Walmart, the biggest single buyer of goods in the world, has lowered its emissions intensity and sent emissions-reducing ripples throughout its global supply chain. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The Trump administration has given corporations plenty of convenient excuses to retreat from their climate commitments, with its moves to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, roll back emissions regulations, and scale back clean-energy incentives.
Visions of planting walls of trees to block the expansion of the desert have long been promoted but never realized. The green wall myth persists today even though it is premised on outdated understandings of desertification. We review the history of the idea of green walls and focus on two sets of contemporary initiatives to assess their outcomes: peri-Saharan programs (Algeria’s Green Dam and Great Green Wall in sub-Saharan Africa) and China’s Three Norths Shelterbelt Program. This review reveals a mixed record of technical success with low rates of the establishment of monocultures of fast-growing trees vulnerable to disease. While there is evidence for reduced wind erosion in some areas, afforestation is also associated with reduced soil moisture and lowering of water tables. Social impacts include increased water scarcity for people and livestock in some cases, and resource enclosures that particularly work against pastoralist livelihoods.
Green walls refer to continuous bands of planted trees stretching across single or multiple countries in dryland regions. As socioecological projects, green walls invoke powerfully attractive images of maintaining life over the assumed sterility of the desert through human ingenuity and effort. A wall of planted trees is envisioned to hold back an expansionary desert from degrading the productivity of the lands behind the wall. Despite the persistent discursive power of this image, its scientific foundation rests on now discredited understandings of desertification.1Desertification, scientifically understood as land degradation due to human mismanagement, is less a regional phenomenon across a broad front than a highly localized phenomenon in areas of greater and more persistent human pressures. The power of the green wall vision is illustrated by its persistent use in promotions of a diverse array of dryland afforestation initiatives with different afforestation patterns (e.g., shelterbelts, scattered woodlots and larger afforested blocks, and agroforestry) and goals (ecological rehabilitation, carbon sequestration, and improved climate resilience). In short, green wall rhetoric mobilizes support and empowers certain actors rather than describing actual dryland afforestation practices.2This article focuses on the vision, practices, and effects of these programs.
This review was written during a period of global enthusiasm for trees and mobilization for mass afforestation, with the World Economic Forum’s Trillion Trees initiative the most prominent example (https://www.1t.org/) but also a wide range of other afforestation efforts across the globe (3). While the arborocentrism of this moment has a long history (see below), concerns about climate change and an interest in increasing the sequestration of industrial carbon has led to a rapid rise of tree planting initiatives. The world’s drylands could be seen as “empty” and thus important “untapped” landscapes to store carbon. Through a consideration of the empirical record of green wall programs, this article outlines reasons to be cautious. Trees are often not suited for the arid zones where they are planted and, even if they are established, may have negative ecological and social impacts (4). By ignoring the need for ecological and social monitoring of afforestation impacts, green wall enthusiasm has often worked to hide the mixed record of these initiatives.
As the name suggests, liquefied natural gas (LNG) involves turning gas into liquid form — a process known as liquefaction. Liquefaction does not alter the chemical makeup of gas, which is comprised of mostly methane plus varying amounts of different impurities, but it does make it denser. This enables ships and other carriers to move more gas over oceans between locations that lack direct pipeline connectivity.
In the early 2010s, the coal industry attracted a large wave of investment, banking on surging coal imports from China and India.
When this growth didn’t materialise, coal oversupply and depressed prices sent major companies bankrupt with significant value destruction for shareholders.
The LNG industry risks repeating the coal industry’s mistakes, as investment levels outstrip future demand, with potentially more severe consequences for the capital-intensive industry.
Peddling a ‘supercycle’ for coal in the 2010s
In the early 2010s, the coal industry was on the rise. Global trade had tripled between 1990 and 2011, with the 2000s experiencing “the largest growth in coal demand in history – greater than the previous four decades combined”. This growth was expected to accelerate after China and India entered the global coal import market (Figure 1). Between 2011 and 2012, global coal imports increased by 13% and coal prices doubled (Figure 2).
The world is facing an unprecedented housing crisis. According to the latest UN-Habitat estimates, 318 million people are homeless, while 2.8 billion people—over a third of the global population—lack access to adequate housing. Behind these stark figures lie deep inequalities that undermine social progress and human dignity.
