View previous stories
	Politicians with no scientific expertise target established climate science by WWF, ICJ, Grantham Research Institute, agencies   Feb. 2026   The US Trump regime threatens International Energy Agency (IEA) funding unless it stops publishing its annual road map for how countries can eliminate their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions by 2050, known as its “net zero scenario.”   Many IEA member nations have urged the agency to pay more attention to rapidly growing energy technologies such as solar panels and electric vehicles, as well highlighting the ongoing risks of increasing global warming.   The Trump regime has been pressuring countries and international organizations to scale back efforts to address climate change and instead to continue to rely on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal, the main drivers of rising global temperatures.   Mr. Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement, and in October 2025, successfully pressured countries to halt a global agreement to reduce emissions from cargo ships. Mr Trump has dismissed global warming as a “hoax.”   In contrasting remarks President Emmanuel Macron of France said Europe would keep working to move away from fossil fuels and to expand low-emissions energy sources like wind, solar. “Scientists alert us every day about the dramatic risks of climate change,” Mr. Macron said, adding that an “orderly, progressive transition away from fossil fuels is key.”   Global fossil fuel use is still rising year after year, with the IEA projecting that global oil and gas demand could continue rising for decades.   The net zero scenario underlines the changes needed for countries to phase out fossil fuels rapidly to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2050. Scientists say that doing so is necessary to keep average global warming to around 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), compared with pre-industrial levels, to limit the risks of ever increasing extreme weather events - heat waves, droughts, floods, sea-level rise, species extinctions, compounding food and water insecurity and other disasters.   In a craven response to US fossil fuels lobbying the IEA said it has not decided whether it would continue to offer its recommended net zero scenario.   http://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/19/climate/us-tells-international-energy-agency-to-drop-its-focus-on-climate-change.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-administration-dismantles-ambitious-ocean-monitoring-program http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2026/06/01/climate-disclosure-in-retreat/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/climate-backtracker http://silencingscience.org/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/consistency-on-climate-change-in-the-us-courts-but-a-swinging-pendulum-in-government/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/05/un-experts-welcome-un-general-assembly-resolution-supporting-world-courts http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/05/1167561 http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/mythbusters http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/information-integrity http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11022026/earth-unprecedented-shift-from-warm-to-hot/ http://billmckibben.substack.com/p/were-in-for-some-heavy-weather   Feb. 2026   USA: Donald Trump's regime has repealed the bedrock scientific determination that gives the US government the ability to regulate fossil fuel pollution.   The endangerment finding, which states that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health and welfare, has since 2009 allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit fossil fuel pollution from vehicles, power plants and other industrial sources.   Former US President Barack Obama said the repeal will leave Americans “less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change – all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money”.   Former US secretary of state John Kerry said: “Repealing the Endangerment Finding takes Orwellian governance to new heights and invites enormous damage to people around the world”.   The ruling removes the government’s ability to impose requirements to track, report and limit fossil fuel pollution from cars and trucks, with transportation is the largest source of climate pollution in the US.   It does not apply currently to regulations on sources of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and fossil fuel infrastructure, which are regulated under a separate section of the Clean Air Act, but it will open the door to end those standards, too.   Trump’s EPA has separately proposed to find that emissions from power plants “do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution” and therefore should not be regulated. Joseph Goffman, who served as EPA air chief under Joe Biden, expects the agency will apply their vehicles-focused arguments to stationary polluters in order to kill the endangerment finding for all sources of greenhouse gas emissions.   “Instead of the entire house of cards of all EPA climate regulation collapsing all at once today, it’s going to be like a row of dominoes falling,” said Goffman, who helped write and implement the Clean Air Act and worked directly on the endangerment finding.   Scientists and environmental advocates have condemned the move as illegal and have promised to take the EPA to court over the rollback, as has the state of California.   “If this reckless decision survives legal challenges, it will lead to more deadly wildfires, more extreme heat deaths, more climate-driven floods and droughts, and greater threats to communities – all while the EPA dismisses the overwhelming science,” Gavin Newsom, the California governor, said in a statement.   Former Vice President Al Gore, a longtime climate advocate, slammed the decision as an “insult” to the American public.   “The Trump Administration’s rollback of the endangerment finding is not only a direct assault on science, knowledge, and public health, it is an insult to the people across the country who are already coping with the disastrous consequences of climate-driven extreme weather events,” said Gore.   Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works said: “The Trump EPA has fully abandoned its duty to protect the American people from greenhouse gas pollution and climate change. This shameful abdication will harm Americans’ health, homes, and economic well-being. It ignores scientific fact and common-sense observations to serve big fossil fuel political donors.”   