Climate Crisis

At least two areas of the country’s worst-affected Sumatra island are still unreachable, as authorities struggle to deliver aid.

The death toll from devastating floods and landslides in Indonesia has risen to 442, according to a tally published by the national disaster agency, as desperate people hunt for food and water.

The National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) on Sunday said 402 others were still missing as authorities raced to reach parts of hardest-hit Sumatra island, where thousands of people were stranded without critical supplies.

Another 402 people are missing in Indonesia’s three provinces of North Sumatra, West Sumatra and Aceh, according to the agency.

At least 600 people have died across Southeast Asia as heavy monsoon rains overwhelm swathes of Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. The deluges also triggered landslides, damaged roads, and downed communication lines.

The floods in Indonesia displaced thousands of people, with at least two cities on Sumatra island still unreachable on Sunday. Authorities said they deployed two warships from Jakarta to deliver aid.

“There are two cities that require full attention due to being isolated, namely Central Tapanuli and Sibolga,” BNPB head Suharyanto said in a statement.

The ships were expected in Sibolga on Monday, he said.

Desperate situation

The challenging weather conditions and the lack of heavy equipment also hampered rescue efforts.

Aid has been slow to reach the hardest-hit city of Sibolga and the Central Tapanuli district in North Sumatra.

Videos on social media show people scrambling past crumbling barricades, flooded roads and broken glass to get their hands on food, medicine and gas.

Some even waded through waist-deep floodwaters to reach damaged convenience stores.

The annual monsoon season, typically between June and September, often brings heavy rain, triggering landslides and flash floods.

A tropical storm has exacerbated conditions, and the flooding tolls in Indonesia and Thailand rank among the highest in those countries in recent years.

Climate change has affected storm patterns, including the duration and intensity of the season, leading to heavier rainfall, flash flooding and stronger wind gusts.

The way humans refuse to reflect is most ironic. Everyone immediately blamed the heavens for the events of November 2025, when massive floods swept across Sumatra (Indonesia), submerged southern Thailand, and turned Malaysian roads into rivers. It was as if humans were passive victims swept away by something beyond their control, and rain was the sole factor.  This elegant narrative is perpetuated to shield us from guilt and responsibility, making us reluctant to acknowledge that these ‘natural’ disasters have actually been engineered by human choices and negligence over a long period of time. The greatest tragedy lies in the audacity to ignore the damage we have wrought upon ourselves, not the water falling from the sky.

What happened at the end of November was not just extreme weather. Reuters stated that heavy rains were the main cause of flooding and landslides, which are estimated to have killed at least 129 people in Southeast Asia before and after 25 November 2025.  However, blaming the rain as the sole cause is like blaming a match when your entire house is on fire, even though you were the one who spilled the petrol (Reuters, 2025). The rain is not the problem. Rain is a common climatic event. What is unusual is how vulnerable our countries are to something that should have been anticipated.

For years, Green Theory has reminded us that environmental damage is the result of development and political and economic practices that prioritize growth over sustainability. Theoretically, disasters are political rather than natural occurrences. According to this viewpoint, structural power disparities and policy decisions that favor capital accumulation are the main causes of society’s susceptibility to natural disasters. And what happened in November 2025 shows that current politics prioritizes short-term profits, land exploitation, and dependence on destructive industries over maintaining the ecological balance that enables human life.

For example, flooding in Sumatra is caused by the loss of millions of hectares of forest over the past twenty years. The loss of forests has eliminated the absorption and soil retention systems that previously functioned as a ‘natural brake’ on water flow. FAO data shows that Indonesia’s deforestation rate has been one of the fastest in the world for years and that the damage has not disappeared without a trace (FAO, 2023). When the roots are gone, the soil and water lose their bond. Disaster becomes inevitable when the rains fall.

The same pattern was found in cases in Thailand and Malaysia.  Development that destroyed hillsides, settlements that crept up into landslide-prone areas, and concretization that eliminated absorption spaces have made these areas an inevitable ecological hazard. There were no truly ‘sudden’ floods and landslides that struck southern Thailand in the same week reported by AP News (AP News, 2025).  What remained suddenly was our realization that the rain was testing the consequences of years of neglect.

Ironically, politicians, mainstream media, and most of the public are more comfortable blaming the heavens.  Although terms such as ‘extreme rainfall,’ ‘climate anomalies,’ and ‘unpredictable weather’ are meteorologically accurate, they are also ethically and politically misleading. Blaming the weather is an elegant way to avoid more uncomfortable questions: who cut down the forests? Who issued the plantation and mining permits? Who built cities without drainage systems? Who turned a blind eye to disorderly spatial planning? And who chose not to learn from the same tragedies of last year, the year before, and the year before that?

Green Theory emphasizes that states and markets often collaborate to cause environmental/ecological damage while covering up their political activities with stories of ‘unpredictable nature.’ The disaster that occurred in November 2025 provided an important lesson that these stories are not only misleading but also dangerous.  To avoid responsibility, attention is shifted from human actors to an abstract entity called ‘the weather.’ It transforms meteorological chaos into structural chaos.  Thus, the sky becomes the most convenient scapegoat for all parties who benefit from the current situation.

We often forget that rain has been with us throughout human history.  It is not the sky that has changed; rather, it is the earth beneath our feet that has been altered, divided, and sold without consideration for its ecological limits. The IPCC has repeatedly warned that although climate change increases rainfall in certain areas, its effects are highly dependent on land use, ecosystem health, and human-controlled environmental carrying capacity (IPCC, 2023).  In other words, rain may be natural, but its disasters are not.

 According to a UNEP report, modern disaster risk consists of a combination of hazards and vulnerability, and it is vulnerability that is most often created by humans (UNEP, 2022).  We are the ones who cut down forests, destroy riverbanks, and build cities without considering hydrological logic. We are responsible for turning floodplains into residential areas.  Yet we blame the rain for being the culprit simply because the water returns to its source.

This is why November 2025 is not just a date of disaster; it is a date of remembrance. A reminder that we live in an age where environmental damage is caused by human activity, not the weather. A reminder that contemporary disasters are the result of poor decisions.  And our hands will remain clean in the story we write as long as we continue to point to the sky, but the ground beneath us will continue to crumble.

 If we want to break out of this cycle, we must stop pointing to the sky and start dismantling the political, economic, and vested interests that make communities vulnerable every time it rains. Disasters must be seen as a reflection of failed environmental governance, not as ‘inevitable’ natural events. This necessitates the establishment of political accountability mechanisms for officials who disregard ecological warnings, independent environmental audits for significant projects, and strict spatial planning reform. We must also understand that change will not come from the heavens; it must come from the very people who have been destroying, if they are finally willing to reform themselves.

The rain will continue to be blamed until that day.  And humans will continue to try to save their own reputations by pointing upwards so that they do not see the damage happening beneath their feet.  However, the sky is never to blame, as will be clearly recorded in history.  The rain simply falls.  It is humans who cause the destruction.  This is the greatest irony of modern civilization: the more power humans feel they have, the more they enjoy washing their hands of the consequences of that power. Humans who destroy mountains for quick profits from mining, build cities without adequate drainage, and pour concrete into rivers, and then feign surprise when everything comes back to haunt them. Rain is merely the trigger; humans prepare the ingredients for the explosion.

It is not the weather that must change, but our morals.  No technical mitigation can replace a political culture that continues to trade forests for capital, mortgaging the future for growth charts, or romanticizing ‘development’ that never produces anything but risk.  We can keep praying for favorable weather, but those prayers will only echo in the void as long as the Earth is treated as a victim.  Because we are the ones who need to live on Earth.  Earth is the source of our life.  And as long as people continue to deny that, disasters will become timely consequences, not mere warnings.

