A volcano in Hawaii sent lava spewing towards a remote camera recording the eruption, engulfing it in ash and knocking it offline. Footage from the US Geological Survey (USGS) shows the camera glitching and stalling before its feed drops out in the wake of the eruption. Lava fountains up to 30m (100ft) high were seen from Kilauea in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on Saturday, the USGS said. Kilauea, one of the world's most active volcanoes, has been erupting intermittently since December last year

By Alan Moran The key issue for economic policy remains the ‘transition’ away from dependable energy sources (coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro) towards low-density, unreliable wind and solar backed up by batteries and a cobweb of new transmission lines. As 2025 comes to an end, we are seeing a diverse picture regarding the politics of energy. Globally, the 30th Conference of the Parties in Brazil was attended by a diminishing handful of world leaders. The World Resources Institute (funded by governments and the usual array of philanthropy projects and Woke endowments) rolled out the canards – perilous temperature rise and climate disasters – and concluded: ‘A key question was how countries would address lagging ambition in their new climate commitments. Hopes … to end fossil fuel use … were ultimately dashed after opposition from petrostates. ’ Australia lost out to Turkey as the venue for the 2026 COP31. This was a bonus, saving the taxpayer at least $1 billion while forestalling some of the gushing verbal hyperbole from the Greens, subsidy seekers, and politicians looking to leverage climate panic. In matters of substance, the ebbing tide of global climate alarmism, with its corollary of economic ruin, has barely reached Australia. Although the different mechanisms to subsidise renewable energy change, the aggregate costs have remained fairly constant at $16 billion a year. … While the COP30 outcome is indicative of a global move away from climate alarmism and therefore low-productivity energy policies, in Australia, ALP politicians in office are showing an even greater enthusiasm for these policies. With regard to the Coalition, the leadership’s lemming charge over the cliff of Net Zero emissions is continuing, though being moderated by the remarkable surge in support for One Nation. Although most city-based Coalition politicians remain supportive of Net Zero others, and especially those representing rural and semi-rural are having second thoughts. This reflects worries about higher prices and lower reliability caused by the ‘transition’ to renewables and concerns among rural constituencies regarding wind and solar farms’ visual intrusions and impairment of farmland. But Coalition policy remains unchanged under the new Victorian and NSW leaders, Jess Wilson and Kellie Sloane. The bureaucracy also remains firmly supportive. That said, the agency most at risk of being blamed for a future supply crisis, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), has finally started to advise of the danger from planned closures of the coal generators that it had previously declared unfit for purpose. AEMO is now seeking coal generators provide a five-year notice that they are to close. Australia is a laggard in recognising the detrimental outcomes of political interference to support wind/solar (and hydrogen) in energy policy. Hopefully, a reversal will take place before such measures are forced by the recognition of the catastrophic economic outcomes of high prices and unreliability without countervailing gains

com/wardclark/2025/12/05/trump-set-to-sign-off-on-new-arctic-drilling-surge-n2196834 By Ward Clark Alaska’s Congressional delegation, along with the support of House and Senate Republicans, has scored a major win on the energy front. Representative Nick Begich (AK-At Large) introduced House Joint Resolution 131, stripping Biden-era restrictions on oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Begich’s resolution has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate and is headed to President Trump’s desk for signature. Alaska’s entire Congressional delegation supported the move, including Rep. Begich and Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). And no, we’re not tired of winning yet. Alaska’s congressional delegation on Thursday succeeded in stripping Biden-era protections from the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, moving to expand opportunities for drilling there. Senate voted to eliminate the 2024 leasing program for the refuge that put much of the refuge’s 1. 6-million-acre coastal plain off-limits to potential drilling. The measure, introduced by Alaska U. Nick Begich, heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for a signature, after the House passed it last month. The vote opens the door for potential oil and gas activity across the coastal plain, as the Trump administration has sought. The vote does a lot more than just open the door for potential oil and gas activity. We have been noting, pretty much since the day President Trump resumed office, that while we support his agenda, it will take Congressional action to nail a lot of it down. This is just such a Congressional action. It’s a joint resolution, meaning it applies to internal rules and practices. As this is a joint resolution, it requires passage by both the House and Senate and the president’s signature. This resolution relies on the Congressional Review Act to strip away the Biden-era rules. This is another step in unlocking America’s treasure chest. The areas in question in ANWR are estimated to hold 7. 7 billion barrels of oil recoverable with current technology, and the U. Geological Survey has estimated that there may be hundreds of millions of barrels in other areas to the west of the ANWR sites. That’s a lot of black gold. That’s a lot of Alaskan jobs. And that’s a big, big boost to American energy security. Alaska’s Native communities in the area have expressed support for the move

