no point in participating such a harmful process.
Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston, Dr Geoffrey Bertram, Dr Bill Rosenberg and Dr Max Harris have indicated they want to address the committee to reinforce their submissions. In Professor Boston’s view:“The current Bill is destined to have a very short and ignominious life as an Act of Parliament: it enjoys virtually no public support; it lacks cross-party backing; it is opposed by the very Ministry that will be responsible for its implementation; and it endorses principles that have been found wanting by multiple generations of people throughout the world”.
In similar vein, long-standing academic critic of the Bill Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey feels a responsibility “to speak truth to power” – in this case the abuse of proper process and the Act Party’s ongoing contempt for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
For a time it appeared the Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Professor of Law at Te Herenga Waka/ Victoria University of Wellington, author of numerous books on parliamentary constitutinalism, and staunch critic of the Bill, was originally not invited to address the select committee, despite saying but he wanted to be heard. He was subsequently offered an opportunity.
All of us appeal to the National and New Zealand First parties to find their democratic voice and prevent this Bill from proceeding past the select committee.
Equally importantly, they are calling on Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, as the Chair of the forthcoming review of Standing Orders, to conduct a first principles review of the select committee processes to find an appropriate balance for democratic participation in the digital era, and an effective way to reinstate some degree of integrity and rigorous review to law-making in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Work begins later this month (from Monday 28 July) preparing to replace the temporary Bailey bridge on State Highway 2 at Waikare Gorge, with a wider, stronger temporary bridge.
SH2, between Pūtōrino and the northern side of Waikare Gorge, will close for a 24-hour period from 10am Saturday 30 August to 10am Sunday 31 August while the Bailey bridge is removed and the new bridge is lifted into place.
Prior to this closure, SH2 will be reduced to one lane between the Bailey bridge and King’s Bridge, from late July, for construction work off to the side of the road. King’s Bridge is approximately 150m south of the Bailey bridge. Stop/go traffic management will be in place during this time and we ask road users to be aware of the new layout and expect delays.
That construction work will involve building a crane platform and putting the new steel bridge together, before it can be installed during the 24-hour road closure.
The new bridge, known as an Acrow bridge, is similar to the current Bailey bridge but it will be 1 metre wider (accommodating vehicles up to 4.2m wide) and have more capacity for HPMV and most over-dimensional vehicles. It will have a chipseal surface and is expected to be quieter than the current Bailey bridge.
The Acrow bridge will remain in use until the Waikare Gorge realignment project is complete.
Principal Project Manager Richard Bayley says the new bridge will remain single lane however, it will better support the local freight industry and improve safety for everyone.
“During the closure, a crane will be used to swap the bridges over – taking the Bailey bridge off its piles and lowering the Acrow bridge into place. Crews will then deconstruct the Bailey bridge off to the side of the road, before the parts are removed from site.
“We know a full closure like this is very disruptive which is why we’re planning this work on a weekend to reduce the impact on people who travel during the weekdays, like commuters, freight and school kids.
“We value the support from the community in the area and from road users. We’re confident this new wider, stronger, quieter bridge will make travel through the area easier for more people.”
Next steps
Following the 24-hour full closure, there will be an additional 3 nights of closures, to focus on widening the north and south bound approaches to the new bridge. These will be Sunday 31 August, Monday 1 September and Tuesday 2 September, 9pm to 5am each night.
This work is weather dependent. The contingency dates for the full 24-hour closure is the following weekend (starting Saturday 6 September), with the night closures following this. If weather delays this contingency date, the next contingency is the following weekend (starting Saturday 13 September).
Note that there will be no access for emergency services during the full 24-hour closure. However, emergency services will be assisted through the night closures.
Background
Installed in May 2023 after Cyclone Gabrielle destroyed the old bridge, the single lane Waikare Bailey bridge reinstated connection along SH2. It was only a short-term solution with a 2-year design life and is restricted to General Access and 50MAX vehicles.
Acrow bridges have a 5-year design life, have a higher load capacity, and can accommodate more vehicle types. The Acrow bridge will serve as an interim upgrade to maintain access, and support traffic and project construction needs until the Waikare Gorge realignment is completed.
