Brazil is pressuring governments to submit updated climate targets ahead of a key UN meeting, as most countries — including top polluters — have yet to deliver their pledges.
Only 28 countries have submitted their updated climate plans, or NDCs, ahead of the September 25 deadline, with key emitters like China and the Euoprean Union still missing.
Brazil, hosting Cop30 in Belém this November, is stepping up diplomatic efforts to prevent a repeat of past UN climate gridlock and has called a rare pre-summit meeting in New York.
Concerns over logistics and equity have emerged around the summit’s remote Amazonian location, where limited lodging and sky-high prices threaten to sideline smaller nations and civil society groups.
Why this matters:
Nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, are at the heart of the Paris Agreement’s strategy to curb global warming. But if major polluters don’t set strong targets or fail to act on them, the 1.5°C goal slips further out of reach, a threshold scientists say could trigger irreversible climate damage. The lack of submissions, and a fraught political backdrop with the U.S. now out of the Paris Agreement, adds urgency. On top of that, Brazil’s choice to host the summit in Belém — deep in the Amazon and with limited infrastructure — raises questions about global access to climate diplomacy. If small nations and civil society voices can’t afford to attend, the legitimacy and fairness of the entire negotiation process are at risk.
Indigenous leaders from eight Amazon nations are demanding binding protections, a halt to fossil fuel projects, and formal roles in shaping climate policy as South American presidents gather in Bogotá.
Indigenous communities across the Amazon are calling for enforceable legal protections of their lands, a ban on new oil and mining operations, and inclusion in treaty decision-making.
They warn that unchecked deforestation, fossil fuel extraction, and agribusiness are driving the vast rainforest toward ecological collapse.
The summit will end with a joint declaration intended to guide regional environmental policy and shape South America’s position at the upcoming United Nations climate talks.
Key quote:
“There will be no future without Indigenous peoples at the center of decision-making.”
— Statement from Indigenous groups across the Amazon
Why this matters:
The Amazon rainforest, often referred to as the planet’s lungs, plays a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate and supplying freshwater. Its dense canopy stores vast amounts of carbon dioxide, acting as a natural brake on global warming. But deforestation, mining, oil drilling, and illegal land grabs are intensifying, with fires and droughts already disrupting the region’s delicate climate patterns. Indigenous communities, who have lived sustainably in the forest for generations, face growing violence and displacement as they try to defend their territories. Their push for legal recognition and a seat at the decision-making table speaks to a broader struggle over who controls natural resources — and who is most vulnerable when those resources are exploited.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Republicans will be blamed for rising energy costs and denies that the Trump administration's push to curtail renewable energy development is the cause of recent price spikes.
U.S. electricity prices rose 5.5% over the past year as the Trump administration slows wind and solar development while boosting fossil fuel investments.
Wright acknowledged political risks but said Biden-era clean energy incentives, not Republican policy shifts, are responsible for current price hikes.
Some Republicans, however, especially in wind-heavy Iowa, are urging Trump not to cut tax credits for renewable projects already underway.
Key quote:
“People are mad about wind and they want to shut it down. There’s people, of course, that love it, and want more of it. But we got to balance those things.”
— Chris Wright, U.S. Energy Secretary
Why this matters:
As electricity demand surges from data centers, electric vehicles, and summer heat, the energy mix powering the U.S. grid is under intense pressure. The Trump administration’s rollback of renewable energy incentives and renewed push for coal, natural gas, and nuclear could reshape how Americans power their homes and businesses, potentially raising prices in the short term. While solar and wind now provide the bulk of new energy capacity at increasingly low cost, critics warn that withdrawing federal support too quickly could disrupt ongoing projects, reduce grid reliability, and increase reliance on more volatile fossil fuel markets. States like Iowa — already deeply invested in wind — demonstrate the tension between national policy shifts and local economic and energy realities.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture will no longer fund wind or solar energy on farmland, reversing a key rural clean energy program and redirecting support toward biofuels.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the USDA will end funding for wind and solar projects through major rural loan programs, citing the need to protect prime farmland and reduce dependence on Chinese-made solar components.
Farmers, especially in states like Iowa, have increasingly relied on income from wind and solar to offset falling commodity prices and weather-related crop losses.
USDA data shows that solar and wind installations occupy only 0.05% of U.S. agricultural land and that farmland typically remains usable after renewable energy development.