In the Philippines, a massive corruption scandal is triggering street protests and putting pressure on the government of Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

The population’s increasing exposure to typhoons, floods and rising sea-levels has seen the government allocate $9.5bn of taxpayer funds to more than 9,800 flood-control projects in the last three years.

But recent audits reveal widespread cases of structures being grossly incomplete or non-existent.

Multiple government officials are accused of pocketing huge kickbacks, funding lavish lifestyles.

101 East investigates how the most vulnerable are being flooded by corruption in the Philippines.

Some 44,000 people displaced by flooding across the country as relief operations intensify amid widespread destruction.

Sri Lanka has made an appeal for international assistance as the death toll from heavy rains and floods triggered by Cyclone Ditwah rose to 123, with another 130 reported missing.

The extreme weather system has destroyed nearly 15,000 homes across the country, sending almost 44,000 people to state-run temporary shelters, the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) said on Saturday.

Although Cyclone Ditwah was heading towards neighbouring India to the north on Saturday, more landslides have hit the central district of Kandy, 115km (70 miles) east of the capital Colombo, with the main access road under water at several locations.

DMC Director-General Sampath Kotuwegoda said relief operations had been strengthened with the deployment of thousands of members of the army, navy and air force as he announced the latest casualty figures.

“Relief operations with the help of the armed forces are under way,” Kotuwegoda told reporters in Colombo.

Mahesh Gunasekara, the secretary-general of the Sri Lanka Red Cross Society, said many people have been stranded in various flood-hit areas as rescue crews are trying to reach them.

“Relief needs have been increasing. After two days, water has still been swelling,” he said.

“Although the cyclone is slowly moving away from the country, it is not over for us yet,” Gunasekara added.

Flooding prompted authorities to issue evacuation orders for those living along the banks of the Kelani River, which flows into the Indian Ocean from Colombo.

The Kelani burst its banks on Friday evening, forcing hundreds of people into temporary shelters, the DMC said.

The government issued an appeal for international help and asked Sri Lankans abroad to make cash donations to support nearly half a million affected people.

Officials said Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya had met with Colombo-based diplomats to update them on the situation and seek the help of their governments.

India was the first to respond, sending two planeloads of relief supplies, while an Indian warship already in Colombo on a previously planned goodwill visit donated its rations to help victims.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his condolences over the deaths in Sri Lanka and said New Delhi was ready to send more aid.

“We stand ready to provide more aid and assistance as the situation evolves,” Modi said on X.

While rain had eased in most parts of Sri Lanka on Saturday, including the capital, parts of the island’s north were still experiencing showers due to the residual effects of Cyclone Ditwah.

DMC officials said they expected flood levels to exceed those recorded in 2016, when 71 people were killed nationwide.

This week’s weather-related toll is the highest since June last year, when 26 people were killed following heavy rains.

In December, 17 people died in flooding and landslides.

Authorities say 79 people remain missing and thousands of families have been displaced from their homes across Sumatra.

The death toll from floods and landslides on the western Indonesian island of Sumatra this week has risen to 174, a disaster official said, with about 80 more people still missing, as a punishing tropical storm system and heavy monsoon rains have battered the region.

“As of this afternoon, we have recorded that for the entire North Sumatra province, there have been 116 deaths and 42 people are still being searched for,” National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB) chief Suharyanto announced on Friday.

He said another 35 were killed in the island’s Aceh province and another 23 in West Sumatra.

While the rain had stopped, 79 people were still missing and thousands of families were displaced, he added.

Residents in Sumatra’s Padang Pariaman region, where a total of 22 people died, had to cope with water levels at least 1 metre (3.3ft) high, and had still not been reached by search and rescue personnel on Friday.

In the town of Batang Toru, in northern Sumatra, residents on Friday buried seven unclaimed victims in a mass grave. The decomposing bodies, wrapped in black plastic, were lifted from the back of a truck onto a wide plot of land as onlookers covered their noses.

Communications remained down in some parts of the island, and authorities were working to restore power and clear roads blocked by landslide debris, said Abdul Muhari, spokesman for Indonesia’s national disaster mitigation agency.

Indonesia would continue to airlift aid and rescue personnel into stricken areas on Friday, he added.

In Indonesia’s West Sumatra province, 53-year-old Misniati described a terrifying battle against rising floodwaters to reach her husband at home.

She said that, returning from early morning prayers at a mosque, “I noticed the street was flooded.

“I tried to run back to my house to tell my husband, and the water was already reaching my waist,” she told the AFP news agency, adding that it was up to her chest by the time she reached home.

Flooding disasters elsewhere in Asia

Meanwhile, in Thailand, the government said 145 people had been killed by floods across eight southern provinces. It said a total of more than 3.5 million people had been affected.

In the southern city of Hat Yai, the hardest-hit part of Thailand, the rain had finally stopped on Friday, but residents were still ankle-deep in floodwaters, and many remained without electricity as they assessed the damage to their property over the last week.

Some residents said they were spared the worst of the floods but were still suffering from their effects.

In neighbouring Malaysia, where two people have been confirmed dead, tropical storm Senyar made landfall at about midnight and has since weakened.

Meteorological authorities are still bracing themselves for heavy rain and wind, and warned that rough seas could pose risks for small boats.

A total of 30,000 evacuees remain in shelters, down from more than 34,000 on Thursday.

Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Friday that it had already evacuated 1,459 Malaysian nationals stranded in more than 25 flood-hit hotels in Thailand, adding that it would work to rescue the remaining 300 still caught up in flood zones.

Separately, at least 56 people were killed by a cyclone in the South Asian island nation of Sri Lanka, authorities said.

Catastrophe bonds — as the name may suggest — aren’t for fledgling investors. Even so, these high-yield, high-risk securities are attracting growing interest as natural catastrophes intensify.

First developed for the US market in the 1990s, cat bonds are issued by governments, insurers, or reinsurers to cover the costs of natural disasters. Investors buy the instrument in the hope that a payout won’t be triggered, meaning they’ll get their money back plus a return. Alternatively, in the case of a bond-triggering natural disaster, the issuer will keep the capital to cover the fallout.

“From the perspective of insurers and reinsurers, cat bonds provide access to an alternative source of capital that is more flexible than on-balance sheet capital and can be targeted towards absorbing specific types and layers of risk,” said Brandan Holmes, VP-senior credit officer at Moody’s Ratings. “Cat bonds can also be more cost effective than traditional reinsurance,” he told Euronews.

The appeal of these securities has gained prominence in the wake of recent disasters like Jamaica’s Hurricane Melissa. Crucially, capital markets provide nations with a vital means to lower insurance costs at a time when aid spending in rich countries is dropping. Repeated natural disasters can push governments into insurmountable debt, particularly as the cost of servicing those dues becomes higher.

From an investor perspective, the instrument also has its perks. Not only do the bonds carry attractive yields because of their risky nature, they provide portfolio diversification because of their limited correlation with financial markets. This means that when stocks and typical bonds fall at the same time — an uncommon but real scenario — catastrophe bonds offer some protection. “They also tend to have relatively short maturities which provide investors with flexibility in asset allocation decisions,” said Holmes.

Complex trigger conditions

According to data firm Artemis, the outstanding value of the global cat bond market is around $57.9 billion (€49.93bn). Despite the growing climate risk, these assets also saw historically strong returns in 2023 and 2024, reaching 20% and 17% respectively.