Today, the Honourable Julie Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, visited Denendeh Manor, a four-storey Indigenous-owned apartment building in Yellowknife, to announce over $13.3 million in support of five projects in Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
These projects are being funded under the Low Carbon Economy Fund (LCEF), which invests in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate clean growth, build resilient communities, and create jobs for Canadians through four distinct funding streams. They are essential to building a clean economy and keeping Canadian innovation climate competitive.
Three of the projects being announced are receiving funding from the LCEF Challenge stream, which supports a variety of organizations in adopting proven, low-carbon technologies to reduce their carbon footprint and stay climate competitive. The other two are receiving funding from the LCEF Indigenous Leadership stream, which supports Indigenous-owned and Indigenous-led renewable energy, energy efficiency, and low-carbon heating projects across Canada.
The Sherritt International Corporation is receiving approximately $1.6 million from the Challenge stream to increase the efficiency of the natural gas-fired boilers it uses to generate steam for its fertilizer plant in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.
Cavendish Farms Corporation is receiving nearly $1.4 million from the Challenge stream to install a heat recovery system and reduce reliance on natural gas at its Lethbridge, Alberta facility.
The Taurus Canada Renewable Natural Gas Corporation is receiving approximately $3.4 million from the Challenge stream to construct the world’s first small-scale biogenic carbon capture and storage project, using manure anaerobic digestion on the Kasko Cattle Co. Ltd. feedlot site.
Denendeh Manor GP Ltd. is receiving approximately $2.3 million from the Indigenous Leadership stream to improve energy efficiency and low carbon heating at Denendeh Manor in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation is receiving approximately $4.6 million from the Indigenous Leadership stream to supply ground-mounted solar installation kits to Inuvialuit-owned cabins in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories.
These investments reaffirm the Government of Canada’s strong commitment to building a clean, sustainable economy for all; achieving its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets; and protecting our environment.
Today, the Honourable Julie Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, visited Denendeh Manor, a four-storey Indigenous-owned apartment building in Yellowknife, to announce over $13.3 million in support of five projects in Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
These projects are being funded under the Low Carbon Economy Fund (LCEF), which invests in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate clean growth, build resilient communities, and create jobs for Canadians through four distinct funding streams. They are essential to building a clean economy and keeping Canadian innovation climate competitive.
Three of the projects being announced are receiving funding from the LCEF Challenge stream, which supports a variety of organizations in adopting proven, low-carbon technologies to reduce their carbon footprint and stay climate competitive. The other two are receiving funding from the LCEF Indigenous Leadership stream, which supports Indigenous-owned and Indigenous-led renewable energy, energy efficiency, and low-carbon heating projects across Canada.
The Sherritt International Corporation is receiving approximately $1.6 million from the Challenge stream to increase the efficiency of the natural gas-fired boilers it uses to generate steam for its fertilizer plant in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.
Cavendish Farms Corporation is receiving nearly $1.4 million from the Challenge stream to install a heat recovery system and reduce reliance on natural gas at its Lethbridge, Alberta facility.
The Taurus Canada Renewable Natural Gas Corporation is receiving approximately $3.4 million from the Challenge stream to construct the world’s first small-scale biogenic carbon capture and storage project, using manure anaerobic digestion on the Kasko Cattle Co. Ltd. feedlot site.
Denendeh Manor GP Ltd. is receiving approximately $2.3 million from the Indigenous Leadership stream to improve energy efficiency and low carbon heating at Denendeh Manor in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation is receiving approximately $4.6 million from the Indigenous Leadership stream to supply ground-mounted solar installation kits to Inuvialuit-owned cabins in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories.
These investments reaffirm the Government of Canada’s strong commitment to building a clean, sustainable economy for all; achieving its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets; and protecting our environment.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was on the scene in Western Maryland to collect water data during and after the flooding caused by several inches of rain. Quantifying floods is vital for planning infrastructure that can withstand such extremes in the future.
As the flooding occurred, USGS crews traversed the area, collecting high flow measurements at over two dozen locations in Garrett, Allegany, and Washington counties. The job was challenging as certain roads were difficult or impossible to pass due to flooding.