One analysis from the Environmental Defense Fund found the full repeal of the endangerment finding combined with Trump’s proposal to roll back motor vehicle standards would result in as much as 18bn more tons of planet-warming pollution by 2055 – the same as the annual emissions of China, the world’s top polluter – and would impose up to $4.7tn in additional expenses tied to harmful climate and air pollution.   In the repeal of the endangerment finding, the Trump Administration EPA is claiming that the Clean Air Act is only meant to regulate pollution “that harms health or the environment through local and regional exposure”. But there is overwhelming scientific consensus that by trapping heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gas emissions are intensifying dangerous extreme weather events, allowing diseases to spread faster, and worsening illnesses from allergies to lung disease.   The EPA rollback comes one month after the Trump administration announced it will withdraw the US from the foundational UN Paris Climate agreement, as well as the world’s leading body of climate scientists - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).   Over the past year, current EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has launched an all-out assault on climate, air, water and chemical protections. The EPA has also removed crucial climate-focused science and data from its webpages.   “This is all part of the Trump administration’s authoritarian playbook to replace facts with propaganda, to enrich fossil fue intrests while harming the rest of us,” said Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director for the climate and energy program at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Administrator Zeldin has fully abdicated EPA’s responsibility to protect our health and the environment.”   Statement by Dr. Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).   “Today, EPA Administrator Zeldin took a chainsaw to the Endangerment Finding, undoing this long-standing, science-based finding on bogus grounds at the expense of our health. Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok.   “The science establishing harm to human health and the environment from heat-trapping emissions was clear in 2009. More than fifteen years later, the evidence has only mounted as have human suffering and economic damages.   Meanwhile, the continued burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming emissions to rise. The science, the facts and the law are unassailable: EPA has the obligation and the authority to regulate this pollution under the Clean Air Act, an act of Congress it’s now blatantly violating.   “The transportation sector is the single largest source of U.S. global heat-trapping emissions. By scrapping vehicle global warming pollution standards today, the Trump administration has co-signed the release of more than 7 billion tons of planet-warming emissions nationally in the decades ahead.   “Communities across the country are routinely enduring the consequences and costs of climate change, including deadly heat waves, accelerating sea level rise, worsening wildfires and floods, increased heavy rainfall, and more intense and damaging storms. EPA’s attempts to delay climate action come at a time when scientists warn that the world is on the cusp of breaching 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming—a crucial guardrail to help limit some of the worst climate harms.   “Instead of rising to the challenge with necessary policies to protect people’s wellbeing, the Trump administration has shamefully abandoned EPA’s mission and caved to the whims of deep-pocketed special interests. Sacrificing people’s health, safety and futures for polluters’ profits is unconscionable.   We all deserve better and this attack against the public interest and the best available science will be challenged. UCS stands ready to defend the Endangerment Finding in court and beyond.”   UCS filed comments on behalf of its half a million supporters and its network of more than 22,000 scientists to voice strong opposition to repeal of the endangerment finding and vehicle standards. It also submitted a letter to EPA Administrator Zeldin that was signed by more than 1,000 scientists opposing the repeal of the endangerment finding and urging Administrator Zeldin to stop dismantling critical climate regulations and fulfill the mission of the agency to protect public health.   A federal judge recently declared the Trump administration violated federal law when it secretly formed a “Climate Working Group” and tasked it with writing a dangerously slanted report that the administration then used as a basis for its proposal to overturn the Endangerment Finding last year.   * 24 States sue the E.P.A. for renouncing its Power to Fight Climate Change. The suit accuses the agency of illegally repealing the endangerment finding, the scientific assessment that required it to regulate greenhouse gases:   http://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/climate/epa-endangerment-states-lawsuit.html http://www.ucs.org/about/news/trump-administration-takes-chainsaw-science-based-endangerment-finding-endangering-us http://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/epa-unravels-climate-protections http://earthjustice.org/press/2026/earthjustice-endangerment-finding-statement http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/06/new-report-warns-trump-epa-undermining-health   http://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s192 http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/press-releases http://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/epa-dismantles-protections-mercury-and-air-toxics-power-plants http://www.ucs.org/about/news/epa-attacks-health-protections-against-mercury-air-toxics http://www.environmentalprotectionnetwork.org/20260220_mats-repeal-release/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00455-6   http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11022026/as-the-trump-epa-prepares-to-revoke-key-legal-finding-on-climate-change-what-happens-next/ http://blog.ucs.org/science-blogger/internal-doe-documents-confirm-climate-report-was-created-to-justify-administration-policy/ http://www.nrdc.org/media/year-betrayal-epa-under-lee-zeldin#climate http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122025/trumps-epa-focus-delay-rescind-dismantle/ http://www.edf.org/media/edf-and-partners-vigorously-oppose-trump-administration-attacks-endangerment-finding-and http://blog.ucs.org/kate-cell/disinformation-undermines-our-right-to-science/   Mar. 2026   USA: Conservative Politicians with no scientific expertise target established climate science used by judges. (Inside Climate News)   Scientists, academics, engineers, lawyers, and other experts sounded the alarm this week over the recent decision to remove a chapter on climate science from an influential reference manual designed to help judges understand complex scientific evidence.   