Top UK scientist says research visa restrictions endanger economy 1 day ago Share Save Pallab Ghosh Science Correspondent Share Save BBC Prof Sir Paul Nurse is one of the UK's most influential scientists One of Britain's most distinguished scientists, Prof Sir Paul Nurse, says the government is "shooting itself in the foot" with its visa system for science researchers. Sir Paul told BBC News that high visa fees are deterring early-career researchers, who are instead being welcomed by the UK's economic rivals. Supporters of the current system say higher visa costs help to fund the NHS and reflect wider public concerns about immigration. But the Nobel prize winning scientist says the UK's scientific future is being put at risk. "Having expensive visa costs is shooting yourself in the foot. It absolutely doesn't help in attracting these sorts of people," Sir Paul said. Sir Paul, who has taken over as President of the Royal Society, which represents the UK's leading scientists, warns that countries such as China and Singapore are actively courting overseas scientific talent. "Why do we put hurdles in the way of the people that are actually going to drive our economy? It makes zero sense. " The Nobel prize-winner describes the UK's science base as "fragile" because of a combination of steep visa costs, funding pressures and the negative signal, current immigration rules. He urges ministers to rethink a system that forces scientists to pay an annual NHS surcharge and to prove they have thousands of pounds in the bank before they arrive. PA Sir Paul has been a confidant and advisor to sucessive Prime Ministers, including Boris Johnson Official guidance on the Immigration Health Surcharge explains that visa applicants pay the surcharge to help fund their healthcare. Home Office guidance states that applicants must show set levels of savings to show they can support themselves "without recourse to public funds". The Centre for Policy Studies, a centre-right policy think tank, argues in its report Taking Back Control for net migration to be brought back down to the "tens of thousands. " But its policy expert on the issue, Karl Williams, broadly agrees with Sir Paul's sentiments, but argues that a tight overall migration limit must be maintained after an historically large recent surge in immigration. "The wave of immigration we had between 2021 and 2024 is probably the single most significant demographic event in modern British history… If you say yes to one sector, then you start saying yes to other sectors, and you actually just recreate the problems of recent years. " According to Home Office visa statistics, the total number of people receiving a visa for a job in natural and social science in the last quarter was 323 people. "Even if you doubled that, that wouldn't make a huge difference to the overall migration numbers," Mr Williams told BBC News. "But there is no robust system to make that work, for example having conversations about where numbers can be reduced in order to let more scientists in"

Deep-sea mining tests impact over a third of seabed animals - scientists 22 hours ago Share Save Georgina Rannard Climate and science correspondent Share Save Natural History Museum/ University of Gothenburg A brittlestar found on the seafloor of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone Machines mining minerals in the deep ocean have been found to cause significant damage to life on the seabed, scientists carrying out the largest study of its kind say. The number of animals found in the tracks of the vehicles was reduced by 37% compared to untouched areas, according to the scientists. The researchers discovered more than 4,000 animals, 90% of which were new species, living on the seafloor in a remote area of the Pacific Ocean. Vast amounts of critical minerals needed for green technologies could be locked in the deep ocean, but deep sea mining in international waters is very controversial and currently not permitted until more is known about the environmental impacts. Natural History Museum/ University of Gothenburg This sea urchin was one of the more than 4,000 creatures found The research by scientists at the Natural History Museum in London, the UK National Oceanography Centre and the University of Gothenburg was conducted at the request of deep sea mining company The Metals Company. The scientists said their work was independent and that the company was able to view the results before publication but was not allowed to alter them. The team compared biodiversity two years before and two months after the test mining that drove machines for 80km on the seafloor. They looked specifically at animals 0. 