An update to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, the global scientific authority on the status of species, underscores the immense challenges facing species in a world transformed by humans but also offer exciting new evidence of how the right interventions can help them survive.
UN
Calls for reform to allow people across the Pacific threatened by climate crisis to more easily migrate, particularly to New Zealand.
As nearly 200 nations prepare to meet in the Amazon for the COP30 summit, negotiators face a pivotal moment for global climate diplomacy — with no headline deal on the table, a U.S. retreat from the Paris Agreement, and mounting pressure to turn promises into implementation.
The crises of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss stem from humanity’s severed relationship with nature, argues former United Nations official Tim Christophersen, who calls for treating ecosystems as vital infrastructure.
In short:
- Christophersen, now working in the private sector after years at the UN Environment Programme, believes restoration efforts must be central to environmental policy and investment.
- His book Generation Restoration argues nature can recover quickly if given diversity and space, and that imagination is needed to counter generational amnesia about nature’s former abundance.
- He promotes ecosystem restoration as essential infrastructure — on par with roads and energy systems — and sees collaboration between public and private sectors as key to long-term climate resilience.
Key quote:
“... unlike in a human relationship, we cannot divorce from nature, because we cannot live without nature.”
— Tim Christophersen, former UN Environment Programme official
Why this matters:
Seeing ecosystems as infrastructure marks a profound shift in how societies might tackle climate change and public health threats. The degradation of forests, wetlands, and oceans accelerates disasters like floods, heatwaves, food shortages, and disease outbreaks. Yet science shows ecosystems can rebound if given room and resources. Restoring mangroves, for example, buffers coastlines and stores carbon. Rebuilding soil health on farms improves water retention and reduces pesticide use. These systems support not just wild species, but human well-being and economies.
Related: Restoring Ecuador’s páramos brings water and wildlife back to life
Keep reading...Show less
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.
In short:
- 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.
Learn more: The International Court of Justice just made it harder for countries to ignore the climate crisis
Keep reading...Show less
A sixth round of United Nations negotiations to curb plastic pollution collapsed in Geneva last week, with diplomats citing the United States’ hardening stance under the Trump administration as a key obstacle to progress.
In short:
- Talks aimed at creating a legally binding global treaty on plastic pollution ended without agreement after 11 days, as negotiators failed to find consensus on capping plastic production.
- The U.S. delegation rejected proposals to limit new plastic output, arguing such measures would hurt domestic industries and raise consumer costs, while advocates accused the U.S. of blocking key provisions.
- Some delegates now doubt that a global deal can be reached under the Trump administration, with some calling for alternatives like voting mechanisms or separate agreements among willing nations.
Key quote:
“Consensus is dead. You cannot agree a deal where all the countries who produce and export plastics and oil can decide the terms of what the deal is going to be.”
— Bjorn Beeler, International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN)
Why this matters:
Plastic pollution has surged in recent decades, clogging oceans, poisoning wildlife, and seeping into the human body via food and water. The vast majority of plastics are made from fossil fuels, and without limits on production, cleanup efforts can’t keep pace with rising waste. Scientists have linked plastic exposure to hormone disruption, cancer risks, and other health threats. At the same time, plastic waste poses serious environmental justice concerns, disproportionately affecting low-income communities and island nations. Delayed or weakened international action could lock in decades of pollution, especially as the petrochemical industry expands production in response to dwindling oil demand from transportation. Time is running out for concerted global action on both health and climate fronts.
Related: Plastic pollution treaty talks end with no agreement
Keep reading...Show less
Negotiators failed to reach a deal on a global treaty aimed at curbing plastic pollution and plan to resume talks at a later date as disputes over production limits and toxic chemicals persist.
In short:
- Delegates from 184 countries clashed over whether the treaty should cap plastic production or focus on recycling, reuse, and safer chemical use.
- Powerful fossil fuel-producing nations and the plastics industry resisted production limits, arguing the treaty should prioritize waste management.
- Negotiators released a revised draft recognizing the unsustainable growth of plastics and the need for a coordinated global response, but no consensus was reached.
Key quote:
“We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.”