One factor boosting returns is that investors only pay out if certain conditions are met. For example, when Hurricane Beryl hit Jamaica last year, the nation failed to get any cat bond coverage when air pressure failed to drop below a certain threshold. On the other hand, in the wake of this year’s Hurricane Melissa, Jamaica will receive a full payout of $150 million (€129.37mn) thanks to its World Bank catastrophe insurance.

Analysts stress that the complex conditions surrounding cat bonds make the product unsuitable for inexperienced investors. “You have to have a really good understanding of the risk passed on,” said Maren Josefs, credit analyst at S&P Global. She added: “What we’ve also seen recently is investors presuming they are investing in extreme events, like a really big hurricane or earthquake. But over the last few years, mid-sized events such as tornadoes, wildfires, or floods have been happening with greater frequency, meaning some investors were surprised when they lost money to these sorts of natural disasters.”

Institutional investors are currently the key purchasers of cat bonds. However, there are ways for retail investors to gain indirect exposure to the product. Earlier this year, the world’s first ETF (exchange traded fund) investing in cat bonds made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange, meaning fund managers can now pool investor contributions to buy cat bonds. In the EU, the instruments aren’t easy for non-professionals to access, but indirect exposure is possible through UCITS, a type of mutual fund.

“The actual cat bond that gets issued, there’s no way that either a US or EU retail investor can just buy that,” said Johannes Schahn, an associate at Mayer Brown who advises on debt issuance. “They’re only offered to qualified investors,” he continued, “but what has been happening occasionally is that mutual funds invest or partially invest in cat bonds.”

ESMA weighs in

Despite the perks of these securities, their availability may be further restricted in the EU in the coming years. This comes after a report from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), sent to the European Commission this summer, advising that cat bonds shouldn’t be included in UCITS. The market watchdog clarified that UCITS should only hold a small indirect exposure of up to 10% to these instruments.

While ESMA’s recommendation has ignited conversations around the risks of cat bonds for non-professional investors, Kian Navid, senior policy officer for investment management at ESMA, told Euronews that the advice sent to the Commission wasn’t passing a value judgement on the investments. “It is not that ESMA’s technical advice takes a position against retail investors accessing cat bonds per se. The advice is not about outlining what constitutes a good or bad investment, but it provides data and risk analyses for the European Commission’s consideration,” he explained. “However, conceptually, if you opened up UCITS to alternative assets (like cat bonds) beyond 10%, that would risk blurring the lines between UCITS and alternative investment funds (AIFs).”

A decision from the Commission is still pending, and this will involve public consultations and further market analysis in 2026. Even so, it remains to be seen whether catastrophe bonds will appeal to European tastes.

“It’s a product that is established in the US market and less so in Europe,” said Patrick Scholl, partner at Mayer Brown. “I don’t know if there are many interested investors here… But if we see more catastrophe-driven developments in the region, we might see more of these products in Europe.”

At least 10 injured as traffic and trains disrupted amid severe weather and rising floodwaters across multiple regions.

Landslides and floods triggered by heavy rains have caused more than 40 deaths in Sri Lanka, where the authorities have stopped passenger trains and closed roads in some parts of the country, officials say.

The government’s Disaster Management Centre on Thursday said 25 of the reported deaths occurred in the mountainous tea-growing regions of Badulla and Nuwara Eliya in central Sri Lanka about 300km (186 miles) east of the capital, Colombo.

Another 21 people were missing due to landslides in the same areas while 10 people were injured, the centre said.

Sri Lanka began experiencing severe weather last week, made worse by downpours over the weekend that wreaked havoc by flooding homes, fields and roads.

Reservoirs and rivers have overflowed, blocking roads. Some key roads connecting the provinces have been closed, officials said.

Authorities stopped trains in some areas in the mountainous region after rocks, mud and trees fell onto railway tracks. Local television showed workers removing the debris. In some areas, floods have inundated the tracks.

Local television showed an air force helicopter rescuing three people stranded on the roof of a house marooned by floods while navy and police used boats to transport residents.

Footage also showed a car being swept away by floodwaters near the eastern town of Ampara, about 410km (256 miles) east of Colombo, killing three passengers.

This week’s weather-related toll is the highest since June last year when 26 people were killed due to heavy rains. In December, 17 people were killed by flooding and landslides.

The worst flooding this century was in June 2003 when 254 people were killed.

Sri Lanka depends on seasonal monsoon rains for irrigation and hydroelectricity, but experts have warned that the country faces more frequent floods due to the climate crisis.

Emily Burgueno calls them “sovereign burns.”

It’s the subversive act of simply identifying a need in the landscape or the community — maybe the community garden could use some soil revitalization, or the oak trees plagued with weevil pests could use some fumigation — and tending to it with cultural fire. No need for permission.

California has made supporting Indigenous fire stewardship a priority in recent years to help address the state’s growing wildfire crisis. But burning freely across the landscape (with perhaps only a phone call to the local land manager or fire department to give them a heads up) is still a dream, a long way off.

California outlawed cultural burning practices at statehood in 1850 and in most cases, burning freely without permits and approvals is still illegal. Even recently, Burgueno, a cultural fire practitioner and citizen of the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel in San Diego County, has seen local authorities arrest an elder on arson charges for using cultural fire in tending the land.

It’s a practice far older than prescribed burning, the intentional fires typically set and managed by U.S. government fire personnel.

With the tradition comes wisdom: Through joint trainings and burns, fire officials versed in prescribed fire are often delighted by the detailed knowledge of fire’s role in an ecosystem that cultural fire practitioners can nonchalantly drop — for example, the benefits of burning after bees pollinate.

While prescription burns carried out by the Forest Service often focus on large-scale management goals, cultural burns are an elegant dance, deeply in tune with the individual species on the landscape and the relationships they have with each other and fire. Burning is one of many tools tribes have to shape the ecosystem and help it flourish through the years.

“It is grounded in our creation stories, our sacred beliefs and philosophy,” Burgueno said. “It helps us understand how to be a steward of the land, which requires us to be a steward within ourselves — to have a healthy body, mind, and spirit.”

For Don Hankins, a Miwok cultural fire practitioner and a geography and environmental studies professor at Chico State, it’s this fundamental tie to culture that makes the practice unique.

The way willows grow back after fire, for example, “they’re long; they’re slender. They’re more supple than if they were not tended to with fire,” Hankins said. “As a weaver, those are really important characteristics.”

The state now sees its prohibitions, enforced with violence, as wrong and has taken significant steps in recent years to address the barriers it created to sovereign burning. In order to freely practice, tribes need access to land, permission to set fire and the capacity to oversee the burn. But the solutions, so far, are still piecemeal. They only apply to certain land under certain conditions.

Hankins, who started practicing cultural burning with his family when he was about 4, has made a practice of pushing the state and federal government out of their comfort zones. He, too, dreams of a day when a burn is defined solely by the needs of the land and its life.

“The atmospheric river is coming in, and we know that once it dumps the rain and snow … we close out the fire season — but what if we went out ahead of that storm, and we lit fires and worked through the ecosystems regardless of ownership?” he said. “That’s the long-range goal I have. In order to get fire back in balance, first we have to take some pretty bold steps.”

More recent wildfire news

At an October town meeting in Topanga, a fire official with the Los Angeles County Fire Department told residents that, during a wildfire, the department may order them to ride out the blaze in their homes. It’s part of an ongoing debate in California about what to do when an evacuation could take hours, but a fire could reach a town in minutes.