3mm – 2cm in size, such as worms, sea spiders, snails and clams. In the tracks of the vehicle, the number of animals fell by 37% and the diversity of species by 32%. "The machine removes about the top five centimetres of sediment. That's where most of the animals live. So obviously, if you're removing the sediment, you're removing the animals in it too," lead author Eva Stewart, PhD student at the Natural History Museum and the University of Southampton, told BBC News. Natural History Museum/University of Gothenburg The scientists catalogued all the animals they found in the sediment, including this worm "Even if they are not killed by the machine, pollution from the mining operations could slowly kill some less resilient species," said Dr Guadalupe Bribiesca-Contreras from the National Oceanography Centre. A few of the animals could have moved away, but "whether or not they come back after disturbance is a different question", she added. However, in the areas near the vehicle tracks, where clouds of sediment landed, the abundance of animals did not decrease. "We were expecting possibly a bit more impact, but [we didn't] see much, just a shift in which species were dominant over others," Dr Adrian Glover, research scientist at the Natural History Museum, told BBC News. Natural History Museum/University of Gothenburg An abyssal sea spider was another of macrofauna found during the research "​We're ​encouraged ​by these ​data," a spokesperson for The Metals Company told BBC News. "After ​years ​of ​activist ​alarm ​that ​our ​impacts ​would ​spread ​thousands ​of ​kilometers ​beyond ​the ​mine ​site, ​the ​data ​show ​that ​any ​biodiversity ​impacts ​are ​limited ​to ​the ​directly ​mined ​area," they added. But some experts do not think that this is good news for mining companies. "I think the study shows that current technologies for harvesting are too damaging to permit large-scale commercial exploration," Dr Patrick Schröder, senior research fellow at the Environment and Society Centre at think tank Chatham House, told BBC News. "These were only tests and the impact was significant. If they did that at large scale, it would be even more damaging," he added. Deep sea mining is controversial. At the heart of the debate is a difficult problem. The latest research took place in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a 6m sq km area of the Pacific Ocean estimated to hold over 21bn tonnes of nickel, cobalt and copper-rich polymetallic nodules. The world needs these critical minerals for renewable energy technologies to tackle climate change. They are essential components in solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles, for example. The International Energy Agency predicts that demand for the minerals could at least double by 2040. The minerals have to come from somewhere, but some scientists and environmental groups are gravely concerned that mining the deep seas could cause untold damage. Natural History Museum/University of Gothenburg An abyssal sea star was also found during the research Some fear that before we have the chance to explore the full nature of life in the undiscovered deep ocean, it could be endangered. Oceans play a critical role in regulating our planet and are already at severe risk from rising temperatures

Waste from UK's largest opencast mine 'poses significant risk' 24 hours ago Share Save Steffan Messenger , Wales environment correspondent and Gareth Bryer , BBC Wales Share Save Matthew Horwood/Getty Images Ffos-y-Fran opencast coalmine was allowed to go ahead close to homes and businesses in Merthyr Tydfil Concerns have been raised over the safety of three large spoil tips set to be left above Merthyr Tydfil following the closure of the UK's last opencast coalmine. A geotechnical report prepared for the council warns of a "significant risk of slope instability" from Ffos-y-Fran, while campaigners say plans to keep the tips in place are "staggering". Emails obtained by the BBC show the Welsh government is considering stepping in to take control over the final planning decision. Mining firm Merthyr South Wales Ltd (MSW) said suggesting the "purpose-built, engineered structures" pose the same risks as historical coal tips is "incorrect and misleading". Google The three overburden mounds, referred to as OB1, OB2 and OB3, contain a total of approximately 37 million cubic metres of material removed during mining Two years since mining stopped at Ffos-y-Fran, there remains considerable uncertainty over the controversial project's future. Given the go-ahead back in 2005, the UK's largest opencast mine was officially classed as a "land reclamation scheme". That meant part of the profits made from selling 11 million tonnes of coal over 15 years had to be used to clean up the site - riddled with the remains of old industries - and return it to green hillside for the community. "It was supposed to be for public amenity, they were going to reinstate all the rights of way and agricultural use," said Chris Austin, who lives nearby. Now he fears the community will be left with "a dangerous void, dangerous tips and areas we can't use". "It's extremely