— Graham Forbes, head of Greenpeace delegation in Geneva
Why this matters:
Negotiations produced a draft that acknowledges the runaway growth of plastics and the global health and environmental risks — microplastics in oceans, toxic chemicals leaching into food and water, and communities burdened by mountains of waste — but it’s still just words on paper. The world is still waiting for leadership to turn concern into concrete action.
Read more: Read more:
- U.S. pressures countries to drop global plastics cap at treaty talks
- A stalled global plastic treaty threatens our future fertility
- Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
- Petrochemical plants send millions of pounds of pollutants into waterways each year: Report
Keep reading...Show less
Negotiations on the world’s first global treaty to curb plastic pollution have hit a dead end, with nearly 100 countries rejecting a draft they say fails to tackle production or toxic chemicals.
In short:
- Countries pushing for strong action, including the European Union, UK, and Colombia, say the draft treaty ignores plastic production caps and the risks of harmful chemicals.
- Oil- and plastic-producing nations, backed by industry interests, want the treaty to focus only on recycling and waste management, avoiding limits on production.
- Delegates warn that without binding measures on production, chemicals, and financing, the treaty risks being a “step backward” in global efforts to reduce plastic pollution.
Key quote:
“It certainly seems like it was very biased toward the like-minded countries [Saudi, Russia, Iran etc]. There’s problems across the board. There’s no binding measures on anything. There’s no obligation to contribute resources to the financial mechanism. There’s no measures on production or chemicals. This text is just inadequate.”
— Dennis Clare, negotiator for Micronesia
Why this matters:
The world’s first attempt at a global plastic pact has hit the skids, and it’s exposing just how deep industry influence runs. Without binding measures, experts warn, this treaty could be less a breakthrough and more a global shrug, leaving ecosystems and public health to bear the cost.
Read more:
- U.S. pressures countries to drop global plastics cap at treaty talks
- A stalled global plastic treaty threatens our future fertility
- Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
- Petrochemical plants send millions of pounds of pollutants into waterways each year: Report
Keep reading...Show less
Environmental and Indigenous leaders are pushing for a strong, legally binding treaty to curb plastic pollution, as United Nations negotiations in Geneva near their conclusion.
In short:
- Environmental and Indigenous groups rally outside the UN in Geneva, calling for a robust treaty to tackle plastic pollution.
- The key issue centers on whether to limit plastic production or focus on recycling and reuse.
- Some nations, like Panama, are pushing for caps on plastic production, while oil-producing countries resist such measures.
Key quote:
“We need people outside of here to tell their countries to speak up for what it is that they’re standing for. Are they standing for them, their citizens, or big oil?””
— Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, head of Panama’s delegation
Why this matters:
The outcome of these talks will determine how much progress the world can make in curbing plastic production and its harmful effects on ecosystems and human health. Should the focus be on reducing plastic production, or will the world double down on recycling and reuse? This treaty is critical for public health — the chemicals used in plastic production and plastic recycling have been linked to a slew of health problems, from hormonal disruption to cancer. The final push is now, and the world is waiting for a resolution that doesn’t just clean up the current mess but slows its growth.
Read more:
- A stalled global plastic treaty threatens our future fertility
- A plastic recipe for societal suicide
- Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
- DuPont letter shows plastics industry dismissed recycling as viable solution in 1974
- What is chemical recycling?
Keep reading...Show less
More than 200 lobbyists from the oil, petrochemical, and plastics industries are attending UN negotiations in Geneva, raising fears they could weaken efforts to curb global plastic production.
In short:
- Lobbyists from fossil fuel–linked industries now outnumber the combined delegations of all 27 EU member states, with some embedded in national negotiating teams.
- A coalition of over 100 countries backs binding limits on plastic production, while a smaller bloc led by major oil producers opposes caps, pushing for waste-focused measures instead.
- The U.S., the world’s second-largest plastic producer, has aligned with industry-friendly nations and reportedly stopped meeting with environmental groups before the talks.
Key quote:
“Fossil fuel companies are central to plastic production, as over 99% of plastics are derived from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels.”
