You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The UN panel will write its next round of reports against the backdrop of a world hitting its climate deadlines — and facing the consequences.
Our world is on the edge of a climate precipice, says a major new report from a panel of UN climate scientists, and the next decade will be crucial in deciding what its future will look like. But catastrophe is not inevitable, the scientists said, and the report laid out a path back from the edge.
“The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, calling the report a “survival guide for humanity.”
This report, known as a “synthesis,” brings together the key findings of the work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the last few years as part of its regular review of climate science and the state of the world’s efforts to address climate change. If climate science is over, this report is the endcap. The next round of IPCC reports won’t be published until around 2030, which means they’ll be written against the backdrop of a world hitting its climate deadlines — and facing the consequences.
Earth has warmed by 1.1 degrees Celsius since preindustrial times, a change the report says was “unequivocally caused” by human activities, primarily greenhouse gas emissions. That brings us perilously close to the crucial figure of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, the target agreed to in the 2015 Paris Agreement that is commonly considered the upper edge of acceptable warming before climate impacts become catastrophic.
Despite pledges to reduce emissions, carbon emissions have been increasing, the report says, and the impacts of climate change are already appearing faster and more intensely than previously predicted. But there is still time to change course, and every bit of progress will be crucial — the severity of climate impacts depends on fractions of degrees, and even if we blow through our 1.5 degree target, we should be doing our best to stop any additional warming.
“Almost irrespective of our choices in the near term, we will probably reach 1.5 degrees in the first half of the next decade,” said Peter Thorne, a lead author of the synthesis report, in a press conference on Monday. “The real question is whether our will to reduce emissions means we reach 1.5 degrees, maybe go a little bit over, but then come back down, or whether we go blasting through 1.5 degrees, go through even 2 degrees, and keep on going. So the future really is in our hands. That’s why the rest of this decade is key.”
The report doesn’t include any new solutions; we already know what needs to happen. To keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, greenhouse gas emissions would need to peak in the next two years, and carbon dioxide emissions would have to be reduced by 65% by 2035, the report says — a new benchmark that illustrates just how drastic cuts to emissions would have to be to avert catastrophe.
But the report comes amidst a mixed backdrop. Last year President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act — which “stand[s] to turbocharge the transformation of the American energy system” — into law, and Europe has seen a major push in decarbonization, particularly in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In 2020, Chinese president Xi Jinping pledged his country’s carbon emissions would peak by 2030.
But that’s not the whole story. Major polluters, including the U.S. and China, are still approving new fossil fuel extraction projects that will doubtless contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Even though renewable energy generation surpassed coal in the U.S. last year, carbon emissions still rose by 1.3 percent — and new major drilling projects in Alaska haven’t even started yet.
Even the IPCC’s work itself has previously been delayed by fossil fuel interests — UN member states have to approve the language of the text, and last year the Saudi Arabian government successfully lobbied to delay the release of a report in order to tone down language that called for the phase-out of fossil fuels and inject an emphasis on unproven carbon-capture technologies. Negotiations for this year’s synthesis report, which was supposed to be approved on Friday, dragged into Sunday as countries quibbled over language.
In November, countries will gather in Dubai for the UN’s climate conference, where they will witness the conclusion of the first global stocktake, which assesses the world’s progress towards the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Combined with the stocktake, the findings in the synthesis report will provide a firm scientific foundation for negotiations at the conference. What remains to be seen is whether the science can outweigh capital — last year, major oil producers blocked an effort to include language calling for a “phase-down” of all fossil fuels in the final agreement.
The IPCC was founded in 1988 to provide a comprehensive look at everything we knew about climate change and how it might impact our lives in the future; at the time, climate change was more of an abstraction than a lived reality, and the panel’s reports gave shape to that abstraction. The release of the synthesis is a sign that the IPCC’s work, for now, is done. In the press conference on Monday, the report’s authors stressed the urgency of action from governments, businesses, and individuals alike.
“We at all levels: governments, communities, individuals, have made climate change someone else’s problem,” said Thorne. “We have to stop that. We have to act now.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Conservationists in Wyoming zero in on a vulnerability anti-wind activists are targeting elsewhere: the administration’s species protection efforts.
Wildlife conservationists in Wyoming are asking the Trump administration to block wind projects in their state in the name of protecting eagles from turbine blades.
The Albany County Conservancy, a Wyoming wildlife advocacy group, sent letters on February 11 and 18 to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. In the letters, which I obtained, the group asked the Trump officials to do everything in their power to halt Repsol’s Rail Tie and BluEarth’s Two Rivers wind projects, including suspending Two Rivers’ right-of-way from the Bureau of Land Management and even the interconnection grant for Rail Tie’s transmission line.
These letters show for the first time that onshore wind projects are dealing with the same Trump-centric back-channelling influence campaigns we reported advocates and attorneys are waging in the offshore wind permitting space. The letters make some big requests. But the Conservancy is playing the chess game well, zeroing in on a vulnerability other wind opponents are also targeting: the administration’s species protection efforts.
Wyoming is crucial to the survival of golden eagles, a raptor bird species protected under multiple federal laws, including a 1940 conservation statute for golden as well as bald eagles. The state is home to what conservationists say is one of the largest breeding populations for golden eagles. But the species is struggling, with most recorded golden eagle deaths caused by humans. Some of these deaths have been tied directly to wind turbines.