For more than 30 years, US federal judges have turned to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence for guidance on interpreting complex scientific issues in their courtrooms.   The reference, originally published by the Federal Judicial Center, which was established by Congress in 1994 as a research and education agency for the judicial branch, is now co-published with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.   On Jan. 29, a coalition of 27 Republican attorneys general wrote to the Federal Judicial Center, urging the center to “immediately withdraw” the chapter on climate science from the manual’s fourth edition, claiming it was biased.   Accuracy and impartiality of the manual is vital, West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey, who led the effort, posted. “However, the ‘Reference Manual on Climate Science’ chapter was written by authors who are connected to university climate studies programs that promote legal warfare against States and energy producers to push their left leaning political agendas".   Eight days later, the center informed the Republican attorneys general that it “omitted the climate science chapter” from the reference manual’s latest edition.   Experts who contributed chapters to the more than 1,600-page scientific reference manual, now in its fourth edition, were outraged to see politicians with no scientific expertise target science that didn’t align with their political agendas.   “In February this year, the latest edition of the scientific reference handbook took a troubling turn, in which partisan politics interfered with the latest edition of the handbook,” 28 authors wrote in an open letter.   "The reference manual has been a valuable independent and educational resource for federal and state court judges, who have cited it more than 1,300 times".. “The political attack by the attorneys general on a carefully and rigorously prepared scientific publication should concern us all.”   "The climate science chapter was the target this time, but it doesn’t matter which chapter it is", said Brenda Eskenazi, an environmental health expert at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, who co-authored the manual’s chapter on epidemiology.   “If I tell you how much peer review we went through, how much vetting we went through for each of the chapters, and then for some 27 politicians to come in and say, ‘No, we don’t accept this science,’ its just appalling,”   “It’s appalling that this could become something political when it’s really about science, unbiased science.”   Removing the climate science chapter “is absurd,” says Hank Greely, a bioethicist and director of Stanford University’s Program in Neuroscience and Society. “It’s part of the partisan denial that anything about climate change could be real.”   Last week, Democrats in the US Congress wrote a letter to the Federal Judicial Center, calling its “decision to capitulate to right-wing pressure and remove this chapter … unconscionable,” and demanding that it be reinstated.   The climate science chapter’s co-authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, posted a response to the Republican attorneys general on Feb. 25.   The attorneys general claimed that the climate science chapter would undermine judicial “impartiality” by offering “conclusive opinions on matters of serious dispute,” wrote Wentz, a legal expert at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and Horton, a Columbia University climate scientist.   Among the findings the attorneys general objected to are that human activities “unequivocally warmed the climate” and that it is “extremely likely” human influence drives ocean warming.   Yet both are direct references to findings issued by authoritative science bodies, including the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.   “Both concluded that there is ‘unequivocal’ evidence that human activities have warmed the climate, resulting in widespread changes to the atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and cryosphere”.   “Omitting the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual deprives judges of a carefully reviewed baseline explanation of the relevant science,” the experts state.   “If political actors can determine which fields of established science are disfavored and off-limits to judicial education, every scientific discipline relevant to complex litigation becomes vulnerable to the same tactic.”   Extensive vetting goes into publishing a scientific resource like the judges’ reference guide. The chapters have gone through extensive internal and external peer review, Eskenazi said. “It’s not the place of politicians to decide that science is not to their liking.”   http://insideclimatenews.org/news/03032026/scientific-reference-manual-for-judges-erased/ http://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/26919   Sep. 2025   A new report from the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine says the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.   The report focuses on evidence gathered by the scientific community since 2009, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and welfare. The EPA recently gave notice of proposed rulemaking indicating its intention to rescind this finding.   The report says EPA’s 2009 finding was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence. Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 has now been resolved by scientific research, the report says.   “This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the EPA, following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding,” said Shirley Tilghman, former president, Princeton University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.”   To prepare its report, the committee considered widely available datasets that provide information about greenhouse gas emissions, the climate system, and human health and public welfare; a broad range of peer-reviewed literature and scientific assessments.   The report concludes:   Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. Human activities, such as the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, cement and chemical production, deforestation, and agricultural activities, emit greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases, into the atmosphere. Total global GHG emissions continue to increase. Multiple lines of evidence show that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary driver of the observed long-term warming trend.   