worrying," agreed Alyson Austin, Chris' wife. "We were forced to accept this opencast coalmine. now we're left with a situation far worse than we had right back at the beginning. " The current developers - MSW - had sparked anger locally and legal action after continuing to dig and sell coal for well over a year past the deadline on their planning permission. They have since submitted a new - and far cheaper - restoration plan, warning of "insufficient funds" available to deliver what had previously been agreed. Chris Austin lives nearby and says the community "had to suffer 17 years of opencast mining" but now may not get the restoration they were promised Under the original proposals, large spoil tips which had built up over the years would have been used to fill in the main mining void, which is 175m (574ft) deep. The tips - known as overburden mounds - contain 37 million cubic metres of material removed while the opencast mine was operating. The company now wants to reduce the height of one tip while leaving the other two in place. It describes them as long-term stable structures and says the mining void itself would become a "natural lake". The application is being considered by planners at Merthyr Tydfil council, who commissioned a geotechnical report from engineering firm WSP. That document concludes that the tips were constructed as "temporary earthworks" and the proposals "do not provide confidence that the tips and slopes will remain stable and will not pose an ongoing risk to the residents of Merthyr Tydfil and a potential financial burden [to the council]". The effect of climate change "does not appear to have been considered" - while in some cases it is "dismissed with no supporting evidence", the consultants warn. They also note that one of the tips - known as OB1 - which rises approximately 170m above a main road running alongside Ffos-y-Fran - had already suffered a landslide in 2022. The report also notes "the recent history of a number of tip failures across south Wales as a result of high rainfall events". Delyth Jewell, Plaid Cymru's climate spokesperson, warned the residents of Merthyr Tydfil faced having to live with "a botched restoration" and said leaving the tips in place would be "staggering" and "unconscionable". "Coal tips slipping - this is not a theoretical risk," she said. The Welsh government has recently announced a new Disused Tips Authority for Wales, set up in the wake of concerns over the country's coal tips, to be headquartered in Merthyr Tydfil. Haf Elgar, director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, warned it could now end up having to add Ffos-y-Fran's overburden mounds to its list of sites to monitor. "That's an added burden on public authorities and totally unacceptable," she said. Matthew Horwood/Getty Images An aerial view from within the main mining void at Ffos-y-Fran, with a tip rising above it In a letter to the council, consultants on behalf of MSW said they had "serious concerns" about the geotechnical report, which they branded a "desk-top assessment". They responded by commissioning their own analysis from geological and mining consultancy James Associates, countering WSP's conclusions as to the tips' stability. It says the overburden mounds were constructed to an approved design in compliance with regulations and had been monitored by a specialist. The landslide on OB1 had happened as a result of excavation work, and the likelihood of it failing in future could be "absolutely minimised" with appropriate engineering, it said. Referring to recent landslides from old colliery tips in south Wales was "a case of comparing 'apples and pears'", the mine's consultants added. Generally colliery tips were located on steep hillsides, whereas Ffos-y-Fran's overburden mounds sit "on ground with gentle gradients", with differences too in terms of how they were constructed and their drainage systems, they said. The company also makes the case that its new proposals are more sustainable, cutting down on carbon emissions and air pollution from the heavy machinery needed to reprofile the land while delivering "a more interesting and naturally biodiverse landscape". How much would it cost to restore Ffos-y-Fran? Estimates vary as to how much removing the tips and filling the void would cost, ranging from £50m to £175m. "The most recently published company accounts. (March 2025) include provision of some £91. 2m for meeting the requirements of the approved restoration scheme," the council notes in a recent letter to the firm. But there now "appears to be a reliance" on the company using funds from a £15m account set up jointly with the council as a backup in case the firm went bust. The mine's consultants respond, saying detailed costings "are currently being prepared". Chris Austin Merthyr South Wales Ltd says its overburden mounds cannot be compared with historical coal tips Last year the Senedd's environment committee described oversight of Ffos-y-Fran coalmine as "a case of epic mismanagement", which now threatened to leave "a permanent scar" above Merthyr Tydfil. Campaigners have urged the Welsh government to take over the decision-making process. But in emails, officials noted "the possible consequences of such action, including the risk of site abandonment". They had written to the council in August requesting further information. "Given the level of risk. we are mindful of the need to ensure we provide a robust evidence base to the Welsh ministers to underpin any options they may wish to pursue," the email says. Ms Jewell, a Senedd member for South East Wales, said the Welsh government had a "moral obligation to the safety of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil" and should intervene. The mining void is 175m deep in places