USGS crews also attempted to measure high flow at Georges Creek, which was at the epicenter of flooding in the town of Westernport, Maryland, and near the site of the school evacuation, but it was too dangerous. Our crew returned when it was safer to collect two streamflow measurements while flows were still elevated, and then later when flooding subsided, identified high-water marks to estimate the volume of water during the peak of the flood.
Days later, evidence of the damage caused by the flood were visible throughout Westernport and across towns in the area, including at Georges Creek, where flooding caused the ground to collapse beneath an unused train line, leaving rails that were twisted mid-air and dangling for several dozen yards, yet somehow still connected on the other side.
The USGS, EPA, along with federal, state, and local partners collect water samples at over a hundred locations across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including the Choptank River as seen here.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently published flow-normalized trends in loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed from water years 1985 through 2023. This monitoring-based information provides federal, state, and local managers with accurate and timely information about the health of streams and rivers entering the Bay.
Understanding changes in the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed is critical to understanding the health of the Bay. States in the Bay watershed recognized this and in 2004 they formed the Non-Tidal Network (NTN), a collection of 123 monitoring stations that follow standard sampling protocols and analysis methods.
Spanning six states from New York to Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia, the consistency of the NTN provides accurate information on conditions and changes in water quality.
This is no small task and is only possible through teamwork from local, state, and federal partners who collect and analyze information from the 123 NTN stations. The total NTN dataset has over 51,000 samples — that’s about 3.5 samples collected every single day since 1985! The USGS plays a critical role in the NTN, providing information on how much water is flowing at the gages, collecting samples, and analyzing load and trend results.
A map of the Chesapeake Bay watershed showing the distribution of Non-Tidal Network (NTN) stations as of 2023.
But the data doesn’t collect itself. It takes dedicated people from federal, state, and local partner agencies, including the USGS, to sample all 123 stations routinely.
On a chilly morning in early March 2024, Kelly McVicker and Shane Mizelle, two hydrologic technicians from the USGS, made their way out to the catwalk of the Conowingo Dam to collect water samples after a storm.
Over the next hour, they repeatedly lowered a sampling bottle into the turbid, roaring waters some several dozen feet below, bringing it back up and transferring it to a larger container. They repeated this procedure at multiple points along the wide river to ensure that the sample would represent the conditions of the river at that particular point in time.
Month after month, and sometimes more frequently as dictated by storms, technicians from the USGS and other agencies repeat this process across 123 stations. In each instance the technicians follow consistent sampling collection, storage and analysis to allow for comparison over the entire network.
After the field, the samples are shipped to laboratories and analyzed, and laboratory staff run quality assurance tests.
Next, the data are returned to the collecting agencies and reviewed by their staff. If the data are approved and nothing is out of line, they are submitted to the Chesapeake Environmental Data Repository where the data are reviewed before inclusion.
Now, nutrient and sediment loads and trends can be calculated from the data.
USGS scientists use a statistical method known as Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge and Season (WRTDS) to compute the flow-normalized load of nutrients and sediment at each station for each year the data are available. A station can have a load computed after 5 years of data, and after 10 years, the scientists will run a trend analysis to determine if the load is increasing, decreasing, or has no discernable trend.
The results computed at the 123 stations include trends in suspended sediment and total and dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus. Each year’s results are compared against the historic record to ensure a consistent dataset is used.
Following the load and trend analyses, the data are published in a data release, updated on a website and the results are distributed to NTN partners and other Chesapeake Bay stakeholders.
This tremendous effort would not be possible without the support of local and state governments and non-profits across the Chesapeake region.
USGS installs three temporary groundwater stations to monitor drought conditions in Delaware
Jacob Mavrogeorge builds a groundwater gage in Delaware.
The U.S. Geological Survey installed groundwater stations in three locations across the state to monitor groundwater levels, doubling the number of active groundwater stations in Delaware operated by USGS from 3 to 6.
Until June 2025, Delaware was in a state of drought according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, and these sites were selected with the help of the Delaware Geological Survey to track groundwater levels throughout the state.
Monitoring at these sites will continue through at least September 30, 2025.
Funding was provided through the USGS Next Generation Water Observing System program (NGWOS) in response to drought conditions that had persisted since last summer.