Adequate housing is more than shelter, it is a foundation for stability, health, education, and opportunity. Without a safe and secure home, individuals are more vulnerable to poverty, exclusion, and poor health outcomes. Homelessness also carries a heavy social cost, eroding trust, cohesion, and the potential for societies to thrive.
The housing challenge is global but manifests differently across contexts. In rapidly urbanizing regions, millions live in informal settlements or slums, where basic services are scarce and conditions unsafe. Today, 1.1 billion people live in such informal settlements, with 90 percent concentrated in Africa and Asia. Conflict, economic inequality, climate change, and natural disasters are major drivers of displacement and housing insecurity, pushing millions into precarious living conditions.
The urgency of the crisis was underlined at the UN-Habitat Assembly in Nairobi (29–30 May 2025), where Member States adopted the UN-Habitat Strategic Plan for 2026–2029. The plan places affordable housing, secure land tenure, and access to basic services at the heart of global priorities. Leaders called for bold and coordinated action, stressing that housing must be treated as a human right and a cornerstone of sustainable development.
The right to adequate housing is embedded in international human rights instruments and explicitly tied to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Goal 11 commits the international community to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Addressing homelessness and housing insecurity is therefore essential to achieving the SDGs and ensuring that no one is left behind.
Tackling homelessness and inadequate housing requires integrated strategies at local, national, and global levels:
Scaling up affordable housing initiatives through innovative financing, public-private partnerships, and policy reforms.
Expanding social protection systems to prevent families from falling into homelessness.
Investing in resilient housing solutions to adapt to the realities of climate change and disasters.
Strengthening community-based models such as cooperatives and housing associations that empower people to participate in shaping their own futures.
Homelessness is not inevitable. With coordinated action and commitment, the global community can reverse these trends. As the world prepares for the Second World Summit for Social Development in Doha, 4-6 November 2025, the message is clear: accelerating social progress requires that every person has access to a safe, secure, and dignified place to call home.
In the area you have selected (Vietnam) tsunami hazard is classified as medium according to the information that is currently available. This means that there is more than a 10% chance of a potentially-damaging tsunami occurring in the next 50 years. Based on this information, the impact of tsunami should be considered in different phases of the project for any activities located near the coast. Project planning decisions, project design, and construction methods should take into account the level tsunami hazard. Further detailed information should be obtained to adequately account for the level of hazard.
Pacific “Ring of Fire” (enlarged graphic). Source: Adapted from U.S. Geological SurveyDownload Image
Climate change impact: The areas at risk of tsunami will increase as global mean sea level rises. According to the IPCC (2013), global mean sea level rise depends on a variety of factors, and estimates for 2100 range from ~20 cm to nearly 1 m. However, regional changes in sea level are difficult to predict. Projects in low-lying coastal areas such as deltas, or in island states should be designed to be robust to projected increases in global sea level.
Thousands of people march in the sidelines of the COP30 UN Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil on Nov. 15, 2025.Pablo Porciuncula—AFP via Getty Image
by Brian Mukhaya Brian Mukhaya is the Africa Program Manager at Clean Air Task Force.
Ten years after the landmark Paris Agreement, the world is still trying to solve two crises as if they were separate: climate change and economic development. That’s a dangerous illusion. Climate progress cannot succeed if billions of people remain in poverty, without electricity, stable food systems, or the means to build better lives. And development, if it ignores climate risk, is little more than a short-term fix that will collapse under the weight of future disasters.
I saw this tension firsthand at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the annual UN climate summit. The energy there was unmistakable—a mixture of urgency and frustration. Delegates from across Africa reminded the world that promises made in Paris have not been kept. Wealthy nations pledged to support developing countries as they cut emissions and adapted to rising temperatures. Yet, a decade later, those commitments remain largely unfulfilled.
At COP29 in Baku last year, developed countries agreed to mobilize at least $300 billion annually by 2035 for developing countries’ climate action, part of a broader aspirational target of $1.3 trillion per year. While this represents a tripling of the previous $100 billion goal, representatives from developing countries remain skeptical. More fundamentally, the $300 billion commitment falls far short of actual needs. The Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance estimates that developing countries (excluding China) need approximately $2.7 trillion annually by 2030 to meet climate and nature-related goals. The gap between promise and reality remains vast—and widening
But money is only part of the problem. Even when funding arrives, it often misses the mark. A new analysis by the Clean Air Task Force looked at 52 African countries’ climate and development plans. It found that the two rarely intersect. Climate strategies focus on emissions and energy transitions, while national development plans emphasize job creation and economic growth—but without embedding climate targets. The result is a patchwork of policies that fail to deliver either lasting prosperity or real emissions cuts.