Improved observations confirm unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions are warming Earth’s surface and changing Earth’s climate. Trends observed include increases in hot extremes and extreme single-day precipitation events, declines in cold extremes, regional shifts in annual precipitation, warming of the Earth’s oceans, a decrease in ocean pH, rising sea levels, and an increase in wildfire severity.   Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people. Climate change intensifies risks to humans from exposures to extreme heat, ground-level ozone, airborne particulate matter, extreme weather events, and airborne allergens, affecting incidence of cardiovascular, respiratory, and other diseases. Climate change has increased exposure to pollutants from wildfire smoke and dust, which has been linked to adverse health effects.   The increasing severity of some extreme events has contributed to injury, illness, and death in affected communities. Health impacts related to climate-sensitive infectious diseases — such as those carried by insects and contaminated water — have increased. New evidence is developing about additional health impacts of climate change, including on nutrition, immune health, antimicrobial resistance, kidney disease, and negative pregnancy-related outcomes.   Changes in climate resulting from human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases harm the welfare of people. Climate-driven changes in temperature and precipitation extremes and variability are leading to negative impacts on agricultural crops and livestock. Climate change, including increases in climate variability and wildfires, is changing the composition and function of forest and grassland ecosystems.   Climate-related changes in water availability and quality vary across regions in the United States with some regions showing a decline. Climate-related changes in the chemistry and the heat content of the ocean are having negative effects on calcifying organisms and contributing to increases in harmful algal blooms. U.S. energy systems, infrastructure, and many communities are experiencing increasing stress and costs owing to the effects of climate change.   Continued emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities will lead to more climate changes in the United States, with the severity of expected change increasing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted. Total global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, and additional warming is certain.   All climate models — regardless of assumptions about future emissions scenarios or estimates of climate sensitivity — consistently project continued warming in response to future atmospheric GHG increases. Applying fundamental physics of the Earth system leads to the same conclusion. Continued changes in the climate increase the likelihood of passing thresholds in Earth systems that can trigger tipping points or other high-impact climate impacts.   http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan http://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/ http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/information-integrity http://www.unfccc.int/news/step-back-from-climate-cooperation-will-hurt-us-economy-statement-from-un-climate-chief-on-us http://www.ciel.org/news/trump-executive-order-withdraws-un-climate-pacts http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/01/trump-impact-on-global-climate-action/   http://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2025-was-one-of-warmest-years-record http://climate.copernicus.eu/global-climate-highlights-2025 http://climate.copernicus.eu/rapid-approach-15degc-global-warming-threshold-paris-agreement http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11022026/earth-unprecedented-shift-from-warm-to-hot/ http://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(25)00391-4   Oct. 2025   Banking on Climate Breakdown. The Banking industry’s net zero alliance shuts down. (Guardian News)   The global banking industry’s net zero target-setting group has announced it will shut down immediately, amid faltering climate commitments around the world.   The Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which was rocked by a wave of departures after Donald Trump’s re-election, said its remaining members had “voted to transition from a member-based alliance and to establish its guidance as a framework”.   “As a result of this decision, NZBA will cease operations immediately,” a spokesperson said.   Jeanne Martin, co-director of corporate engagement at the responsible investment group ShareAction, described it as “bitterly disappointing”.   “Senior bankers need to be far more courageous in this decisive moment for all our futures and must use their influence to push up standards for accountability on climate if we are to stand any chance of making the clean energy transition happen.”   Lucie Pinson, the director of Reclaim Finance, said she “won’t mourn” the demise of the NZBA. “Its purpose was never to take real action, but to create the illusion of measures in order to ward off the risk of regulation. At least its demise brings clarity: the institutions genuinely committed to containing global warming will continue to act. But the massive reallocation of financial flows toward solutions cannot happen without intervention from policymakers and regulators. Their action is essential to limit climate change and the systemic risks it entails. For both, the priority remains ending the financing of fossil fuel expansion.”   On paper, the NZBA, which was convened by the UN Environment Programme finance initiative but led by banks, encouraged members to slash the carbon footprint of their investments and help drive the transition to net zero emissions by 2050.   The group counted nearly 150 members at its peak but began losing members late last year, when Donald Trump was re-elected on promises to deregulate the energy sector, dismantle environmental rules and “drill, baby, drill”.   Six major US banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs – quit before Trump’s inauguration, in moves analysts said were an attempt to head off “anti-woke” attacks from rightwing US politicians.   They were followed by European and Japanese lenders. In July, HSBC became the first British bank to quit the alliance, followed weeks later by Barclays. HSBC had already delayed key parts of its climate goals by 20 years and watered down environmental targets.   