— Ximena Banegas, global plastics and petrochemicals campaigner, Centre for International Environmental Law
Why this matters:
Plastic production is growing at a pace that threatens ecosystems, public health, and climate stability. Almost all plastics come from fossil fuels, meaning higher output locks in more carbon emissions alongside toxic pollution. Microplastics have been detected in human blood, placentas, and organs, and communities near production hubs often face elevated cancer risks and respiratory illness. The treaty under negotiation could shape how the world addresses this problem for decades, deciding whether the focus stays on cleaning up waste after the fact or tackles production at its source.
Learn more: U.S. pressures countries to drop global plastics cap at treaty talks
Keep reading...Show less
The U.S. quietly lobbied nations to reject plastic production limits in a global treaty, aligning itself with petrochemical interests and putting it at odds with much of the world.
Olivia Le Poidevin and Valerie Volcovici report for Reuters.
In short:
- The U.S. sent memos urging countries to oppose key elements of a United Nations plastics treaty, including caps on plastic production and bans on toxic additives.
- Over 100 countries support a treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, but the U.S. stands with oil-producing nations seeking to avoid upstream regulation.
- Observers say the American position mirrors industry demands and undermines global cooperation on an issue tied to ocean pollution, human health, and climate change.
Key quote:
"Refusing to include plastic production in this treaty is not a negotiation stance. It is economic self-sabotage."
— Juan Carlos Monterrey-Gomez, head of delegation for Panama
Why this matters:
The U.S. push to block upstream limits weakens a global effort to safeguard both the planet and public health.The research is clear: Plastic isn’t just a waste problem — it’s a fossil fuel problem, a chemical exposure problem, and most certainly a human health problem. From endocrine disruptors in baby bottles to microplastics in placentas, we now know plastic is in our blood and in our air, soil, and water. Yet the U.S., while publicly touting its commitment to environmental leadership, is doing industry’s bidding behind the scenes, watering down treaty language that could actually protect people and the planet.
Read more: “Plastic will overwhelm us:” Scientists say health should be the core of global plastic treaty
Keep reading...Show less
As United Nations negotiators debate a plastics treaty in Geneva, Nairobi’s landfill pickers say corporate “plastic credits” are stripping away the bottles they depend on for income.
Benard Ogembo, James Wakibia and Conor McGlone report for DeSmog.
In short:
- Verra, the dominant carbon-credit verifier, is lobbying to embed plastic credits in the global plastics treaty while partnering with firms such as Dow and ExxonMobil.
- Kenya’s TakaTaka Solutions sells credits to Bentley Motors, claiming “net-zero plastic,” yet waste pickers say the company intercepts high-value plastics upstream and leaves them with worthless trash.
- Analysts warn the scheme mirrors flaws in carbon offsets, delivering little new cleanup and letting petrochemical producers avoid cuts to virgin plastic output.
Key quote:
“We used to pick. Now we’re just searching. Many women here scavenge with their children. They have no choice. They can’t afford school fees.”
— Solomon Njoroge, chair of the Nairobi Recyclable Waste Association
Why this matters:
Plastic production already outpaces the planet’s ability to absorb its waste. Credits that let corporations claim “net-zero plastic” without cutting output could accelerate that imbalance. When high-value bottles are siphoned off before they reach dumps, informal collectors lose one of the few reliable incomes in sprawling cities like Nairobi. The job loss also weakens the back-stop that keeps some trash out of rivers and oceans, shifting clean-up costs onto public health systems that must contend with contaminated water, toxic burn-offs and the microplastics now found in human blood. If credit markets proliferate, governments may feel less urgency to restrict virgin plastic, locking in decades of fossil fuel demand and pollution globally.
Learn more: The invisible workforce at the frontlines of plastic waste management
Keep reading...Show less
A new round of global talks in Geneva may be the world’s last chance to seal a strong treaty to end plastic pollution, but deep divides remain.
In short:
- Delegates from nearly every nation are negotiating a legally binding treaty to tackle plastic pollution, with sharp disagreements over whether to cap production or just improve recycling and waste management.