The Los Angeles City Fire Department is requesting a 15% increase in its budget to support wildfire response, my colleague Noah Goldberg reports. The request includes funding for 179 new firefighter recruits and a second hand crew specializing in wildfire response. LAFD’s union is also proposing a ballot measure for a half-cent sales tax to raise funds for new fire stations and equipment.

The U.S. Forest Service completed prescribed burns on more than 127,000 acres during the government shutdown, the Hotshot Wake Up reports, despite fears the disruption would severely limit the Forest Service’s ability to burn during optimal fall weather conditions.

A few last things in climate news

A proposed pipeline could end California’s status as a “fuel island,” connecting the golden state’s isolated gasoline and diesel markets with the rest of the country, my colleague Hayley Smith reports. The state is grappling how to balance consumer affordability with the transition to clean energy, with the upcoming closure of two major refineries.

The Department of Energy is breaking up or rebranding several key offices that support the development of clean energy technologies, Alexander C. Kaufman reports for Heatmap News. It’s unclear how the restructuring will impact the Department’s work.

During the COP30 climate conference in Brazil — which produced a last-minute incremental deal that did not directly mention fossil fuels — the South American nation recognized 10 new Indigenous territories, the BBC’s Mallory Moench and Georgina Rannard report. The hundreds of thousands of acres they span will now have their culture and environment legally protected. Although, the protections are not always enforced.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency says strict air quality standards were introduced without sufficient review.

United States President Donald Trump’s administration has moved to roll back tougher limits on deadly soot pollution, prompting condemnation from environmental groups.

The Trump administration’s latest bid to weaken environmental standards comes after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a court motion arguing that former President Joe Biden’s administration exceeded its authority when it tightened air quality standards in 2024.

In a motion filed on Monday, lawyers for Trump’s EPA asked a Washington, DC, appeals court to throw out the tougher standard, arguing it was introduced without the “rigorous, stepwise process” required under the 1963 Clean Air Act.

The EPA initially defended the tougher standard amid a flurry of legal challenges from Republican-led states and business groups, which argued the rule would raise costs, before reversing course under Trump appointee Lee Zeldin.

“EPA has concluded that the position it advanced earlier is erroneous,” lawyers for the EPA said in the filing, arguing that the agency should complete a “thorough review of the underlying criteria and corresponding standards” before revising the limit.

Under Biden appointee Michael S Regan, the EPA last year substantially lowered acceptable soot levels, from 12 micrograms per cubic metre of air to 9 micrograms per cubic metre of air.

The agency said at the time that the tougher standard would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032.

Upon taking office earlier this year, Zeldin, a former Republican lawmaker, pledged to roll back dozens of environmental regulations as part of what he dubbed the “largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States”.

Patrice Simms, an environmental lawyer at the nonprofit organisation Earthjustice, said lowering air quality standards would harm public health.

“Trump has made it clear that his agenda is all about saving corporations money, and this administration’s EPA has nothing to do with protecting people’s health, saving lives, or serving children, families or communities,” Simms said in a statement.

“We will continue to defend this life-saving standard.”

Patrick Drupp, the director of climate policy at the Sierra Club, also condemned the EPA’s move, calling it “reckless” and “a complete betrayal” of the agency’s mission.

“While this administration continues to strip away access to affordable healthcare, they are simultaneously allowing fossil fuel companies to cut corners and make Americans sicker,” Drupp said.

Before I moved to L.A., I’d spent pretty much my entire professional life working for New York-based publications. One of the primary reasons I decided to take this job and transfer my life to the West Coast was because it seemed to me that California was at both the spear point of climate risk and the cutting edge of climate adaptation.

I didn’t expect the peril of climate change to rear its heads as quickly, and as close to my new home, as it did when the January fires became one of the biggest stories in the nation just a month after I started at The Times. I was less surprised to see how widespread a sophisticated understanding of climate issues was at the publication — an expertise borne out by the exemplary coverage of the fires and their aftermath.

The same, I think, can be said for most of the people I know or have recently met who live in L.A.: There is very little sanguinity about what’s happening here, climate-wise, among Angelenos, regardless of where they work or come from.

So maybe I should have expected that an exhibit of recent work by L.A. artists would be similarly, logically, oriented toward these same (largely home-grown) anxieties around our place in a world increasingly shaped by the developing climate crisis.

Nevertheless, it struck me how many of the artists centered the interface between the built and “natural” environments at the Hammer Museum’s biennial “Made in L.A.” exhibition when I visited last weekend.

Many of the artists seemed to be grappling with how we situate ourselves in a climate-changed world.

From Alake Shilling’s uncanny cartoon bears driving buggies and mowing down weeping, humanoid sunflowers to Kelly Wall’s installation of glass swatches painted the color of toxic L.A. sunsets displayed, for tourist consumption, on an erstwhile pharmacy rack, the exhibition communicates Los Angeles as a place of largely unresolved conflict between human beings and whatever we define as “nature.”

Part of Kelly Wall’s installation, “Something to Write Home About.”

(Elijah Wolfson / Los Angeles Times)

I thought that as a climate journalist, I might just be primed to see such things, but Essence Harden, who co-curated the biennial, noted that “concerns around the environment are historical, they’re rooted. They’re not ahistorical. They don’t come from nothing or nowhere. I think art produced in Los Angeles has a relationship to the site specificity and the dynamic of architecture and history which grounds it.”

Harden said that she and her co-curator, Paulina Pobocha, didn’t seek out artists grappling with climate specifically for the seventh edition of Made in L.A. But after scouring dozens of local galleries, they found that climate and environmental anxieties permeated the scene.

Much of this Anthropocene-angst is “rooted in a sort of longer history of capital,” Harden said. Indeed, as a relative outsider, I have always sort of felt that L.A. wears its supposed climate excellence a little too loudly on its sleeves — or maybe, on its postcards and souvenir T-shirts. The iconic palm trees, for example, are transplants, forced to live in neighborhoods that don’t want them.

“The idyllic palm trees sight line of Los Angeles comes from these neighborhoods that were historically Black and Japanese and Latinx,” Harden said. “They are rooted in these places that people who are buying the product of Los Angeles don’t want to go.”

There are no palm trees in the Hammer biennial. At least, none that I remember. What there are instead are painted cinder blocks and hunks of glass, graffiti and rutted acrylic paint, twisted tubes of neon and roughly formed clay.

Anthropocene Landscape 3 by Carl Cheng

(Hammer Museum)

It was refreshing to see a show that grappled with the environment but was not didactic. Describing her curatorial process, Harden said she is mostly attracted to “people who are more ethereal and capture dreams and sensation.” If they also happen to be engaging with climate change, all the better.

More recent news and ideas on climate and culture

Writing for The Guardian, Beth Mead — a star forward on England‘s national soccer team for nearly a decade, with the all-time most assists in the history of the Women’s Super League — shared how climate change has changed the game she loves over the last decade. For professionals on her level, yes, but more importantly, for the many kids around the world who are now less likely to be able to regularly play what she calls “the world’s most accessible sport” thanks to extreme heat, droughts and flooding.

A “milk apocalypse” is coming for your burrata, reports Motoko Rich for the New York Times. Cheesemakers and dairy farmers in Italy, which produces and exports some of the most popular cheeses in the world, report a declining supply of milk, thanks to rising temperatures.

And if you wanted to pair your favorite Oregon pinot with that cheese … well, better do it now. The Willamette Valley has long had a nearly perfect climate for growing pinot noir — to the point where “Oregon wine” is often shorthand for the varietal. But as Branden Andersen reports for the local outlet Newsberg, thanks to changes in temperature and humidity, the region may need to rethink what’s been practically a vineyard monoculture.