View data from these sites, DE-Cb12-10, DE-Gb55-08, DE-Ng11-37.
Additional Updates to our Water Monitoring Network
This Winter and Spring we added the following sites to our monitoring network:
Piscataway Creek at Joint Base Andrews, MD (01653521): Gage height, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity.
Piscataway Creek Tributary at Joint Base Andrews, MD (01653522): Gage height, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity.
We also added HIVIS cameras to the following sites:
Whitemarsh Run at White Marsh, MD (01585100)
Mattawoman Creek Near Pomonkey, MD (01658000)
Beaverdam Creek Near Cheverly, MD (01651730)
Watts Branch at Washington, DC (01651800)
Reductions to Data Collection at a Handful of Monitoring Sites
Given proposed budget cuts from a cooperating agency, we foresee the following reductions to data collection at a handful of sites beginning on October 1, 2025. If there are questions concerning these sites, please email gs-w-mdtws_information@usgs.gov.
The following sites will be fully discontinued. Although historical data will remain accessible, no new data will be collected:
Rock Creek at Sherrill Drive, Washington, DC (01648000): Continuous discharge.
Luzon Branch above Rock Creek at Washington, DC (01648011): Continuous discharge and water temperature.
Anacostia River at Kenilworth at Washington, DC (01651760): Continuous discharge water temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.
Anacostia River near Buzzard Point at Washington, DC (01651827): Continuous discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity.
Watts Branch at Washington, DC (01651800) will lose its continuous discharge reporting, but all other continuous measurements will remain.
Discrete metals and bacteria water-quality analyses (cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, E. coli bacteria) at the following sites will be discontinued; however other water-quality parameters (phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended sediment) will still be collected:
Rock Creek at Joyce Road, Washington, DC (01648010)
Hickey Run at National Arboretum at Washington, DC (01651770)
Watts Branch at Washington, DC (01651800)
Stay Up-To-Date On Our Latest Science
These are the latest publications that our Center’s scientists contributed to:
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was on the scene in Western Maryland to collect water data during and after the flooding caused by several inches of rain. Quantifying floods is vital for planning infrastructure that can withstand such extremes in the future.
As the flooding occurred, USGS crews traversed the area, collecting high flow measurements at over two dozen locations in Garrett, Allegany, and Washington counties. The job was challenging as certain roads were difficult or impossible to pass due to flooding.
USGS crews also attempted to measure high flow at Georges Creek, which was at the epicenter of flooding in the town of Westernport, Maryland, and near the site of the school evacuation, but it was too dangerous. Our crew returned when it was safer to collect two streamflow measurements while flows were still elevated, and then later when flooding subsided, identified high-water marks to estimate the volume of water during the peak of the flood.
Days later, evidence of the damage caused by the flood were visible throughout Westernport and across towns in the area, including at Georges Creek, where flooding caused the ground to collapse beneath an unused train line, leaving rails that were twisted mid-air and dangling for several dozen yards, yet somehow still connected on the other side.
The USGS, EPA, along with federal, state, and local partners collect water samples at over a hundred locations across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including the Choptank River as seen here.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently published flow-normalized trends in loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed from water years 1985 through 2023. This monitoring-based information provides federal, state, and local managers with accurate and timely information about the health of streams and rivers entering the Bay.
Understanding changes in the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed is critical to understanding the health of the Bay. States in the Bay watershed recognized this and in 2004 they formed the Non-Tidal Network (NTN), a collection of 123 monitoring stations that follow standard sampling protocols and analysis methods.
Spanning six states from New York to Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia, the consistency of the NTN provides accurate information on conditions and changes in water quality.
This is no small task and is only possible through teamwork from local, state, and federal partners who collect and analyze information from the 123 NTN stations. The total NTN dataset has over 51,000 samples — that’s about 3.5 samples collected every single day since 1985! The USGS plays a critical role in the NTN, providing information on how much water is flowing at the gages, collecting samples, and analyzing load and trend results.
A map of the Chesapeake Bay watershed showing the distribution of Non-Tidal Network (NTN) stations as of 2023.