Volcanic eruption may have triggered Europe's deadly Black Death plague 14 hours ago Share Save Helen Briggs Environment correspondent Share Save Getty The Black Death fundamentally altered medieval society A volcanic eruption around the year 1345 may have set off a chain reaction that unleashed Europe's deadliest pandemic, the Black Death, scientists say. Clues preserved in tree rings suggest the eruption triggered a climate shock and led to a string of events that brought the disease to medieval Europe. Under this scenario, the ash and gases from a volcanic eruption caused extreme drops in temperature and led to poor harvests. To avert famine, populous Italian city states were forced to import grain from areas around the Black Sea - bringing plague-carrying fleas that carried the disease to Europe as well. This "perfect storm" of a climate shock, famine and trade offers a reminder of how diseases can emerge and spread in a globalised and warmer world, according to experts. "Although the coincidence of factors that contributed to the Black Death seems rare, the probability of zoonotic diseases emerging under climate change and translating into pandemics is likely to increase in a globalised world," said Dr Ulf Büntgen of the University of Cambridge. He added: "This is especially relevant given our recent experiences with Covid-19. " Credit: Ulf Büntgen Tree rings from the Spanish Pyrenees point to unusually cold summers in 1345, 1346 and 1347 The Black Death swept across Europe in 1348-49, killing up to half of the population. The disease was caused by a bacterium known as Yersinia pestis spread by wild rodents, such as rats, and fleas. The outbreak is believed to have started in Central Asia, moving around the world through trade. But the precise sequence of events that brought the disease to Europe - killing millions of people – has been pored over by scholars. Now researchers from the University of Cambridge and the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO) in Leipzig have filled in a missing part of the puzzle. They used clues from tree rings and ice cores to examine climatic conditions at the time of the Black Death. Their evidence suggests that volcanic activity around 1345 caused temperatures to drop sharply over consecutive years because of the release of volcanic ash and gases which blocked out some sunlight. This in turn caused crops to fail across the Mediterranean region. To avoid starvation, Italian city states traded with grain producers around the Black Sea, unwittingly enabling the deadly bacterium to gain a foothold in Europe. Getty Fleas spread the plague from infected rats to humans

au/2025/11/the-phase-change-continues-the-sierra-club-loses-60-of-members-350-org-is-suspended/ By Jo Nova The phase change in the Climate Apocalypse Trade rolls on, and the US leads the way Already some US ‘grassroots’ organizations are having an existential crisis. Actually, the Sierra Club has been struggling for three years, but no one wanted to mention that. Francis Menton at the Manhattan Contrarian points out the extraordinary collapse of the largest US environmental group, the Sierra Club: The Sierra Club is in the middle of what might well be called an implosion. The New York Times reported the story on November 7. Excerpt: The Sierra Club calls itself the “largest and most influential grass roots environmental organization in the country. ” But it is in the middle of an implosion — left weakened, distracted and divided just as environmental protections are under assault by the Trump administration. The group has lost 60 percent of the four million members and supporters it counted in 2019. It has held three rounds of employee layoffs since 2022, trying to climb out of a $40 million projected budget deficit. [T]his year, as the Trump administration returned better organized and better prepared than in its first term, the Sierra Club was the opposite. Trump boosted coal power, canceled wind farms and rolled back pollution limits, the club was consumed by internal chaos, culminating when the board fired its executive director, Ben Jealous, a former president of the N. No doubt some of the pain is due to Donald Trump, and the DOGE effect, but a lot of this was an inside job with help from the cheer-squad-media. The Sierra Club forgot it was supposed to care about the environment and jumped into all the crazy lefty bandwagons they could find. As they ran off the road, the media cheered them on, and censored anyone who tried to tell them how the real world works. Thus and verily, they went double or nothing over Lemming cliff. Proving even the Green left can “Go Woke, Get Broke”: By David A. Fahrenthold and Claire Brown, The New York Times During Mr. Trump’s first term, when the Sierra Club was flush with donations, its leaders