In Belém, Brazil, COP30 is coming to a close. I’ve always been drawn to the art and performance at past COPs, and was glad to see some examples from this year’s climate conference. But what was even more interesting to me was Spanish artist Josep Piñol’s performance piece, in which he was commissioned to produce a large-scale sculpture in Belém and then canceled, saving what he said would have been the emissions equivalent of 57,765 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

The past week in broader climate news

Melody Gutierrez has been in Belém reporting on COP30 for The Times, and this week, she wrote about an image that has come to represent the socio-economics of this year’s events: two gigantic diesel-powered cruise ships, used as temporary housing for the global elite that comprise much of the COP delegations, docked at the mouth of the Amazon River, whose rainforests and people have felt much of the brunt of fossil fuel-driven climate change.

Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board is expected to vote today on new measures to address methane leaks and underground fires at landfills which — unsurprisingly — are more likely to impact poorer Californians. As my colleague Tony Briscoe reports, landfills are a climate change and environmental health menace, and updates to the rules governing California’s are long overdue.

Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court put a hold on a California law set to go into effect in January that would require any company that makes more than $500 million annually and does business in the state to report, every two years, the financial impact of climate change.

Finally, there was a lot of talk this week about how the build-out of data centers is driving up energy costs across the U.S. I found this Pew Research article to be a useful one-sheet to get a feel for what we know to be real when it comes to AI’s impact on the energy sector, what is hyperbole and what we still don’t fully understand.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

The annual United Nations climate conference has ended with an agreement that urges action to address global warming, but falls short of endorsing a phase-out of fossil fuels.

After two weeks of heated debates, meetings and negotiations at the COP30 summit in the Brazilian city of Belem, world leaders on Saturday agreed to a deal that calls for countries to “significantly accelerate and scale up climate action worldwide”.

The text lays out a series of promises and measures – including a call for developed countries to triple their funding to help poorer nations respond to the crisis – but makes no mention of a fossil fuel phase-out.

Dozens of states had been calling forthe COP30 deal to lay out a framework to ease away from their reliance on oil, gas and coal – the major drivers of the climate crisis – but several countries that rely on fossil fuels had pushed back.

While observers say the deal marks a step forward in the world’s effort to address climate breakdown, several have argued that COP30 fell short of expectations.

Here’s a look at how some world leaders and climate advocates have reacted to the agreement.

COP30 President Andre Aranha Correa do Lago

“We know some of you had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand. I know that you, civil society, will demand us to do more to fight climate change. I want to reaffirm that I will try not to disappoint you during my presidency,” he said during Saturday’s closing session.

“As [Brazilian] President [Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] said at the opening of this COP, we need roadmaps so that humanity – in a just and planned manner – can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation and mobilise resources for these purposes,” he said.

“I, as president of COP30, will therefore create two roadmaps: One on halting and reverting [reversing] deforestation and another to transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

“COP30 has delivered progress,” Guterres said in a statement, including the call to triple climate adaptation financing and recognition that the world is going to surpass the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) target for global warming set under the Paris Agreement.

“But COPs are consensus-based – and in a period of geopolitical divides, consensus is ever harder to reach. I cannot pretend that COP30 has delivered everything that is needed. The gap between where we are and what science demands remains dangerously wide,” the UN chief said.

“I understand many may feel dissapointed [sic] – especially young people, Indigenous Peoples and those living through climate chaos. The reality of overshoot is a stark warning: We are approaching dangerous and irreversible tipping points,” he added.

Wopke Hoekstra, European Union climate commissioner

“We’re not going to hide the fact that we would have preferred to have more, to have more ambition on everything,” Hoekstra told reporters.

“It is not perfect, but it is a hugely important step in the right direction.”

Colombian President Gustavo Petro

“I do not accept that the COP30 declaration does not clearly state, as science does, that the cause of the climate crisis is the fossil fuels used by capital. If that is not stated, everything else is hypocrisy,” Petro wrote on social media.

“Life on the planet, including our own, is only possible if we separate ourselves from oil, coal, and natural gas as energy sources; science has determined this, and I am not blind to science.

“Colombia opposes a COP30 declaration that does not tell the world the scientific truth.”

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla

“While the results fell short of expectations, the Belem COP strengthens and demonstrates the importance of multilateralism in addressing major global challenges such as combating #climatechange,” he wrote on X.

“Among its key outcomes are the call for developed countries to provide climate finance for adaptation in developing countries, at least tripling current levels by 2035; the establishment of a mechanism to support our countries in just transitions; and the commitment from developed countries to fulfill their obligations under the Paris Agreement.”

China

“I’m happy with the outcome,” Li Gao, head of China’s delegation at COP30, told the AFP news agency.

“We achieved this success in a very difficult situation, so it shows that the international community would like to show solidarity and make joint efforts to address climate change.”

Alliance of Small Island States

A group representing the interests of 39 small island and low-lying coastal states described the deal as “imperfect” but said it nevertheless was a step towards “progress”.

“Ultimately, this is the push and pull of multilateralism. The opportunity for all countries to be heard and to listen to each other’s perspectives, to collaborate, build bridges, and reach common ground,” the Alliance of Small Island States said in a statement.

Amnesty International

Ann Harrison, climate justice adviser at Amnesty International, noted that COP30 host Brazil had promised to make sure “every voice is heard and made strenuous efforts to broaden participation, which should be replicated”.

“Yet the lack of participatory, inclusive, and transparent negotiations left both civil society and Indigenous Peoples, who answered the global mutirao [working together] call in large numbers, out of the real decision making,” Harrison said in a statement.

Still, she said “people power” had helped achieve “a commitment to develop a Just Transition mechanism that will streamline and coordinate ongoing and future efforts to protect the rights of workers, other individuals and communities affected by fossil fuel phase out”.

Oxfam

Viviana Santiago, executive director of Oxfam Brasil, said COP30 “offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a liveable planet”.

“A truly just transition requires those who built their fortunes on fossil fuels to move first and fastest – and provide finance in the form of grants, not loans, so front-line communities can do the same. Instead, the poorest countries already in debt are being told to transition faster, with fewer funds,” Santiago said.

“The spark of hope lies in the proposed Belem Action Mechanism, which puts workers’ rights and justice at the centre of the shift away from fossil fuels. But without financing from rich countries, the just energy transition risks becoming stalled in many countries.”

Pakistan’s infrastructure narrative over the past few years has been painfully instructive. Investments meant to connect markets and power industry have sometimes deepened vulnerability because climate risk and ecological limits were treated as afterthoughts. The scale of recent shocks is no longer anecdote. The catastrophic 2022 floods affected roughly 33 million people and left millions homeless, and the country is again reeling from extraordinary monsoon events in 2025 that, by mid-September, had displaced millions, damaged vast tracts of farmland (2.5 million acres in Punjab alone) and killed hundreds, with some reports putting the affected population in the millions and death tolls approaching the high hundreds. These are not distant statistics but the reality behind submerged villages, broken irrigation, and shattered livelihoods across Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh.

These floods are compounded by mountain hazards: glacial-lake outburst floods (GLOFs) this summer in Gilgit-Baltistan destroyed scores of homes in several villages and briefly formed large, newly emergent lakes that severed roads and tourism circuits in fragile mountain economies. The visible loss of homes, guesthouses and the thin economic base of high-altitude communities illustrates how poorly planned transport and tourism infrastructure can multiply the harm of climate-driven glacier changes.