But the data doesn’t collect itself. It takes dedicated people from federal, state, and local partner agencies, including the USGS, to sample all 123 stations routinely.
On a chilly morning in early March 2024, Kelly McVicker and Shane Mizelle, two hydrologic technicians from the USGS, made their way out to the catwalk of the Conowingo Dam to collect water samples after a storm.
Over the next hour, they repeatedly lowered a sampling bottle into the turbid, roaring waters some several dozen feet below, bringing it back up and transferring it to a larger container. They repeated this procedure at multiple points along the wide river to ensure that the sample would represent the conditions of the river at that particular point in time.
Month after month, and sometimes more frequently as dictated by storms, technicians from the USGS and other agencies repeat this process across 123 stations. In each instance the technicians follow consistent sampling collection, storage and analysis to allow for comparison over the entire network.
After the field, the samples are shipped to laboratories and analyzed, and laboratory staff run quality assurance tests.
Next, the data are returned to the collecting agencies and reviewed by their staff. If the data are approved and nothing is out of line, they are submitted to the Chesapeake Environmental Data Repository where the data are reviewed before inclusion.
Now, nutrient and sediment loads and trends can be calculated from the data.
USGS scientists use a statistical method known as Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge and Season (WRTDS) to compute the flow-normalized load of nutrients and sediment at each station for each year the data are available. A station can have a load computed after 5 years of data, and after 10 years, the scientists will run a trend analysis to determine if the load is increasing, decreasing, or has no discernable trend.
The results computed at the 123 stations include trends in suspended sediment and total and dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus. Each year’s results are compared against the historic record to ensure a consistent dataset is used.
Following the load and trend analyses, the data are published in a data release, updated on a website and the results are distributed to NTN partners and other Chesapeake Bay stakeholders.
This tremendous effort would not be possible without the support of local and state governments and non-profits across the Chesapeake region.
USGS installs three temporary groundwater stations to monitor drought conditions in Delaware
Jacob Mavrogeorge builds a groundwater gage in Delaware.
The U.S. Geological Survey installed groundwater stations in three locations across the state to monitor groundwater levels, doubling the number of active groundwater stations in Delaware operated by USGS from 3 to 6.
Until June 2025, Delaware was in a state of drought according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, and these sites were selected with the help of the Delaware Geological Survey to track groundwater levels throughout the state.
Monitoring at these sites will continue through at least September 30, 2025.
Funding was provided through the USGS Next Generation Water Observing System program (NGWOS) in response to drought conditions that had persisted since last summer.
View data from these sites, DE-Cb12-10, DE-Gb55-08, DE-Ng11-37.
Additional Updates to our Water Monitoring Network
This Winter and Spring we added the following sites to our monitoring network:
Piscataway Creek at Joint Base Andrews, MD (01653521): Gage height, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity.
Piscataway Creek Tributary at Joint Base Andrews, MD (01653522): Gage height, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity.
We also added HIVIS cameras to the following sites:
Whitemarsh Run at White Marsh, MD (01585100)
Mattawoman Creek Near Pomonkey, MD (01658000)
Beaverdam Creek Near Cheverly, MD (01651730)
Watts Branch at Washington, DC (01651800)
Reductions to Data Collection at a Handful of Monitoring Sites
Given proposed budget cuts from a cooperating agency, we foresee the following reductions to data collection at a handful of sites beginning on October 1, 2025. If there are questions concerning these sites, please email gs-w-mdtws_information@usgs.gov.
The following sites will be fully discontinued. Although historical data will remain accessible, no new data will be collected:
Rock Creek at Sherrill Drive, Washington, DC (01648000): Continuous discharge.
Luzon Branch above Rock Creek at Washington, DC (01648011): Continuous discharge and water temperature.
Anacostia River at Kenilworth at Washington, DC (01651760): Continuous discharge water temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.
Anacostia River near Buzzard Point at Washington, DC (01651827): Continuous discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity.
Watts Branch at Washington, DC (01651800) will lose its continuous discharge reporting, but all other continuous measurements will remain.