sought to expand far beyond environmentalism, embracing other progressive causes. Those included racial justice, labor rights, gay rights, immigrant rights and more. They stand by that shift today. By 2022, the club had exhausted its finances and splintered its coalition. It drove away longtime volunteers who loved the club’s single-minded defense of the environment, by asking them to fully embrace its pivot to the left. Some even felt they were investigated by the club for failing to go along. Many hard-core supporters felt the Sierra Club was casting aside the key to its success: It was an eclectic group of activists who had one, and sometimes only one, cause in common. Jealous, its first Black executive director, that year to stop that slide, but his tenure accelerated it as accusations of sexual harassment, bullying, and overspending piled up. Another casualty is 350. org which has lost revenue and suspended operations And then there is 350. This organization is the baby of uber-climate-activist Bill McKibben, with the “350” supposedly designating some limit of ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that must never be exceeded, or else. something may happen that they think is really, really scary. (The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 424 ppm. On November 13, even as COP 30 was going on, 350. org “suspended operations. ” From Politico, November 13: Environmental group 350. org, which spearheaded the movement to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline, will “temporarily suspend programming” in the U. and other countries amid funding woes, according to a letter obtained on Thursday by POLITICO. The letter to outside organizations from Executive Director Anne Jellema said 350. org had suffered a 25 percent drop in income for its 2025 and 2026 fiscal years, compelling it to halt operations. The group will keep three U. staff members in hopes of reviving operations in the future. In the US, the giant UN climate event in Brazil wasn’t even on the news. “…were you even aware that this year’s COP 30 happened? In a piece today for the Civitas Institute, Steven Hayward notes that not one of the American television networks sent reporters to this year’s event. Coverage in the American print and online media was also dramatically reduced. Hayward writes, “A few reporters at the conference filed stories wondering whether this would be the last COP meeting. ” It appears that since Donald Trump didn’t go, the US TV networks didn’t bother sending camera teams. I can’t remember a COP meeting ever, where anyone discussed how it might be the last…

Brazil's Amazon rainforest at risk as key protection under threat 17 November 2025 Share Save Justin Rowlatt , Climate editor and Jessica Cruz , South America producer Share Save BBC / Tony Jolliffe The Amazon rainforest could face a renewed surge of deforestation as efforts grow to overturn a long-standing ban that has protected it. The ban - which prohibits the sale of soya grown on land cleared after 2008 - is widely credited with curbing deforestation and has been held up as a global environmental success story. But powerful farming interests in Brazil, backed by a group of Brazilian politicians, are pushing to lift the restrictions as the COP30 UN climate conference enters its second week. Critics of the ban say it is an unfair "cartel" which allows a small group of powerful companies to dominate the Amazon's soya trade. Environmental groups have warned removing the ban would be "disaster", opening the way for a new wave of land grabbing to plant more soya in the world's largest rainforest. Scientists say ongoing deforestation, combined with the effects of climate change, is already driving the Amazon towards a potential "tipping point" – a threshold beyond which the rainforest can no longer sustain itself. Getty Images Soya beans imported to the UK are an important animal feed Brazil is the world's largest producer of soya beans, a staple crop grown for its protein and an important animal feed. Much of the meat consumed in the UK – including chicken, beef, pork and farmed fish - is raised using feeds that include soya beans, about 10% of which are sourced from the Brazilian Amazon. Many major UK food companies, including Tesco, Sainsbury's, M&S, Aldi, Lidl, McDonald's, Greggs and KFC, are members of a coalition called the UK Soy Manifesto which represents around 60% of the soy imported into the UK. The group supports the ban, which is known officially as the Amazon Soy Moratorium, because they argue it helps ensure UK soy supply chains remain free from deforestation. In a statement earlier this year the signatories said: "We urge all actors within the soy supply chain, including governments, financial institutions and agribusinesses to reinforce their commitment to the [ban] and ensure its continuation. " Public opinion in the UK also appears to be firmly behind protecting the Amazon. A World Wildlife Fund survey conducted earlier this year found that 70% of respondents supported government action to eliminate illegal deforestation from UK supply chains. BBC / Tony Jolliffe This soya port on the Amazon River in Santarém helped spark the campaign that led to the soya moratorium But Brazilian opponents of the agreement last week