http://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/03/banking-industry-net-zero-alliance-shuts-down-climate-nzba http://www.citizen.org/news/banking-agencies-withdraw-climate-risk-principles-leaving-banks-vulnerable-to-climate-risk-exposure/ http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/over-3000-climate-litigation-cases-are-reshaping-global-climate http://www.cesr.org/climate-finance-under-scrutiny-at-global-human-rights-forum/ http://news.mongabay.com/2025/10/nations-delay-vote-on-shipping-decarbonization-rules-after-fierce-us-resistance/ http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan   http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/development-cannot-be-achieved-dying-planet-un-committee-issues-new-guidance http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11102025/epas-comeback-a-sham-authoritarian-power-grab   Sep. 2025   Financial institutions must find the courage to continue delivering on net zero, by Aaron Vermeulen & Elisa Vacherand - WWF Global Finance Practice   As the impacts of climate breakdown intensify, disrupting value chains and economies, devastating communities, and undermining resilience, financial institutions appear to be hesitating. Instead of accelerating climate action, banks and asset managers are backing away from net zero commitments and related industry alliances are wobbling.   While the political and regulatory context in which finance operates has radically changed, the science of climate change has not. Financial institutions everywhere have a critical role to play in keeping global warming within 1.5°C as well as enhancing nature-based solutions to climate change. And in navigating today’s geopolitical and regulatory complexity, it’s vital they retain ambition and double down on financing the net-zero transition, even if they dare not speak its name.   Of course, the retreat from net zero is not happening in a vacuum. Questions about whether sustainable finance is compatible with fiduciary duty and competitiveness have been politicised. In response, some leading banks and investors are reining in ambition and exiting net zero alliances, forcing them to forego target-driven membership and restructure as commitment-free frameworks. Even where progress is real, institutions are hesitant to talk about it.   In January, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) announced a new focus on ‘addressing barriers to mobilising capital’, no longer requiring its members to set and deliver on science-based net zero targets. Since then, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) has haemorrhaged members, while those remaining are now voting on becoming a framework; the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM) is undergoing a full review; and the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) has also been rattled. Even in the face of political pressure, these developments are unfortunate and risky for organisations created to help deliver the transition.   For financial institutions, shying away from climate action exposes their clients’ capital and risks their own credibility. The climate crisis and related risks, whether physical or transitional, aren’t going away any time soon.   And the claim that taking climate action goes against fiduciary duty is debatable. In July, the International Court of Justice ruled that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, strengthening the case that financial institutions too must treat climate risk as core to fiduciary responsibility.   Financial institutions must hold the line. Even if political realities limit communication around net zero, they must maintain ambition, and continue to strengthen client engagement and transition planning and investment. There are plenty of frameworks and approaches at hand to help them assess and mitigate climate- and nature related risks, including the CDP-WWF Temperature Scoring Methodology and the Science-Based Targets Initiative.   Net zero alliances under attack must adapt but not fold, and continue to promote best practice and enable their members to set science-based targets in ways that meet their fiduciary duties and net zero objectives, and that scale investment in the business opportunities of transition.   And central banks, financial regulators and supervisors can no longer sit on the fence. They need to make it explicit that climate change and nature loss are material financial risks, and treat them accordingly. Stress testing, disclosure, and capital requirements must reflect reality.   Securing a net zero, nature-positive global economy also demands that governments, regulators and policymakers bolster rather than hinder the ability of financial institutions to deliver transition. Complementing voluntary action with enabling policy works. In Europe, the EU Taxonomy has already shaped €800 billion in climate mitigation investments, and in Asia and leading emerging markets, net-zero policies have tripled across G20 countries since 2020.   The business case is clear. Renewables, for example, are cheaper than fossil fuels. Since 2023, nearly all new solar photovoltaics and onshore wind projects have undercut new coal and gas, and three-quarters were even cheaper than existing fossil plants.   With crude oil prices expected to remain low for the next few years, Antonio Guterres was right when he declared in July that ‘the fossil fuel age is flailing and failing. We are in the dawn of a new energy era.’ The world is already investing nearly twice as much in clean energy as in fossil fuels, and existing clean tech has the potential to displace 75% of today’s fossil fuel demand. Investors who continue to cling to oil and gas are in denial.   There are some signs that the message is hitting home. With pressure mounting on pension funds to take more account of climate risks, Dutch pension fund PFZW is the latest to act, recently withdrawing from BlackRock, Legal & General and AQR Capital Management to match a shift in its investment strategy toward greater sustainability.   Financial institutions already have models for interest rate swings, credit cycles, and geopolitical shock. Climate change is a systemic risk that encompasses all of these and more. Engaging with it is good risk management. Ignoring it is negligent.   The financial sector stands at a crossroads. It can bow to political pressure, dismantle the fragile progress of recent years, and pretend that fossil fuels are still a safe bet. Or it can double down, align with science, and make finance part of the solution.   Political headwinds do not change commercial realities. Major financial institutions know that aligning strategies with a net zero and nature positive agenda will unlock huge opportunities and contribute to a future in which people and nature thrive. This is a time for courage rather than retreat.   