Discrete metals and bacteria water-quality analyses (cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, E. coli bacteria) at the following sites will be discontinued; however other water-quality parameters (phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended sediment) will still be collected:
Rock Creek at Joyce Road, Washington, DC (01648010)
Hickey Run at National Arboretum at Washington, DC (01651770)
Watts Branch at Washington, DC (01651800)
Stay Up-To-Date On Our Latest Science
These are the latest publications that our Center’s scientists contributed to:
The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term.
Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet.
Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues.
It’s not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country’s control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics.
Future visitor trends
We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from COVID shutdowns that will likely diminish.
The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent’s interior.
Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO).
The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers.
Even when cruise ships don’t dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed.
Then there’s carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year.
Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation.
Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline.
Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control.
One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research.
Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn’t deter high income, experience-driven tourists.
Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable.
Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system.
Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica’s carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive.
Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing.
Looking ahead
Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures.
So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution.
The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based.
Darla Hatton MacDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Forest and Wood Innovations Centre, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the Soils CRC. She has received in-kind support from Antarctic tour operator HX.
Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, and DFAT. She also receives in-kind support and occasional funding from Antarctic tourism operator HX and in-kind support from other tour operators.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Defendant Charged as Part of Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative
WASHINGTON – Ronald Aiken, 48, of the District of Columbia, has been charged in an indictment, unsealed today in U.S. District Court, on a federal firearms charge as part of the “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative.
The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Aiken is charged federally with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.
According to court documents, on June 10, 2025, members of the MPD’s Fifth District Crime Suppression Team were on patrol following two shootings in the area. As officers drove on the 1700 block of D Street NE, they observed a gray Audi sedan without a front registration plate driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Officers stopped the Audi on the 1700 block of Gales Street NE, and approached the driver, later identified as Ronald Aiken.
Through the window, officers observed an open can of beer in an unzipped backpack on the rear passenger seat. Officers searched the backpack and discovered a live round of ammunition. During a further search of the vehicle, officers discovered a firearm wedged behind the rear driver-side seat. Officers identified the firearm as a black Taurus G3 9×19 pistol, loaded with one round in the chamber and three additional rounds in the magazine.
Aiken is prohibited from possession a firearm and ammunition due to multiple prior felony convictions, including a 2024 Arlington County, Virginia Circuit Court conviction for the possession/transport of a firearm by a convicted felon.
This case is being investigated by the ATF Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department. Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jonathan Sussler and Brendan Horan are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Defendant Charged as Part of Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative
WASHINGTON – Ronald Aiken, 48, of the District of Columbia, has been charged in an indictment, unsealed today in U.S. District Court, on a federal firearms charge as part of the “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative.
The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Aiken is charged federally with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.
According to court documents, on June 10, 2025, members of the MPD’s Fifth District Crime Suppression Team were on patrol following two shootings in the area. As officers drove on the 1700 block of D Street NE, they observed a gray Audi sedan without a front registration plate driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Officers stopped the Audi on the 1700 block of Gales Street NE, and approached the driver, later identified as Ronald Aiken.
Through the window, officers observed an open can of beer in an unzipped backpack on the rear passenger seat. Officers searched the backpack and discovered a live round of ammunition. During a further search of the vehicle, officers discovered a firearm wedged behind the rear driver-side seat. Officers identified the firearm as a black Taurus G3 9×19 pistol, loaded with one round in the chamber and three additional rounds in the magazine.
Aiken is prohibited from possession a firearm and ammunition due to multiple prior felony convictions, including a 2024 Arlington County, Virginia Circuit Court conviction for the possession/transport of a firearm by a convicted felon.
This case is being investigated by the ATF Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department. Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jonathan Sussler and Brendan Horan are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The green taxation reform is a key element of Cyprus’ Recovery and Resilience Plan[1]. It aims to internalise environmental externalities, encouraging more efficient use of resources and incentivising the adoption of renewable energy.
This is crucial in Cyprus where the green taxation system and municipal waste recycling lag behind the rest of Europe, and water scarcity is a particular issue.
The green taxation reform includes a carbon tax, which constitutes a transition towards the Emissions Trading System 2 on buildings, road transport and additional sectors (ETS2) applicable from 2027, a levy on water and a charge on landfill waste, both of which will be incrementally increased.