demanded the Supreme Court - the highest court in the country – reopen an investigation into whether the moratorium amounts to anti-competitive behaviour. "Our state has lots of room to grow and the soy moratorium is working against this development," Vanderlei Ataídes told the BBC. He is president of the Soya Farmers Association of Pará state, one of Brazil's main soya producing areas. "I don't understand how [the ban] helps the environment," he added. "I can't plant soya beans, but I can use the same land to plant corn, rice, cotton or other crops. Why can't I plant soya?" The challenge has even divided the Brazilian government. While the Justice Ministry says there may be evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, both the Ministry of the Environment and the Federal Public Prosecutors Office have publicly defended the moratorium. The voluntary agreement was first signed almost two decades ago by farmers, environmental organisations and major global food companies, including commodities giants such as Cargill and Bunge. It followed a campaign by the environmental pressure group Greenpeace that exposed how soya grown on deforested land was being used in animal feed, including for chicken sold by McDonald's. The fast-food chain became a champion of the moratorium, whose signatories pledged not to buy soya grown on land deforested after 2008. Before the moratorium, forest clearance for soya expansion and the growth of cattle ranching were the main drivers of Amazonian deforestation. After the agreement was introduced forest clearance fell sharply, reaching an historic low in 2012 during President Lula's second term in office. Deforestation increased under subsequent administrations – notably under Jair Bolsonaro, who promoted opening the forest to economic development - but has fallen again during Lula's current presidency. Bel Lyon, chief advisor for Latin America at the World Wildlife Fund - one of the agreement's original signatories – warned that suspending the moratorium "would be a disaster for the Amazon, its people, and the world, because it could open up an area the size of Portugal to deforestation". Small farmers whose plots are close to soy plantations say they disrupt local weather patterns and make it harder to grow their crops. BBC / Tony Jolliffe Raimundo Barbosa farms cassava and fruit Raimundo Barbosa, who farms cassava and fruit near the town of Boa Esperança outside Santarém in the southeastern Amazon, says when the forest is cleared "the environment is destroyed". "Where there is forest, it is normal, but when it is gone it just gets hotter and hotter and there is less rain and less water in the rivers," he told me as we sat in the shade beside the machines he uses to turn his cassava into flour. The pressure to lift the moratorium comes as Brazil prepares to open a major new railway stretching from its agricultural heartland in the south up into the rainforest. The railway is expected to significantly cut transport costs for soya and other agricultural products, adding yet another incentive to clear more land. BBC / Tony Jolliffe Scientists have been monitoring detailed changes in the Amazon for decades Scientists say deforestation is already reshaping the rainforest in profound ways. Among them is Amazon specialist Bruce Fosberg, who has spent half a century studying the forest. He climbs 15 stories up a narrow tower that rises 45 metres above a pristine rainforest reserve in the heart of the Amazon. From a small platform at the top, he looks out over a sea of green stretching to the horizon. The tower is bristling with high-tech instruments - sensors that track almost everything happening between the forest and the atmosphere: water vapor, carbon dioxide, sunlight, and essential nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. The tower was built 27 years ago and is part of a project - the Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment (LBA) - that aims to understand how the Amazon is changing, and how close it is to a critical threshold. Data from the LBA together with other scientific studies show parts of the rainforest may be nearing a "tipping point", after which the ecosystem can no longer maintain its own functions. "The living forest is closing down," he says, "and not producing water vapour and therefore rainfall". As trees are lost to deforestation, fire, and heat stress, the forest releases less moisture into the atmosphere, he explains, reducing rainfall and intensifying drought. That, in turn, creates a feedback loop that kills even more trees. The fear is that, if this continues, vast areas of rainforest could die away and become a savannah or dry grassland ecosystem. Such a collapse would release huge amounts of carbon, disrupt weather patterns across continents, and threaten the millions of people – as well as the countless plant, insect and animal species – whose lives depend on the Amazon for survival