Key quote:
“This is such a popular program — it saves them money and gives them a potential financial source. It’s a step backwards for farmers and small businesses that are trying to make decisions that are good for the business and the environment.”
— Richa Patel, policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Why this matters:
Farmers across the U.S. face growing economic pressure as climate change disrupts crop yields and commodity prices drop. Leasing land for wind and solar has provided many with a steady income stream that doesn’t rely on planting or weather. Yet the federal government is now pulling support for renewables, while continuing to fund biofuels, which dominate cropland use but offer minimal energy returns and environmental benefits. Despite claims that clean energy projects consume farmland, federal data shows they use a fraction of U.S. agricultural space. This shift could not only reduce clean energy growth in rural areas but also reinforce dependence on polluting fuels.
At a major tech conference, Google’s top executive praised the Trump administration’s fossil-fuel-heavy energy agenda, aligning the company’s AI ambitions with policies that sideline renewable power.
Google President Ruth Porat applauded U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s dismissal of “climate extremism” and support for coal, gas, and nuclear to power AI infrastructure.
Porat’s remarks and Google’s new white paper reflect a shift away from earlier pledges to run operations entirely on carbon-free energy by 2030.
Google’s carbon emissions rose nearly 50% between 2019 and 2024, driven by increased energy demand from AI and data center growth.
Key quote:
“I thought Secretary Burgum’s comments were fantastic...”
— Ruth Porat, president of Google and Alphabet
Why this matters:
Google and other tech firms once championed wind and solar energy, but the industry is now embracing fossil fuels, citing the need for “reliable” power. This shift risks locking in decades of carbon emissions just as the window to prevent catastrophic warming narrows. Coal-fired plants, which emit toxic air pollutants and greenhouse gases, are being reframed by federal officials and tech leaders as “clean.” That framing misleads the public and undermines efforts to protect public health, especially for communities near power plants.
A federal climate review commissioned by the Trump administration to support a rollback of emissions regulations contains more than 100 false or misleading statements, according to an analysis by Carbon Brief and dozens of climate scientists.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s 140-page report, released in July, was written in two months by five researchers chosen by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a longtime climate skeptic.
The document questions the economic risks of carbon dioxide and warns that strong emissions cuts could cause more harm than good, claims scientists say misrepresent established research.
Nearly 10% of the report’s 350 citations come from its own authors, and expert reviewers identified factual errors, cherry-picked data, and misleading interpretations.
Why this matters:
Climate reports from federal agencies shape the policies that determine how the nation responds to global warming. When official documents misstate or distort the science, they not only weaken legal grounds for regulating emissions but also confuse the public about the risks. Heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and sea level rise are already costing lives and billions of dollars. Suggesting that carbon dioxide may be less harmful, or that reducing it could be dangerous, downplays the threat to health, infrastructure, and ecosystems. At a time when the evidence for climate disruption is stronger than ever, misinformation at the highest levels of government can delay action, amplifying damage to both the environment and human well-being.
A century-old oil refinery in Los Angeles will close by year’s end, but a massive underground plume of toxic sludge and chemicals — including PFAS — threatens groundwater and public health with no binding cleanup plan or cost disclosure requirements in place.
Phillips 66 plans to shutter its Los Angeles refinery complex, where decades of buried oil waste, acid sludge, and fire-fighting foam have created a vast underground “lake” of contamination extending more than 16 feet deep in places.
Groundwater tests show pollutants like benzene, lead, and PFAS have leached into aquifers connected to drinking water sources. Monitoring wells near residential areas have repeatedly found elevated levels of gasoline additives.
California regulators say their oversight is limited, and cleanup cost estimates rely solely on Phillips 66, which reported a $908 million loss on the site last year and is not required to set aside dedicated cleanup funds.
Key quote:
“It is a huge problem that there is currently no disclosure requirement concerning the actual cost.”
— Ann Alexander, environmental policy consultant at Devonshire Strategies
Why this matters:
As California accelerates its shift to renewable energy, more oil refineries are expected to close — but the toxic legacy left behind may linger for decades. Many refineries sit atop aquifers that supply drinking water to nearby communities. Chemicals like PFAS and benzene don’t degrade and can migrate underground or into homes through vapor intrusion. Without enforceable financial guarantees or coordinated oversight, companies may walk away from multibillion-dollar liabilities, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. In places like South Los Angeles, which already shoulder the health burdens of industrial pollution, the risk of unremediated contamination deepens longstanding environmental injustices.