- Powerful oil and plastics-producing nations, including the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, oppose production limits, while 100+ countries, along with major companies like Walmart and Coca-Cola, support cuts alongside recycling mandates.
- Indigenous leaders and small island nations say plastic pollution is threatening their food, health, and economies, and stress that the talks must not end in weak compromises.
Key quote:
“We will never recycle our way out of this problem.”
— Graham Forbes, Greenpeace plastics campaign lead
Why this matters:
Plastic is leaching into our food, our water, even our bodies. It's been linked to serious health issues, from endocrine disruption to cancer. This might be the world's last real shot at a global treaty that doesn’t just sweep the mess around. The question is whether political will can overpower petrochemical lobbying, and whether the world is ready to stop treating plastic like it’s disposable when it’s anything but.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Only 22 nations have upgraded their clean-power plans since Cop28, leaving the United Nations target to triple renewables by 2030 far out of reach, a new Ember analysis shows.
In short:
- The combined national targets are just 2% higher than they were at Cop28, putting the world on track for about 7.4 terawatts (TW) of renewables by 2030 — well shy of the 11 TW needed.
- The United States, China and Russia have not revised their goals; Mexico and Indonesia weakened theirs, while Vietnam, Australia, and Brazil offered only modest increases.
- China’s forthcoming five-year energy plan could prove decisive, but Washington and Moscow still have no 2030 renewable targets.
Key quote:
“Tripling global renewables capacity by 2030 is the single biggest action this decade to stay on track for the 1.5C climate pathway. Yet, despite the landmark Cop28 agreement to reach 11,000GW of renewables by 2030, national targets remain largely unchanged and fall short of what is needed.”
— Ember analysts, in a report
Why this matters:
Wind and solar must soar for the world to quit coal, oil, and gas, yet planning timetables and subsidy fights keep choking the build-out. Every gigawatt delayed locks in years of carbon pollution and the smog, heat waves, and crop losses that follow. Because power plants run for decades, today’s inaction determines whether children now in kindergarten will grow up in a stable climate or face compound crises of food insecurity, migration, and escalating health threats ranging from heat stroke to mosquito-borne disease. The Ember findings show how quickly political momentum can evaporate after a summit handshake, undercutting investor confidence and raising the odds of costlier, more disruptive emergency measures later.
Related: New Zealand greenlights new offshore oil and gas search despite climate pledges
Keep reading...Show less
United Nations rights specialists say a proposed Brazilian licensing law would dilute protections for forests and Indigenous groups unless President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva vetoes it.
In short:
- Brazil’s Congress passed the General Environmental Licensing Law on June 17, giving Lula until Aug. 1 to accept or veto provisions that ease reviews for roads, logging, farming, mining, and dams.
- Eleven U.N. Human Rights Council rapporteurs and the Brazilian Academy of Sciences argue the measure violates the right to a clean environment and would hit Indigenous and Quilombola communities hardest.
- Critics note the text never mentions climate — even though Brazil will host November’s COP30 summit — while Lula’s own human-rights ministry warns against automatic license renewals without fresh risk checks.
Key quote:
“In practical terms, this means that the destruction of forests, mangroves, springs, and other ecosystems can occur without any rigorous assessment of the damage to the environment and, especially, to humankind.”
— Brazilian Academy of Sciences statement
Why this matters:
Brazil holds roughly 60% of the Amazon, a biome that regulates rainfall across South America and stores more carbon than any other forest on Earth. Weakening licensing rules would speed the march of highways, soy fields and illegal mines into intact rainforest, releasing climate-warming emissions and scattering mercury and other toxics into rivers that feed millions. Reduced reviews also sideline Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities whose lands shield some of the last undisturbed ecosystems; stripping them of consultation rights can deepen social conflict and displacement. As extreme heat and drought already threaten urban water supplies from Manaus to São Paulo, clearing more forest risks turning a global climate buffer into a carbon source — and undermines public health far beyond Brazil’s borders.
Read more: Brazil moves to auction vast oil blocks despite climate and Indigenous concerns
Keep reading...Show less
Hunger rates in Africa and the Middle East rose sharply in 2024, driven by war, trade tensions, and extreme weather that continue to push up food costs, according to a new United Nations report.