The thermal extremes of 2025 added a second front. Heatwaves pushed many urban centres and rural plains into temperature ranges far above seasonal norms, April 2025 was the second-hottest April in 65 years, with national mean temperature about 3.37°C above historical standard, daytime highs exceeding norms by 4.66°C, and Shaheed Benazirabad reaching 49°C. Heat stress has direct impacts on labour productivity, public health and the viability of energy systems, spiking demand at exactly the moment supply is least secure. The return of La Niña this winter poses another test of Pakistan’s resilience, as shifting temperature and rainfall patterns will once again reveal how exposed communities, ecosystems, and infrastructure remain to a changing climate. In short, Pakistan is experiencing compound hazards, heat stress, glacial instability, and unusually intense rainfall that together convert ordinary infrastructure failures into humanitarian catastrophes.

Why do these predictable collisions between people, nature and climate still happen? Why are the same infrastructure fail-points recurring? What good is growth if it washes away each year? Why villages again suffer loss, why roads wash away, why power systems falter and why communities bear the worst harm? The patterns are familiar: inadequate spatial planning that ignores biodiversity and hydrology, weak enforcement of EIAs and social safeguards, faulty compensation and resettlement processes that leave families poorer and more exposed, and infrastructure designed to historical standards rather than future climates.

Since most of the infrastructure is still built with the old climate baseline in mind, monsoon design storms, flood embankments, drainage systems calibrated for decades-old rainfall intensities. As rainfall intensifies, drainage and bridges collapse; hydraulic structures (culverts, flood bypasses) are undersized. Embankments along rivers like the Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej are overtopped or breached because they were not upgraded to accommodate altered flow regimes, upstream glacial melt, or enhanced rainfall due to La Niña cycles. Recent floods showed how urban drainage systems and river embankments, often built or altered without integrated watershed assessments, were overwhelmed. Releases from upstream reservoirs and poorly coordinated transboundary water management also amplified downstream impacts. Building dams and roads without resilience is no longer progress; it is policy myopia. Where accountability is thin and safeguards are procedural rather than substantive, projects proceed on convenience rather than resilience, and the poorest pay the price.

There is, however, a pragmatic path forward if we align tools, policy and practice. Practical screening tools, the Climate Risk Screening Tool (CRST) to assess exposure and vulnerability across sectors and regions, the Pakistan Climate Information Portal (PCIP) for localized climate projections and hazard mapping, and the Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR) to track and align financial flows with climate priorities, must be institutionalized into corridor-level planning and project appraisal so that environmental risk is not an advisory footnote but a gating criterion. Infrastructure corridors must be routed to avoid ecological risk zones, embankments upgraded, drainage scaled for extreme rainfall. Finance and contracts must include enforceable safeguards and compensation for those displaced or harmed. Integrating these tools within Pakistan’s emerging climate governance framework, guided by URAAN’s Environment & Climate Change pillar, will ensure assessments translate into actionable, accountable, and climate-aligned planning.

China’s role in Pakistan’s infrastructure landscape is already shifting the technical terms of that conversation. Recent investments and technology transfers have supplied cheap solar modules, wind equipment and battery storage that are rapidly changing Pakistan’s energy mix. Solar already supplied a substantial share, 25% of Pakistan’s utility-supplied electricity, of grid electricity in early 2025. Some road and hydropower projects are now being planned with higher flood levels in mind, more robust drainage, and designs that anticipate glacial-lake outburst risks. Chinese firms are also financing and building large transmission and storage projects that, if governed with green conditionality, can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve energy resilience. The leverage here is policy: using preferential finance and partnership to insist on climate-proof designs, environmental management plans, local content for green jobs, and decommissioning/redesign clauses that prevent stranded assets under accelerating climate change. Evidence of large Chinese-backed renewables, storage pilots and green energy deals suggests opportunity, but success will depend on domestic governance and procurement rules that prioritize sustainability over short-term cost savings.

Social and regulatory failures compound the damage. If Pakistan is to move from reactive disaster response to proactive resilience, we must redesign how infrastructure is conceived: SEAs and EIAs must be strategic and enforceable, not pro forma; decision-making criteria should explicitly value ecosystem services, social equity and future climate scenarios; and corridor planning should integrate nature-based solutions, wetland restoration for flood attenuation, reforestation for slope stability, and mangrove expansions to protect coasts, alongside hard infrastructure. Equally important is finance architecture that links green bonds, concessional Chinese and multilateral finance, and private investment to verifiable environmental and social performance. These are practical reforms, not theoretical ideals: they change engineering specifications, procurement clauses and contract supervision in ways that reduce risk and cost over the asset’s life.

Division marked the COP30 climate summit in Brazil as countries struggled to reach a consensus on several sticking points, including a push to phase out fossil fuels.

As the world seeks to address the climate crisis, experts say scientists, politicians, media and business all have a role to play in keeping the public engaged.

But are they succeeding?

Presenter: Neave Barker

Guests:

Professor John Sweeney – Contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Nobel Peace Prize-winning assessment report

Professor Allam Ahmed – Leading scholar in sustainable development and the knowledge economy

Michael Shank – Climate communication expert and former director of media strategy at Climate Nexus

Leaders welcome deal reached at UN climate summit as step forward but say ‘more ambition’ needed to tackle the crisis.

World leaders have put forward a draft text at the United Nations climate conference in Brazil that seeks to address the crisis, but the agreement does not include any mention of phasing out the fossil fuels driving climate change.

The text was published on Saturday after negotiations stretched through the night, well beyond the expected close of the two-week COP30 summit in the Brazilian city of Belem, amid deep divisions over the fossil fuel phase-out.

The draft, which must be approved by consensus by nearly 200 nations, pledges to review climate-related trade barriers and calls on developed nations to “at least triple” the money given to developing countries to help them withstand extreme weather events.

It also urges “all actors to work together to significantly accelerate and scale up climate action worldwide” with the aim of keeping the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) mark for global warming – an internationally agreed-upon target set under the Paris Agreement – “within reach”.

Wopke Hoekstra, the European Union’s climate commissioner, said the outcome was a step in the right direction, but the bloc would have liked more.

“We’re not going to hide the fact that we would have preferred to have more, to have more ambition on everything,” Hoekstra told reporters. “We should support it because at least it is going in the right direction,” he said.

France’s ecological transition minister, Monique Barbut, also said it was a “rather flat text” but Europeans would not oppose it because “there is nothing extraordinarily bad in it”.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla also said in a social media post that while the outcome “fell short of expectations”, COP30 demonstrated the importance of multilateralism to tackle global challenges such as climate change.

‘Needed a giant leap’

Countries had been divided on a number of issues in Belem, including a push to phase out fossil fuels – the largest drivers of the climate crisis – that drew opposition from oil-producing countries and nations that depend on oil, gas and coal.

Questions of climate finance also sparked heated debates, with developing nations demanding that richer countries bear a greater share of the financial burden.

But COP30 host Brazil had pushed for a show of unity, as the annual conference is largely viewed as a test of the world’s resolve to address a deepening crisis.

“We need to show society that we want this without imposing anything on anyone, without setting deadlines for each country to decide what it can do within its own time, within its own possibilities,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said earlier this week.

Earlier on Saturday, COP30 President Andre Aranha Correa do Lago said the presidency would publish “roadmaps” on fossil fuels and forests as there had been no consensus on those issues at the talks.

Speaking to Al Jazeera before the draft text was released, Asad Rehman, chief executive director of Friends of the Earth, said richer countries “had to be dragged – really kicking and screaming – to the table” at COP30.