http://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/finance/?14763466/Financial-institutions-must-continue-delivering-net-zero http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles   Aug. 2025   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data, by Pallavi Sethi - Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment   At a time when the global climate crisis is escalating, some governments are choosing to distort and conceal the evidence of its impacts.   In the seven months since taking office, the Trump administration has been steadily erasing the evidence of climate science. This is no longer just a matter of denying science or delaying action, it is about controlling who gets to create, share, and access knowledge.   It is an epistemic assault, one that we have seen happen before. In Canada, nearly a decade ago, Stephen Harper’s government silenced climate scientists and destroyed data. In 2012, the Venezuelan government removed environmental statistics from public view.   And in Brazil in 2020, the Bolsonaro administration tried to discredit data related to deforestation and fired the officer behind it. These cases point to a disturbing pattern of governments trying to conceal facts, a phenomenon becoming increasingly blatant in the US.   Even as climate disasters become more frequent and extreme, such as the recent Texas floods that claimed 135 lives, the Trump administration is gutting the very systems needed to understand and respond to the crisis.   Proposed budget cuts to federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are undermining their ability to monitor climate risks, develop solutions and protect communities.   However, there is a growing movement where scientists and grassroot organisations have come together to protect crucial climate data.   The Trump administration is aggressively rolling back climate action, including erasing scientific data, slashing research funding, and removing terms like “climate change” from federal websites.   In the proposed fiscal budget for 2026, the administration plans to cut NOAA’s budget by 27 per cent, which would end its Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). This could impact the country’s ability to accurately predict extreme weather.   In the latest blow, the administration has proposed to repeal the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, the legal basis for nearly all federal climate regulations. The scientific finding, under the Clean Air Act, based on extensive evidence, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and safety.   The repeal would strip the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from new vehicles, power plants, and other sources of pollution. If the rollback is carried out, it will be one of the most damaging environmental actions by a US government.   Another concerning target of the Trump administration has been the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the longest-running station for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide. The facility, which was launched in 1956, produced the Keeling Curve (a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and brought global attention to the rapid increase in greenhouse gas levels.   Now, President Trump wants to shut this laboratory despite expert warnings that this move would impact the understanding of “how climate is changing, at what pace, and where.”   Beyond gutting regulations, the administration is also erasing scientific evidence.   It has removed the online website that hosted the National Climate Assessment (NCA) reports, published every four years, and dismissed hundreds of staff working on the next edition. Without the NCA reports, cities could struggle to prepare for climate disasters.   These actions represent a deliberate effort not just to discredit climate evidence but to suppress it entirely. It is also a rejection of evidence-based governance where both the scientific findings and the institutions responsible for producing them are systematically undermined.   Institutional censorship not only undermines scientific integrity but also erodes public trust in democratic institutions. This type of censorship can also affect international cooperation and slow progress, especially since the US is the second largest carbon emitter.   The suppression of climate data by the US government has global implications. The international scientific community depends on the US for critical data which helps in responding to climate disasters.   Agencies such as NOAA, EPA and NASA have long been providers of free and publicly accessible information to experts all over the world. Since agencies like NOAA monitor vast areas, including entire oceans, researchers in the Global South, for instance, rely heavily on them to monitor and respond to environmental challenges.   The Centre for Sustainable Development at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in India uses NOAA’s climate datasets to track weather and ocean conditions in the Indian Ocean. The Institute uses this information to advise government agencies on how to best prepare and recover from natural disasters. Similarly, scientists at Singapore’s Earth Observatory rely on NOAA data to model and predict rising sea levels, which is critical for strengthening Singapore’s coastal resilience.   Disruptions to such data also risk deepening existing scientific and geopolitical inequalities. Many scientific institutions in wealthier nations may have the ability to develop robust data sources. However, many in the Global South lack the technical infrastructure and financial resources to do the same.   Therefore, limiting access to US climate datasets can especially impact the ability of vulnerable nations to address climate change effectively. In addition, when a powerful country like the US withdraws from climate leadership, it risks sending a dangerous message to other nations that climate inaction is acceptable. This can embolden governments to scale back on their own efforts and undermine collective progress.   Despite efforts to suppress climate data, scientists and grassroots organisations are working together to protect this vital information. For instance, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative archives data that affects the communities most at risk from Trump’s proposed policies. The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science in Germany, the European Space Agency, and the National Centre for Scientific Research in France have archived data from US agencies like NOAA and EPA.   