The reform should precisely set the right incentives for transitioning to climate neutrality, modernising waste and water management and enhancing renewable energy capacity. It is crucial to pass it soon so that this incentivisation happens quickly. The reform will help Cyprus come closer to its climate objectives and the legally binding maximum landfill rate of 10% by 2035.
Regarding the availability of tools to support Cyprus in closing its infrastructure gaps and mitigating the transition costs for households, on top of e.g. structural and cohesion funds, the Social Climate Fund (SCF) will support a socially fair transition towards climate neutrality by addressing the effects of the EU-wide introduction of carbon pricing in the buildings and road transport sectors applicable from 2027.
Already as of 2026, the SCF will provide Member States with dedicated funding to support vulnerable groups, with building renovation, decarbonisation of heating, renewable energy as well as sustainability mobility and transport.
As part of her ongoing participation in the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville, Spain, within the Egyptian delegation headed by H.E. Prime Minister Dr. Mostafa Madbouly, on behalf of H.E. President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, H.E. Dr. Rania A. Al-Mashat, Minister of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation, participated in a number of events concerning expanding fiscal space for developing countries, national frameworks and platforms, aligning capital flows with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and a new vision for debt.
Expanding Fiscal Space for Developing Countries and a New Vision for Debt
H.E. Dr. Rania Al-Mashat participated in a panel titled “Expanding Fiscal Space: A New Vision for Debt and Development Finance,” with the participation of Dr. Mahmoud Mohieldin, Chair of the UN Expert Group on Debt and the UN Special Envoy on Financing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda; Ms. Rola Dashti, Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA); and Ms. Zuzana Brixiova, Director of Macroeconomics, Finance and Governance Division at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA).
The Minister of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation emphasized that the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development represents a pivotal moment for fulfilling the international community’s commitments for achieving SDGs, particularly after the successive crises the world is facing, which undermine the ability of developing and emerging countries to meet the requirements of the development path.
H.E. Minister Al-Mashat highlighted the importance of implementing the recommendations of the UN expert group’s report on solving the debt problem in Global South countries.
These included 11 key recommendations, among them: redirecting and renewing resources of existing funds in multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund to enhance liquidity, adopting policies to extend maturities and finance loan repurchases, reducing debt service during crises, reforming the G20 Common Framework to include all middle-income countries, and reforming the Debt Sustainability Analyses (DSA) of the IMF and World Bank to better reflect the situation of low and middle-income countries, among other recommendations.
H.E. Dr. Al-Mashat expressed her aspiration that the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development will contribute to taking concrete steps towards restructuring the global financial system, which has become inadequate for the magnitude of challenges and changes facing developing and emerging countries. She noted that rising debts and decreasing investments undermine the ability of developing and emerging countries to catch up. She also stressed the need to overcome global challenges and return to the multilateral development cooperation system.
H.E. Dr. Al-Mashat reiterated Egypt’s efforts to promote financing for development through innovative mechanisms such as debt swap programs with Germany and Italy, and the signing of a new agreement with China. She pointed to the credibility and trust between Egypt and international financing institutions, which facilitated the mobilization of more than $15.6 billion in development financing for the private sector since 2020.
Reforming the Global Financial Architecture: Aligning Capital Flows with Development and Climate Goals
In a related context, H.E. Dr. Rania Al-Mashat participated in a high-level session titled “Reforming the International Financial Architecture: Aligning Capital Flows with Development and Climate Goals,” organized by the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI), the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), and the Belt and Road Green Development Council (BRIGC).
Participants included Professor Jeffrey Sachs, President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN); Mr. Claver Gatete, Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA); Professor Kevin Urama, Chief Economist of the African Development Bank; and Ms. Carla Louveira, Minister of Finance of Mozambique, among others.
H.E. Dr. Rania Al-Mashat reaffirmed that achieving inclusive and sustainable development in the African continent cannot be based solely on borrowing or on mobilizing domestic resources. Instead, it is essential to integrate both approaches to ensure sufficient and sustainable financing for development projects.
H.E. Minister Al-Mashat also emphasized that Egypt is working to achieve a delicate balance between domestic and international financing, guided by a clear vision that mobilizing domestic resources supports sustainability, while international partnerships provide momentum for implementing major strategic projects.