“They have tried to bully developing countries and have weakened the text … But I would say that, overall, from what we’re hearing, we will have taken a step forward,” Rehman said in an interview from Belem.

“This will be welcomed by the millions of people for whom these talks are a matter of life and death. However, in the scale of the crisis that we face, we of course needed a giant leap forward.”

COP30 negotiations drag on in Brazil amid divisions over draft proposal that does not include fossil fuel phase-out.

United Nations climate talks in Brazil have gone past their scheduled deadline as countries remain deeply divided over a proposed deal that contains no reference to phasing out fossil fuels.

Negotiators remained in closed-door meetings on Friday evening at the COP30 summit in the Brazilian city of Belem as they sought to bridge differences and deliver an agreement that includes concrete action to stem the climate crisis.

A draft proposal made public earlier in the day has drawn concern from climate activists and other experts because it did not contain any mention of fossil fuels – the main driver of climate change.

“This cannot be an agenda that divides us,” COP30 President Andre Correa do Lago told delegates in a public plenary session before releasing them for further negotiations. “We must reach an agreement between us.”

The rift over the future of oil, gas and coal has underscored the difficulties of landing a consensus agreement at the annual UN conference, which serves as a test of global resolve to avert the worst impacts of global warming.

“Many countries, especially oil-producing countries or countries that depend on fossil fuels … have stated that they do not want this mentioned in a final agreement,” Al Jazeera’s Monica Yanakiew reported from Rio de Janeiro on Friday afternoon.

Meanwhile, dozens of other countries have said they would not support any agreement that did not lay out a roadmap to phasing out fossil fuels, Yanakiew noted.

“So this is a big divisive point,” she said, adding that another major issue at the climate conference has been financing the transition away from fossil fuels.

Developing countries – many of which are more susceptible to the effects of climate change, including more extreme weather events – have said they want richer nations to shoulder more of the financial burden of tackling the crisis.

“So there is a lot being discussed … and negotiators say that this might likely continue throughout the weekend,” Yanakiew said.

The deadlock comes as the UN Environment Programme warned ahead of COP30 that the world would “very likely” exceed the 1.5-degree Celsius (2.7-degree Fahrenheit) warming limit – an internationally agreed-upon target set under the Paris Agreement – within the next decade.

Amnesty International also said in a recent report that the expansion of fossil fuel projects threatens at least two billion people – about one-quarter of the world’s population.

In a statement on Friday, Nafkote Dabi, the climate policy lead at Oxfam International, said it was “unacceptable” for any final agreement to exclude a plan to phase out fossil fuels.

“A roadmap is essential, and it must be just, equitable, and backed by real support for the Global South,” Dabi said.

“Developed countries who grew wealthy on their fossil fuel-based economies must phase out first and fastest, while financing low‑carbon pathways for the Global South.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems, as Trump seeks to expand US oil production.

The White House announced the news on Thursday.

The oil industry has been seeking access to new offshore areas, including Southern California and off the coast of Florida, as a way to boost US energy security and jobs.

What’s in the plan?

The administration’s plan proposes six offshore lease sales through 2030 in areas along the California coast.

It also calls for new drilling off the coast of Florida in areas at least 160km (100 miles) from that state’s shore. The area targeted for leasing is adjacent to an area in the Central Gulf of Mexico that already contains thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms.

The five-year plan also would compel more than 20 lease sales off the coast of Alaska, including a newly designated area known as the High Arctic, more than 320km (200 miles) offshore in the Arctic Ocean.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in announcing the sales that it would take years for the oil from those parcels to get to market.

“By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come,” Burgum said in a statement.

The American Petroleum Institute said in response that the announced plan was a “historic step” towards unleashing vast offshore resources. Industry groups have pointed to California’s history as an oil-producing state and say it already has infrastructure to support more production.

Political pushback

Leaders in both California and Florida have pushed back on the deal.

Last week, Florida Republican Senator Ashley Moody and Rick Scott co-sponsored a bill to maintain a moratorium on offshore drilling in the state that Trump signed in his first term.

“As Floridians, we know how vital our beautiful beaches and coastal waters are to our state’s economy, environment and way of life,” Scott said in a statement. “I will always work to keep Florida’s shores pristine and protect our natural treasures for generations to come.”

A spokesman for California Governor Gavin Newsom said Trump officials had not formally shared the plan, but said “expensive and riskier offshore drilling would put our communities at risk and undermine the economic stability of our coastal economies”.

California has been a leader in restricting offshore oil drilling since the infamous 1969 Santa Barbara spill that helped launch the modern environmental movement. While there have been no new federal leases offered since the mid-1980s, drilling from existing platforms continues.

Newsom expressed support for greater offshore controls after a 2021 spill off Huntington Beach and has backed a congressional effort to ban new offshore drilling on the West Coast.

A Texas-based company, with support from the Trump administration, is seeking to restart production in waters off Santa Barbara damaged by a 2015 oil spill. The administration has hailed the plan by Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp as the kind of project Trump wants to increase US energy production as the federal government removes regulatory barriers.

The announcement comes as Governor Newsom attended the COP30 climate conference in Brazil.

“He [Trump] intentionally aligned that to the opening of COP,” Newsom said.

Even before it was released, the offshore drilling plan met strong opposition from Newsom, a Democrat who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run and has emerged as a leading Trump critic.

Newsom pronounced the idea “dead on arrival” in a social media post. The proposal is also likely to draw bipartisan opposition in Florida. Tourism and access to clean beaches are key parts of the economy in both states.

Democratic lawmakers, including California Senator Alex Padilla and Representative Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, warned that opening vast coastlines to new offshore drilling would hurt coastal economies, jeopardise national security, ravage coastal ecosystems, and put the health and safety of millions of people at risk.

“With this draft plan, Donald Trump and his Administration are trying to destroy one of the most valuable, most protected coastlines in the world and hand it over to the fossil fuel industry,” Padilla and Huffman said in a joint statement.

The federal government has not allowed drilling in federal waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Florida and part of offshore Alabama, since 1995, because of concerns about oil spills. California has some offshore oil rigs, but there has been no new leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s.

Since taking office for a second time in January, Trump has systematically reversed former President Joe Biden’s focus on slowing climate change to pursue what the Republican calls US “energy dominance” in the global market.

Trump, who recently called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” created a National Energy Dominance Council and directed it to move quickly to drive up already record-high US energy production, particularly fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

Meanwhile, Trump’s administration has blocked renewable energy sources such as offshore wind and cancelled billions of dollars in grants that supported hundreds of clean energy projects across the country.

Officials at the climate conference say the fire was contained within six minutes, and 13 attendees were treated for smoke inhalation.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Attendees have been forced to evacuate the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP30, after a fire broke out at the venue in Belem, Brazil.

There were no injuries in Thursday’s blaze, according to Brazil’s Tourism Minister Celso Sabino. In a news conference afterwards, he downplayed the seriousness of the fire.

“There was a small fire here, which is possible at any large event,” he told journalists. “This small fire could happen anywhere on planet Earth.”

Organisers reported that the evacuation was “fast” and the fire was controlled within six minutes, leaving only minor damage.

Thirteen people were treated for smoke inhalation, according to a joint statement from the UN and COP30 leaders.

The affected area, known as the Blue Zone, is expected to remain closed until 8pm local time (23:00 GMT).

The cause of the fire remains unclear. But Helder Barbalho — the governor of the state of Para, where the summit is taking place — told the Brazilian channel GloboNews that authorities believe a generator failure or short circuit might have sparked the incident.

On social media, Barbalho assured the public that other parts of the COP30 conference zone continued to be in operation.