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data. But the growing resistance from scientists, civil society and academic institutions proves that knowledge cannot be easily erased. It is also an important reminder that governments cannot be the sole custodians of scientific knowledge. Instead, we should view science as a shared and transnational public resource that we must protect and defend.   http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/ http://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-026-00088-9/index.html http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/what-does-information-integrity-have-to-do-with-climate/ http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/information-integrity http://www.unesco.org/en/information-integrity-climate-change http://www.ciel.org/news/531-carbon-capture-and-storage-lobbyists-gained-access-to-cop30-climate-talks/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1 http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-stories/2026-01-14-sustainability-scientists-and-environmentalists-must-defend-academic-freedom.html http://www.stockholmresilience.org/news--events/climate-misinformation.html http://www.nobelprize.org/events/nobel-prize-summit/2023   http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://blog.ucs.org/kate-cell/disinformation-undermines-our-right-to-science/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122025/trumps-epa-focus-delay-rescind-dismantle/ http://www.ucs.org/resources/access-denied http://www.ucs.org/resources/dirty-air-dirty-deeds http://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/white-house-pushes-to-dismantle-leading-climate-and-weather-research-center http://news.ucar.edu/133054/ucar-statement-reports-nsf-ncar-could-be-dismantled http://researchworks.ucar.edu/hurricanes/ http://researchworks.ucar.edu/tornadoes-hail/ http://researchworks.ucar.edu/wildfires/   http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/11/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-rights-critical-ecosystems-at-risk/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker http://clxtoolkit.com/publications/report-loss-and-damage-litigation-against-carbon-majors/ http://climateintegrity.org/news/view/new-report-big-oils-deceptive-climate-ads http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/75/12/1016/8303627 http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-says-strengthening-impact-assessments-essential-facing-planetary Visit the related web page
	Peace is a key determinant of health by Thalif Deen, Robin Stott IPS, SIPRI, British Medical Journal   Jan. 2026   Military spending will not deliver global security, by Robin Stott for the British Medical Journal   Many people argue that creating security by ensuring peace and preventing war is the most important duty of a state. Tedros Ghebreyesus, the director of the World Health Organization, is not alone in asserting that peace is a key determinant of health. Peace, security, and health are closely intertwined.   Most states equate security with the need for armed forces and respond by training military personnel and growing their arsenal of weapons. Instead, burgeoning military spending is driving global conflict and instability. Investment must be redirected towards tackling the root causes of insecurity.   A few countries, including the United Kingdom, have a substantial arms industry that flourishes on exporting weapons to numerous countries. The UK’s exports of arms were valued at £14.5bn in 2023. In 2023-24 the Ministry of Defence spent £25bn on military equipment compared with only £2.6bn spent on operations and peace keeping. The UK’s spending is trivial when compared with global expenditure on arms, which in 2024 was an estimated $2.7tn (with the US spending $997bn, China $314bn, and Russia $149bn).   The unprecedented increase in global arms expenditure is failing to provide security or prevent war. Global conflicts have doubled in the past five years. The escalating climate and ecological crises, increased conflict and the possibility of nuclear war, and societal fragmentation and polarisation are major threats to our collective security. I would add the disenchantment with political systems and threats to democracy to that list.   Climate disruption is a major driver of conflict and displacement. Military emissions make up 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, aggravating the climate and ecological emergency.   Inequality is rife across the world, with many countries diverting resources into arms while impoverishing their citizens and neglecting essential services. These factors contribute to disillusionment with politics.   All these problems feed off each other, creating a vicious cycle of unrest and insecurity.   Financial institutions, a source of much of the wealth in western countries, invest heavily in arms, aggravating these problems. The arms industries are so important to the economies of many western countries that they inevitably influence government thinking.   If security is our aim, then more money should be invested in security threats posed by the climate and ecological crisis and prevailing poverty and inequality. Low income countries will need $1tn a year by 2030 to cut carbon emissions and respond to extreme weather events.   Despite progress over recent decades, over 700 million people still live in extreme poverty. Even in high income countries many people live below the poverty line, including 14 million people or 21% of the UK population.   Food insecurity linked to conflict, climate change, and poverty affects millions of people worldwide. Ending global extreme poverty and absolute monetary poverty worldwide by 2030 would cost between $70bn and $325bn per year.   In the UK, a minimal annual investment of around £36bn would relieve the 14 million people living in relative poverty.   Redirecting the trillions spent on arms would go a long way to reducing extreme and relative poverty and mitigating climate change. Investment in tackling the climate emergency will also help relieve poverty and instability.   Diverting military spending to mitigate these interconnected crises would increase global stability and security. Surely all people concerned with population health recognise that money spent on arms exacerbates the leading causes of insecurity, as well as fuelling the violent conflicts that blight the health of millions of people.   Radically reducing and redirecting global military expenditure could reduce the likelihood and intensity of armed conflict and provide sufficient money to respond to other crises. Diverting military spending to mitigate these interconnected crises would increase global stability and security.   As a healthcare community, we must insist on a radical reduction in arms expenditure and a transfer of these resources to tackle the root causes of insecurity.   