UN climate talks fail to secure new fossil fuel promises 22 November 2025 Share Save Georgina Rannard Climate and science correspondent, Belém, Brazil Share Save EPA Following bitter rows, the UN climate summit COP30 in Belém, Brazil has ended with a deal that contains no direct reference to the fossil fuels that are heating up the planet. It is a frustrating end for more than 80 countries including the UK and EU that wanted the meeting to commit the world to stop using using oil, coal and gas at a faster pace. But oil-producing nations held the line that they should be allowed to use their fossil fuel resources to grow their economies. The meeting takes place as the UN says it fears global efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1. 5C above pre-industrial levels have failed. A representative for Colombia furiously criticised the COP presidency for not allowing countries to object to the deal in the final meeting on Saturday, known as a plenary. "Colombia believes that we have sufficient scientific evidence saying that more than 75% of the global greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels," Daniela Durán González, Colombian Climate Delegate, told BBC News. "So we do believe it's time that the Convention on Climate Change starts talking about that reality," she added. The final deal, called the Mutirão, calls on countries to "voluntarily" accelerate their action to reduce their use of fossil fuels. For the first time, the US did not send a delegation after President Donald Trump said the country will leave the landmark Paris treaty that committed countries to act on climate change in 2015. He has branded climate change "a con". Veteran negotiator and former Germany climate envoy Jennifer Morgan told the BBC that the US absence was a "hole" in the negotiations. Often the US has supported blocs like the EU and UK. "In a 12-hour negotiation overnight, when you have oil-producing countries pushing back hard, to not have someone counteracting on that, it certainly was hard," she said But for many countries, the fact that the talks did not collapse or roll back on past climate agreements is a relief. Antigua and Barbuda Climate Ambassador Ruleta Thomas commented: "We are happy that there is a process that continues to function [. ] where every country can be heard. " In the final meeting, a representative for Saudi Arabia said: "Each state must be allowed to build its own path, based on its respective circumstances and economies. " Like many other leading oil-producing nations, the country has argued it should be allowed to exploit its fossil fuel reserves as others have done in the past. UNFCCC The talks over-ran by almost 24 hours with delegates working all night The two weeks of talks were at times chaotic. Toilets ran out of water, torrential thunderstorms flooded the venue, and delegates struggled to cope in hot, humid rooms. The COP's around 50,000 registered delegates were evacuated twice. A group of about 150 protestors broke into the venue, breaching security lines, and carrying placards reading "our forests are not for sale". On Thursday a large fire broke out, scorching a hole into the roof and forcing participants to rush outside. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva chose the city of Belém to put the world's attention on the Amazon rainforest and to bring a rush of finance to the city. Despite its desire for a more ambitious fossil fuel agreement, Brazil was criticised for its own plans to drill for oil at the mouth of the Amazon. Its offshore oil and gas production is on course to increase until the early 2030s, according to analysis shared with the BBC by campaign group Global Witness. Reuters Some delegations stayed on cruise ships in Belém due to a shortage of accommodation Countries at the talks have competing interests, depending on their national circumstances and how exposed they are to the effects of climate change. Some countries were happy about the outcomes. India praised the deal, calling it "meaningful". A group representing the interests of 39 small island and low-lying coastal states on Saturday called it "imperfect" but still a step towards "progress". Poorer nations have come away with a promise for more climate finance to help them adapt to the impacts of climate change. "It has moved the needle. There is a clearer recognition that those with historic responsibility [countries that emitted more planet-warming gases in the past] have specific duties on climate finance," said Sierra Leone Minister of The Environment and Climate Change Jiwoh Abdulai. Reuters A fire broke out at COP30, witnessed by the BBC climate team inside the venue But it's a sour end for more than 80 countries, who negotiated through the night to keep stronger fossil fuel language in the deal. UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband insisted the meeting is a "step forward". "I would have preferred a more ambitious agreement," he said. "We're not going to hide the fact that we would have preferred to have more, to have more ambition on everything," EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told journalists. With lush trees, bird cries and intense humidity, it was hard to escape the Amazonian backdrop of the talks. Brazil launched the talks with a new fund called Tropical Forests Forever Facility that would pay countries to protect tropical forests. By the end of the meeting, it raised at least $6. 5bn from governments, although the UK has not yet contributed. Over 90 countries supported a call for a global deforestation action plan, or "roadmap". Additional reporting by Tom Ingham, BBC climate team