“We will find out what caused it, whether we can restart work here in the Blue Zone today or not,” he wrote. “The Green Zone is operating normally.”

Reports emerged about 2pm local time (17:00 GMT) of flames in the Blue Zone pavilion, a restricted area for negotiators and accredited media.

Videos on social media showed scenes of panic and security officials ordering attendees to exit the venue.

caralho, fogo na zona azul aqui da COP 30. uma loucura de gente correndo. meu deus! pic.twitter.com/ebXubnHwiR

— ralfer (@ralferr) November 20, 2025

Al Jazeera spoke to Fernando Ralfer Oliveira, an independent journalist who was in the Blue Zone when the fire broke out and shared footage of the flames.

“I was in the big corridor that leads to the meeting rooms when a commotion of people started running. I had my phone in my hand and immediately started recording,” said Ralfer.

“When I got close to the pavilion, someone ran past me shouting, ‘Fire, fire, fire!’ So I ran a little and managed to record that bit of the fire. But at that moment, security was already coming towards us in force, saying ‘Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate.’”

Ralfer and other evacuees were then directed to the COP30’s food court area, located outside the pavilion.

Roughly an hour after the fire broke out, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organises the conference, sent an email to attendees saying that the local fire service would conduct “full safety checks” at the venue.

They then announced the Blue Zone’s continued closure: “Please note that the premises are now under the authority of the Host Country and are no longer considered a Blue Zone.”

The Blue Zone fire happened a week after Brazil responded to the UN’s concerns around safety at COP30.

On November 13, Simon Stiell, the executive secretary with the UNFCCC, sent a letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his government, raising issues ranging from faulty doors to water leaks near light fixtures.

That same day, the Brazilian government published a statement saying that “all UN requests have been met”, including the repositioning and expansion of police forces between the Blue and Green Zones.

Forecasters warn more flooding, landslides expected as tens of thousands of people are evacuated from their homes.

Authorities in Vietnam say at least 41 people have been killed in a barrage of torrential rain, flooding and landslides, as rescue crews worked to save stranded people from the rooftops of submerged homes.

Rainfall exceeded 150cm (60 inches) over the past three days in several parts of central Vietnam, a region home to a key coffee production belt and the country’s most popular beaches.

At least 41 people have been killed across six provinces since Sunday, while the search was continuing for nine others, the environment ministry said on Thursday.

More than 52,000 houses were flooded, and nearly 62,000 people were evacuated from their homes, while several major roads remained blocked due to landslides, and one million customers were left without electricity.

A suspension bridge on the Da Nhim River in Lam Dong province was swept away on Thursday morning, the VietnamNet newspaper reported.

Photos taken by the AFP news agency also showed hundreds of cars underwater as flooding inundated entire city blocks in Nha Trang, a popular tourist spot on the coast.

Local business owner Bui Quoc Vinh said his ground-floor restaurants and shops were under about a metre (3.2 feet) of water in the city.

“I am worried about our furniture in my restaurants and shops, but of course I cannot do anything now,” he told AFP.

“I don’t think the water is going to recede soon, as the rain has not stopped.”

The national weather forecast agency has warned of more flooding and landslides on Friday, with heavy rain set to continue in the region.

Deputy Prime Minister Ho Quoc Dung told the leaders of three flood-affected provinces – Khanh Hoa, Dak Lak and Gia Lai – to mobilise the army, police and other security forces to “promptly relocate and evacuate people” to safe areas, according to a government statement.

Meanwhile, state media reported that rescuers using boats in Gia Lai and Dak Lak pried open windows and broke through roofs to assist residents stranded by high water on Wednesday.

Photographs shared in state media reports showed residents, including children, sitting on the roofs of flooded houses and calling for help via social media platforms.

“Any group out there please help! We’ve been sitting on the roof since 10pm last night, including kids and adults,” a resident of Khanh Hoa province posted on a local Facebook page.

Natural disasters have left 279 people dead or missing in Vietnam and caused more than $2bn in damage between January and October, according to the national statistics office.

The Southeast Asian nation is prone to heavy rain between June and September, but experts say the climate crisis has made extreme weather events more frequent and destructive.

Militaries are major global polluters, yet they remain exempt from climate reporting, creating a blind spot that threatens the entire COP30 roadmap.

As COP30 negotiations in Belem enter their final stretch, there is hope that countries might finally agree on a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels — a breakthrough that is crucial if we are serious about keeping 1.5C alive. Yet even at this pivotal moment, one major highway is still missing from that roadmap that could undermine the progress made in Brazil: the carbon emissions of the military.

Under the Paris Agreement, governments are not required to report their militaries’ emissions, and most simply don’t. Recent analysis by the Military Emissions Gap project shows that what little data exists is patchy, inconsistent or missing entirely. This “military emissions gap” is the gulf between what governments disclose and the true scale of military pollution. The result is stark: militaries remain largely invisible in the Belem negotiations, creating a dangerous blind spot in global climate action.

The size of that blind spot is staggering. Militaries account for an estimated 5.5 percent of global emissions. This share is set to rise further as defence spending surges while the rest of society decarbonises. If militaries were a country, they would be the fifth-largest emitter on Earth, ahead of Russia with 5 percent. Yet only five countries follow the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) voluntary reporting guidelines for military emissions, and those cover fuel use alone. The reality is far broader: munitions production and disposal, waste management and fugitive emissions from refrigeration, air-conditioning, radar and electrical equipment are left out. And operations in international waters and airspace are not reported at all, leaving massive gaps in both climate accountability and action.

The military emissions gap widens further still when we consider the climate impact of armed conflicts. As if the horror and human suffering from fighting wars were not enough, wars also destroy ecosystems, leave a toxic legacy on lands for decades to follow, and result in significant CO2 emissions, including from the rebuilding following the destruction of buildings and infrastructure. But without any internationally agreed framework to measure conflict emissions, these additional emissions risk going unreported, meaning that we don’t know how much wars are setting back climate action.

But despite this, momentum for accountability is finally building. Nearly 100 organisations have signed the War on Climate initiative’s pledges ahead of COP30, and protesters and civil society groups in Belem are demanding the UNFCCC confront this long-ignored source of pollution. Policymakers are starting to shift, too. The European Union has taken steps towards more transparent reporting and decarbonisation in the defence sector, though this progress is now threatened by rapid rearmament. Combined with NATO’s new target for members to spend 5 percent of gross domestic product on militaries, these pledges could produce up to 200 million tonnes of CO2 and trigger as much as $298bn in climate damages annually, putting Europe’s own climate goals at risk.

International law reinforces the urgency and demand for accountability. The International Court of Justice’s recent landmark advisory opinion reminded states that they are obliged under climate treaties to assess, report and mitigate harms, including those caused by armed conflict and military activity. Ignoring these emissions doesn’t just undercount global warming; it masks the scale of the crisis and weakens the world’s ability to tackle its root causes.

The gap between current emission-reduction plans and what is needed to stay below the 1.5C limit remains catastrophic. If COP30 negotiators agree on a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels, what happens next will determine whether it delivers real progress or remains symbolic. No sector can be exempt from climate action, and military emissions cannot continue to remain hidden.

Mandatory reporting of all military emissions to the UNFCCC – from combat and training activities to the long-lasting climate damage inflicted on communities – is essential.  That data must form the baseline for urgent, science-aligned reductions, embedded in national climate plans, and consistent with the 1.5C limit.

Security cannot come at the cost of the climate. Tackling climate change is now essential to our collective safety and the survival of our planet.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.