As Bill Gates noted in a recent memo, global climate policy increasingly risks sidelining development altogether. Today, more than 600 million Africans lack access to electricity, while 900 million do not have clean cooking technologies—conditions that undermine productivity, constrain public services, and contribute to preventable deaths.
Crucially, this should not be understood as an either/or dilemma. Wealthy nations already recognize that decarbonization must go hand in hand with economic growth to be politically viable at home. The same is true globally. Emerging and developing economies cannot be expected to choose between climate progress and economic progress. Insisting on a tradeoff between the two as a trade-off is both unrealistic and unjust.
When climate and development are treated as separate silos, everyone loses. Fragmented planning leads to inefficient allocation of scarce resources, missed opportunities for infrastructure investments with broad benefits, and policies that fail to produce either meaningful emissions reductions or durable socio-economic progress. Importantly, this is not a challenge restricted to Africa but a blind spot in international climate governance. Even wealthy countries are discovering that climate action divorced from economic realities is politically unsustainable. When climate action appears to threaten economic growth, job creation, or living standards, political support erodes quickly.
As negotiations in Belém draw to a close, one truth should be clear: climate and development are not competing agendas—they are the same story. Sustainable development is the foundation of lasting climate progress. And climate resilience is the only path to enduring prosperity. Any strategy that treats them separately is doomed to fail.
Development without climate action is a short-term fix. And climate action without development is an empty promise.
Satellite images show how data centers are changing America’s landscape
Business insider
Data centers across the street from residential housing are not an uncommon scene in Virginia.
There are over a thousand planned or existing data centers across the US, according to a BI investigation.
Major tech companies are racing to construct even more as the AI boom continues. But at what cost?
Satellite images show where these facilities are cropping up and why they’re a nuisance to many.
Build, baby, build. That’s the mantra behind the AI boom sweeping America.
This year, alone, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google are projected to spend about $320 billion in capex, mostly for AI infrastructure, according to an analysis of financial statements by Business Insider.
At the heart of this AI infrastructure growth are data centers that house the specialized hardware and high-speed networking equipment, driving the intensive computations behind large language models. However, AI needs more.
Because AI learns by processing increasingly large amounts of data, improving it requires more computational power, which in turn necessitates more data centers.
A BI investigation found 1,240 data centers across America are already built or approved for construction by the end of 2024.
Global Forest Watch’s (GFW) deforestation alerts provide information about loss of tree cover in near-real-time, making them a critical tool for those working to combat deforestation. Existing alerts on GFW have been used to help Indigenous and local communities protect their forests, halt and prosecute environmental crimes and protect threatened wildlife.
However, in the past, alerts only let users know there’s been a disturbance without identifying a cause, other than a few limited classes such as fires.
Now, new drivers of deforestation alerts data is available on GFW that shows the causes of alerts across the tropics. This innovative data set uses an AI method to assign drivers to GFW’s integrated deforestation alerts in the three major forested regions in the tropics, allowing users to see what’s driving loss in near-real-time in these regions for the first time.
Critically, this information helps users distinguish between tree cover loss from natural and human causes, enabling more targeted action from those managing forests and reducing the need for costly field visits. Further, the data also provides more rapid information to estimate ecological impacts and supports better understanding of carbon emissions related to forest disturbances.
Almost exactly 10 years ago, a remarkable thing happened in a conference hall on the outskirts of Paris: After years of bitter negotiations, the leaders of nearly every country agreed to try to slow down global warming in an effort to head off its most devastating effects.
The core idea was that countries would set their own targets to reduce their climate pollution in ways that made sense for them. Rich, industrialized nations were expected to go fastest and to help lower-income countries pay for the changes they needed to cope with climate hazards.
So, has anything changed over those 10 years? Actually, yes. Quite a bit, for the better and the worse. For one thing, every country remains committed to the Paris Agreement, except one. That’s the United States.