The Rail Tie and Two Rivers projects concern Mike Lockhart, an ex-biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service with a specialty in eagle conservation. For years Lockhart, who lives in the area and is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, has studied how the wind industry has impacted golden eagles and believes the government severely undercounts how many birds are being hurt by turbine blades.
In order to build in areas with golden eagles, developers need so-called “incidental take” authorizations, e.g. approvals to disturb or accidentally harm the species throughout the course of construction or operation of a wind project. He told me that data he and the Conservancy submitted to regulators shows that golden eagles will die if these wind farms turn on. “I’m a big renewable energy advocate,” he said. “I’m also horrified by what I’m seeing in Wyoming. We really didn’t understand the full scope of what these three-bladed wind turbines mean.”
It’s worth noting that renewable energy industry groups deny wind energy is playing a role in the size of the golden eagle population.
The Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of Land Management and the incidental take process, declined to comment on the requests. So did BluEarth. Repsol said it was unable to provide a comment by press time.
On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order that halted new federal approvals for U.S. wind projects, pending a comprehensive review of the government’s past treatment of the wind industry, including its efforts to protect birds from turbines. Trump’s order claimed there were “various alleged legal deficiencies underlying the federal government’s leasing and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects, the consequences of which may lead to grave harm – including negative impacts on navigational safety interests, transportation interests, national security interests, commercial interests, and marine mammals.” It also claimed there were “potential inadequacies in various environmental reviews” for wind projects. And indeed, a 2023 Associated Press investigation found federal enforcement in eagle protection laws declined under the Trump 1.0 and Biden administrations, even as wind energy blossomed in the species’ habitat.
As we reported last week, opponents of offshore wind have joined hands with well-connected figures in the conservative legal space to lobby Trump’s team to revoke incidental take authorizations previously issued to offshore wind projects. Doing so would rattle all offshore wind development as well as raise concerns about scientific independence at the issuing agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
As with offshore wind and whales, Wyoming and its eagles offer Trump a situation he wants. In this case, it’s an opportunity to look tough on crime while attacking wind. A Trumpian disruption of the state’s wind sector would also create high profile controversy around what has otherwise been a success story for wind energy growth in a GOP stronghold state.
The Conservancy is represented by William Eubanks, a veteran public interest environmental lawyer who sent the letters on the group’s behalf. Prior to sending the letter, they were already in litigation over Rail Tie’s take approvals and the government permits that followed, providing a potential avenue for regulatory and permitting changes through legal settlement. The Conservancy also warned the Trump team that another lawsuit over Two Rivers could soon be in the offing. One letter stated that officials’ time “would be better spent reevaluating” the project to “ensure compliance with federal law (and President Trump’s Executive Order on wind projects), rather than in federal court.”
Eubanks — who has dedicated his life to fighting various potential industrial impacts to the environment, including fossil fuel pollution — told me that cases against renewable projects are a “really small part” of his firm’s “overall docket.” Eubanks told me he believes climate change must be addressed quickly. “It’s a serious issue, it is here, it is looming, and we need to do something about it,” he said. And he thinks that the nation needs to construct more renewable energy.
Yet Eubanks also says these two wind projects are a perfect example of a “rush through these processes” to get “the green light as soon as possible.” In his view, it’s the same way he’s treated oil and gas projects when fossil-friendly presidents put their own thumbs on the scale.
“We’re not just looking at this as, it’s a solar project or a wind project that gets some sort of ‘green pass,’” Eubanks added. “There’s a difference of opinion in the conservation community … a black or white thinking approach of, if something is a renewable energy project — no matter how poorly sited it is, no matter who poorly analyzed if at all it has been under environmental law — there are some conservation groups who, for better or worse, will just say, we’re not going to get involved in commenting on that or going the extra step of challenging it in court because we have to address the issue of our time: climate change.”
Lockhart told me he knows that the Trump administration is undercutting climate action with its anti-wind position. And he doesn’t like that. “I’m a supporter of green energy and want to do everything possible to reverse climate change,” he told me.
But he sees a silver lining in Trump potentially intervening. “I’m hoping it makes agencies go back and focus on what’s really going on, all the cumulative impacts and everything else.”
And more of the week’s top conflicts around renewable energy.
Here’s what else I’m watching …
In Massachusetts, anti-wind activist Mary Chalke is running for a seat on the select board for the town of Nantucket. She’s well known for wearing a whale costume to protests.
In North Carolina, local pro-wind advocates hope Duke Energy’s land-based wind projects will be safe from the Trump administration.
In Washington State, Whitman County has imposed a wind moratorium.
In Virginia, Apex Clean Energy’s Rocky Forge solar project has survived a legal challenge.
And more of the week’s top policy news.
1. New NEPA world – The Trump White House overnight effectively rescinded all implementing rules for the National Environmental Policy Act, a key statute long relied on by regulators for permitting large energy and infrastructure projects.
2. Our hydrogen hero – Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito this week came out against any freeze for a hydrogen hub with projects in her state, indicating that any clampdown on H2 projects from the federal level may get Republican pushback.
.