http://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s77   Rising Arms Revenues and Death Tolls underscore ongoing Military Conflicts, by Thalif Deen for Inter Press Service News. (IPS)   The revenues from arms sales and military services by the 100 largest arms-producing companies rose by 5.9 percent in 2024, reaching a record USD 679 billion, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).   Global arms revenues rose sharply in 2024, as demand was boosted by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, global and regional geopolitical tensions, and ever-higher military expenditure.   For the first time since 2018, all of the five largest arms companies increased their arms revenues, according to SIPRI, one of the authoritative sources for arms sales and global military spending.   Currently, a rash of armed conflicts and civil wars are taking place in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Somalia and Western Sahara, among others, triggering a rising demand for arms from governments and rebel forces.   Although the bulk of the global rise was due to companies based in Europe and the United States, there were year-on-year increases in all of the world regions featured in the Top 100.   The surge in revenues and new orders prompted many arms companies to expand production lines, enlarge facilities, establish new subsidiaries or conduct acquisitions.   “Last year global arms revenues reached the highest level ever recorded by SIPRI as producers capitalized on high demand,” said Lorenzo Scarazzato, Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.   Of the 26 arms companies in the Top 100 based in Europe (excluding Russia), 23 recorded increasing arms revenues. Their aggregate arms revenues grew by 13 percent to USD 151 billion. This increase was tied to demand stemming from the war in Ukraine and the perceived threat from Russia.   But the rise in arms revenues and military spending also had a devastating impact on civilians, with a rise in death tolls.   As of mid-to-late November 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry reported that over 70,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have been killed in the war since October 7, 2023.   But estimates of the death toll in the Russia-Ukraine war vary widely and are difficult to verify, as both sides consider military casualty figures to be state secrets.   Still, the number of Russian military casualties (dead and wounded) is estimated by sources like the UK Ministry of Defense and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to be over 1 million, a “stunning and grisly milestone.” Ukrainian military casualties (killed and wounded) are estimated at approximately 400,000.   Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine,” told IPS the business of war is the business of lucrative death, and never more so than in 2025.   “The buyers and sellers of high-tech weaponry are in a macabre embrace, and the results can be found on the battlefield, in civilian suffering, and in the less-obvious carnage of depleted resources as children starve while profiteers feast.”   The United States stands out as the world’s biggest arms merchant. No other country comes close. And in recent years, when it comes to putting armaments to aggressively lethal use, Russia has become a standout with its war in Ukraine and Israel has become a standout with its war in Gaza, said Solomon, who is also national director of RootsAction.   “It should be clearly understood that U.S. weapons makers have been deriving tremendous profits from the Ukraine war and from Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Those profits will continue as long as the mutual destruction of Ukrainian and Russian lives continues and as long as Israel maintains its policies of destroying the lives of Palestinian civilians.   “In a world where several countries are major arms exporters, all of whom should be condemned for their activities, the United States is far and away the leader in murderous commerce,” he pointed out.   The fact that the U.S. excels at such commerce is a marker for a moral corruption built into the country’s political economy and power structure of governance. Opposition movements, nonviolent and determined, will be essential to forcing an end to what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism,” he declared.   Dr. Simon Adams, international human rights expert and President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS in this new age of impunity, increased conflict and creeping authoritarianism in so many parts of the world, there has been a sickening increase in global arms sales.   The guns, drones, missiles and other weapons are coming from the major arms manufacturing countries and companies, but it is civilians in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere who pay with their lives, he said.   “There is a direct correlation between the increase in the global arms trade and the fact that 123 million people are currently displaced in the world – the highest number since the Second World War.”   “We need governments to invest more in humanitarian solutions to global problems, not spend billions of dollars more every year on the manufacture and marketing of shiny new killing machines.”   “I long for the day when the arms trader will be seen like a slave trader, sex trafficker or drug dealer – as an international outlaw and pariah. As someone involved in an immoral criminal enterprise that is antithetical to human progress,” he declared.   Asked for a response, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on December 1st about the “obscene amount of money that is going to weapon sales compared to the struggle that we face every single day trying to fund our humanitarian operations.”   “We understand that Member States need to defend themselves and the need for military. But I think if you do a compare and contrast the amount of money that is flowing into that sector as opposed to the amount of money that is being sucked out of the humanitarian and development sectors, it should give us all food for thought,” he declared.   Meanwhile, in 2024 the combined arms revenues of US arms companies in the Top 100 grew by 3.8 percent to reach USD 334 billion, with 30 out of the 39 US companies in the ranking increasing their arms revenues, according to SIPRI. These included major arms producers such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.   http://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/sipri-top-100-arms-producers-see-combined-revenues-surge-states-rush-modernize-and-expand-arsenals Visit the related web page
	View more stories