Forests directly cool the planet, like natural evaporative air conditioners. So what happens when you cut them down?
In tropical countries such as Indonesia, Brazil and the Congo, rapid deforestation may have accounted for up to 75% of the observed surface warming between 1950 and 2010. Our new research took a closer look at this phenomenon.
Using satellite data over Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea, we found deforestation can heat a local area by as much as 4.5°C, and can even raise temperatures in undisturbed forests up to 6km away.
More than 40% of the world’s population live in the tropics and, under climate change, rising heat and humidity could push them into lethal conditions. Keeping forests intact is vital to protect those who live in and around them as the planet warms.
The five Mekong countries lost nearly 1 million hectares (2.5 million acres) of tree cover in 2024, with nearly a quarter of which was primary forest, and more than 30% of losses occurring inside protected areas.
Cambodia and Laos saw some of the highest levels of loss inside protected areas, driven by logging, plantations and hydropower projects, though both countries recorded slight declines from 2023.
In Myanmar, conflict has complicated forest governance, with mining and displacement contributing to losses, though overall deforestation fell slightly compared to the previous year.
Thailand and Vietnam bucked the regional trend, with relatively low forest losses in protected areas, supported by logging bans, reforestation initiatives, and stricter law enforcement.
See All Key Ideas
BANGKOK — The Mekong countries of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam lost a combined area of tree cover of nearly a million hectares in 2024, or an area almost the size of Lebanon. That’s according to Mongabay’s analysis* of satellite data published by the Global Land Analysis and Discovery (GLAD) laboratory at the University of Maryland, in partnership with Global Forest Watch (GFW).
GFW data show 991,801 hectares (2.45 million acres) of tree cover were lost in 2024, including nearly 220,000 hectares (544,000 acres) of primary forest, across the five Mekong countries. More than 30% of tree cover loss recorded in 2024 occurred inside protected areas, although across the region, the rate of deforestation — both within protected areas and outside of them — slowed slightly from 2023. Despite this, the drivers of deforestation vary somewhat from country to country, and last year’s losses still reflect a grim trajectory for forests in the Mekong region.
The economies of almost all Mekong countries are heavily reliant on agriculture, with forests cleared for both agribusiness-run plantations or subsistence farming plots. But research indicates the conversion of forest to croplands has resulted in increasingly unpredictable weather patterns and subsequently poorer agricultural yields.
A groundbreaking new report, “Resilience, Readiness, and Response,” from Project CASA (Climate and Security Action through Civil-Military Cooperation in Climate-Related Emergencies) highlights the increasing and essential role of national militaries in addressing the escalating global climate crisis.
The report is the result of a comprehensive two-year study which provides the first cross-national dataset on military involvement in climate disasters. Edited by Ronald A. Kingham and Dr. Ashley McIlvain Moran and published by the Environment & Development Resource Centre (EDRC), the report serves as both a critical resource and a call to action for policymakers and practitioners grappling with climate-worsened disasters.
New research analyzing more than 3,000 tropical forest sites reveals that areas with fewer seed-dispersing animals store up to four times less carbon than forests with healthy wildlife populations.
The study found that 81% of tropical trees rely on animals to disperse their seeds, establishing an ancient partnership now threatened by human activities such as deforestation, road construction, and hunting.
Researchers mapped global “seed dispersal disruption” and found it explains a 57% reduction in carbon storage potential across proposed forest restoration areas.
Al JazeeraSeveral delegates express dismay at the failure to break a deadlock at the sixth round of talks in under three years.
Piles of plastic waste at a recycling plant in Erftstadt, Germany [File: Jana Rodenbusch/Reuters]
Published On 15 Aug 2025
Global talks to develop a landmark treaty to tackle plastic pollution have once again failed to reach an agreement, despite efforts late into the night to strike a deal.
Delegates at a closing meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in Geneva on Friday spoke of their dismay at the failure to break a deadlock at the sixth round of talks in under three years, as countries remained deeply divided over the scope of any treaty.
“South Africa is disappointed that it was not possible for this session to agree a legally binding treaty and positions remain far apart,” its delegate told a closing meeting.
Cuba’s delegate said that negotiators had “missed a historic opportunity but we have to keep going and act urgently”, the AFP news agency reported.
CVD 