In short:
- The UN’s 2025 State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report found more than 307 million Africans and 39 million people in the Greater Middle East faced hunger in 2024.
- Small-scale farmers, who produce a third of global food and up to 70% of Africa’s supply, receive less than 1% of climate finance despite being key to food security.
- Gaza now faces the worst recorded hunger crisis in IPC history, with the entire population experiencing acute food insecurity.
Key quote:
"It's a mixture between the conflicts, some of the disruption or shocks caused by economic or trade tensions and also the climate shocks. These are the three main drivers."
— Álvaro Lario, president of the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development
Why this matters:
Food insecurity is no longer tied to one failed harvest or one conflict but to overlapping crises that hit vulnerable communities hardest. Droughts and floods linked to climate change wipe out crops, while trade disputes and war disrupt supply chains and inflate prices. Small farmers, who feed most rural populations, lack the resources to adapt. The result is a steady rise in hunger that fuels migration, destabilizes economies, and drives humanitarian need. In regions like Gaza, where conflict has destroyed infrastructure, food shortages have reached catastrophic levels. The crisis illustrates how global shocks — economic, political, and environmental — can converge to push millions into extreme hunger.
Learn more: Droughts tied to climate change are pushing water, food, and ecosystems to the brink
Keep reading...Show less
China and the European Union pledged to deepen cooperation on climate change Thursday, promising new emission-reduction targets while the United States moves to abandon the Paris Agreement and roll back renewable energy programs.
In short:
- The joint pledge frames the Paris Agreement as the “cornerstone” of climate cooperation, contrasting with U.S. withdrawal and policy reversals under President Trump.
- China, already the largest producer of solar panels and wind turbines, aims to expand its dominance in clean-energy technologies while Europe pushes aggressive climate targets.
- Both parties must still reconcile tensions over coal use, electric vehicle trade disputes, and Europe’s carbon border tax as they prepare for climate talks in Brazil this fall.
Key quote:
“In the absence of robust U.S. climate action, the EU and China still recognize the imperative of working together to confront a shared existential threat.”
— Li Shuo, director of China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute
Why this matters:
The alignment between China and Europe on climate policy signals a major shift in global leadership as the U.S. steps back from international climate commitments. Together, the two economies account for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions and control much of the market for renewable energy technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. Their decisions will heavily influence whether the world can limit warming to safer levels. Yet their cooperation is complicated by trade disputes and China’s ongoing reliance on coal, raising questions about whether pledges will translate into real emission cuts or simply shift pollution across borders.
Related: China’s climate leadership may grow as U.S. pulls back
Keep reading...Show less
When negotiators meet in Belem for November’s United Nations climate summit, they will confront the Amazon’s deforestation and poverty rather than the luxury settings of past talks.
In short:
- Brazil chose Belem, a high-poverty Amazon city, for COP30 to spotlight deforestation and inequality rather than hide them behind tourist destinations.
- The summit coincides with countries’ overdue updates to their Paris Agreement emissions plans, which U.N. officials warn still fall short of the 1.5-degree Celsius target.
- Brazil faces housing shortages and soaring hotel costs for the expected 90,000 attendees, prompting plans to dock cruise ships and prioritize bookings for poorer nations.
Key quote:
“We cannot hide the fact that we are in the world with lots of inequalities and where sustainability and fighting climate change is something that has to get closer to people.”
— André Corrêa do Lago, COP30 president-designate
Why this matters:
Holding the summit in Belem forces climate diplomacy into direct contact with the Amazon rainforest, whose health affects global weather patterns and carbon storage. The region absorbs vast amounts of carbon dioxide but has seen deforestation push some areas into emitting rather than storing carbon. The meeting also underscores a broader tension in climate talks: Richer nations drive most emissions, yet poorer regions like the Amazon bear the brunt of climate harm and have fewer resources to adapt.
Related: Amazonian city prepares for climate summit amid pollution and inequality
Keep reading...Show less
Journalism that drives the discussion
Copyright © 2017 Environmental Health Sciences. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2017 Environmental Health Sciences. All rights reserved.