Regarding the global financial structure,H.E. Dr. Al-Mashat added that the current international financial system has led to a deepening of the disparity in capital flows between developing, emerging, and developed countries, and limits financing opportunities in southern countries. She asserted that developing countries, especially African nations, still bear unfair financial burdens due to the high cost of financing compared to developed countries, and this disparity weakens our ability to achieve the SDGs within set timelines.
H.E. Minister Al-Mashat mentioned that capital flows are moving in the opposite direction, away from the countries with the greatest needs, despite the high-return investment opportunities these countries offer. She underscored that instead of capital flowing towards high-yield development opportunities, we observe outflows due to increased risks associated with global fluctuations, which limits the ability of countries to attract long-term financing. She concluded that serious reforms are urgently needed in the international financial system.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Ministry of Planning, Economic Development, and International Cooperation – Egypt.
During his department’s Budget Vote presentation on Wednesday, Velenkosini Hlabisa, the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, took a moment to honour the lives lost in the recent catastrophic disaster that occurred just two weeks ago.
This tragedy claimed the lives of approximately 102 people in the Eastern Cape.
This follows the South African Weather Service’s prediction of severe weather, including heavy rainfall, snow and strong winds, which led the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, Free State, and KwaZulu-Natal to activate their disaster response plans.
However, the Eastern Cape experienced particularly devastating impacts, with torrential rains leading to unprecedented floods in districts such as Nelson Mandela Bay, Chris Hani, and OR Tambo.
“Families lost everything in a matter of hours. Sadly, over 100 South Africans – children, parents, and grandparents – lost their lives,” the Minister said.
The severe floods not only washed away homes and infrastructure, but Hlabisa said they also shattered the very fabric of families and communities, leaving thousands homeless and schools submerged.
In a moment of reflection, the Minister extended condolences to those affected: “On behalf of the Ministry and the Departments of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, we offer our deepest condolences to every grieving family and to every person who has lost not only a loved one but also a sense of stability and hope.”
As a mark of respect, the National Assembly observed a minute of silence in honour of the deceased.
Meanwhile, in response to the devastation, the Minister has since authorised the National Disaster Management Centre to officially classify the events as a National Disaster, facilitating immediate and necessary interventions.
“We are now urgently working to support the affected provinces and municipalities, not just with words but with the resources they need to recover and rebuild,” the Minister said.
Meanwhile, he announced that technical assessment teams have already been deployed, with work being coordinated through the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (MISA) to evaluate the damage to essential infrastructure, including roads, bridges and sanitation systems.
“This powerful partnership strengthens our rapid response and operational readiness during emergencies,” the Minister added, highlighting the collaboration with the South African National Defence Force to enhance national capacity.
In addition, the Minister said South Africa is concurrently holding the Presidency of the Group of 20 (G20), focusing specifically on disaster risk reduction.
“Through the G20, we learn from the world and share our experiences,” said the Minister.
He stressed the significance of global cooperation in addressing disaster-related challenges.
With the first G20 technical meeting having taken place earlier this year in KwaZulu-Natal, Hlabisa said attention now turns to the second meeting scheduled for next week in Johannesburg.
The working group will address critical areas such as ecosystem-based approaches and nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction, disaster-resilient infrastructure, and strategies for disaster recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
“These focus areas are more than just abstract policy themes; they are lifelines for the future,” the Minister stated.
“They are the answers we seek when we ask: How do we prevent the next floods from becoming a national tragedy? How do we ensure communities bounce back stronger, not just survive?”
As South Africa continues to grapple with the repercussions of this disaster, he said the country is now shifting its commitment to recovery, resilience, and international collaboration.
The Minister also announced a budget allocation for Cooperative Governance amounting to R410.9 billion over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period.
He said that a staggering 96.7% of this budget is earmarked for intergovernmental transfers and support to various entities that deliver tangible and measurable improvements in the lives of South Africans.
In addition to the allocations for Cooperative Governance, Hlabisa said Traditional Affairs will see an appropriated budget of R195 530 million for the fiscal year 2025/26. – SAnews.gov.za
