Climate 411

Building Trust and Consensus at CBD COP16: A Breakthrough for Biodiversity Finance

COP16.2 plenary in Rome

This blog was authored by Milloni Doshi, Project Manager, Global Engagement and Partnerships and Annie Mark, Senior Director, Global Partnerships.

The 16th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16) concluded in Rome with what is being hailed as a historic global finance plan to support the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed at COP15 in 2022.  

The first of its kind in the biodiversity space, this financial plan was the subject of tense discussion and remained unresolved after the first session of COP16 in Cali, Colombia. Parties diverged on the funding mechanisms needed to mobilize at least 200 billion USD a year by 2030. Colombia’s COP President Susana Muhamad reconvened the Parties in Rome for a three-day sprint – referred to as COP16.2 – to resolve the outstanding issues from Cali.  

Amid the nuances of the text, EDF sees three key reasons for optimism, and three opportunities to strengthen this endeavor as we look ahead to COP17 and the 2030 targets.  Read More »

Posted in Climate Finance, International, Policy, United Nations / Tagged , , , | Authors: , / Leave a comment

The NDCs We Need in 2025

Leveraging NDC Partnerships Workshop at COP29

By Juan Pablo Hoffmaister, Associate Vice President, Global Engagement and Partnerships, Environmental Defense Fund

The deadline for countries to submit their updated Nationally Determined Contributions has now passed. As researchers like Pauw and Klein (2020) have emphasized, while ambition in NDCs is crucial, the effectiveness of these commitments depends equally on their transparency, coherence, and ability to be implemented. Building on this research framework, we have a critical opportunity to reinforce what transformational NDCs should look like.

The strength of an NDC is not measured by a single emissions reduction percentage. As highlighted in the academic literature (Pauw et al., 2018; Weikmans et al., 2019), the real test lies in quality, policy alignment, and the ability to track progress.

Here are a few factors we’ll be tracking as more submissions come forward:  

Read More »

Posted in International, Paris Agreement / Tagged , , | Authors: / Leave a comment

Delay and uncertainty around California’s core pollution-cutting program is costing the state millions

Results were released today for California’s first cap-and-trade auction of 2025. Prices decreased from the November 2024 auction, reflecting continued uncertainty among market participants due to the lack of regulatory and legislative clarity. This uncertainty is costing California hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue for climate and environmental justice programs at a time when the state needs it most.

February auction results

  • All 51,466,028 current vintage allowances — emission allowances valid for compliance this year – offered for sale were purchased, resulting in the 18th consecutive sold out auction. This is 1,163,584 fewer allowances than were offered at the previous auction, as the number of offered allowances declines annually.
  • The current auction settled at a price of $29.27, $3.40 above the $25.87 price floor and $2.64 below the November 2024 settlement price of $31.91. Today’s settlement price follows a trend of lower settlement prices, similar to the prices seen in the February, May, and November auctions, which settled at $41.76, $37.02, and $31.91, respectively. The last time auction prices dipped below $30 was in February of 2023
  • All of the 6,847,750 future vintage allowances offered for sale were purchased. These allowances can be used for compliance beginning in 2028. This is 363,250 fewer future vintage allowances than were offered at the previous advance auction. 
  • Future vintage allowances settled at $28.00, $2.13 above the $25.87 price floor and $2.16 below the November settlement price of $30.16. 
  • This auction is expected to generate roughly $851 million for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. This is a notable drop from the peak revenue a year ago, when the February 2024 auction generated over $1.3 billion

What these results mean

First, it is important to understand that the market is functioning as designed. Despite fluctuating prices, the emissions cap remains intact and covered entities must comply with the program’s requirements. However, continued uncertainty surrounding the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s rulemaking process and the state legislature’s timeline on program reauthorization are introducing unnecessary volatility and costing California critical revenue for climate and community investments.

Delays and uncertainty have a cost

This latest auction demonstrates the financial consequences of policy uncertainty. With CARB yet to finalize key decisions on pre-2030 allowance budgets and allocation, market participants lack the clarity needed to plan compliance strategies and make long-term investments in emissions reductions. The result? Auction prices that are lower than they might otherwise be, meaning California is leaving huge amounts of revenue on the table — funds that could have been used to invest in clean energy, wildfire prevention, and air quality improvements. 

This month’s report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office highlights that the state may need to revise its Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund expenditure plan if prices continue to trend lower than forecasted, potentially impacting both the 2024-25 and the 2025-26 budgets. Much of the revenue raised through these quarterly auctions is already committed to be spent on important programs statewide and the loss of revenue due to uncertainty could have very real impacts.   

The lack of clarity also dampens the incentives for businesses to invest in emissions reductions; investments that often happen over years. If companies aren’t sure what the cap-and-trade market will look like in the next decade, they’re less likely to take proactive steps to decarbonize. Similarly, investors in clean energy and climate technology need confidence in long-term market stability to support new projects. 

The good news: this is fixable

California has an opportunity to strengthen market confidence and ensure the cap-and-trade program continues driving ambitious emissions reductions while raising urgently needed funding for climate resilience and community investments. That starts with swift action on two fronts:

  1. CARB must finalize and implement its rulemaking to ensure the cap-and-trade program is on track to deliver the necessary reductions by 2030. This will provide clear market signals for investors, allow covered entities to plan their compliance strategies, and prevent further unnecessary volatility. CARB should release the Initial Statement of Reasons as soon as possible so that changes can go into effect in the 2026 allowance budget year. 
  2. The Legislature must act this year to reauthorize the program at least through 2045. This will enable long-term investments and planning in emissions abatement, provide clarity about potential program reforms to increase climate ambition and equity outcomes, and send a strong message that cap-and-trade will remain a cornerstone of California’s strategy to meet its 2045 carbon neutrality goal.

Market fluctuations like those seen in this auction are a symptom of uncertainty. By committing to ambitious climate action through regulatory and legislative pathways, and reinforcing the essential role of cap-and-trade in delivering emission reductions, California can protect its climate leadership and generate the revenue needed for critical investments.

Posted in California, Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Authors: , / Leave a comment

California is on the path to a regional electricity market

Photo: Pexels

California has taken a critical first step towards creating a cheaper, cleaner and stronger grid through the creation of a western regional electricity market. By working more with its neighbors, California can unlock new clean energy technologies across the West, including offshore wind, long duration energy storage and other clean options that can take a long time to build. This type of cooperation will be essential to keep costs low as California both cleans up its existing electric grid to cleaner options and triple its size to help decarbonize the rest of the economy. 

Read More »

Posted in California, Cities and states, Economics, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Authors: / Comments are closed

Danger ahead: the Trump administration’s attack on EPA’s finding that climate pollution harms public health

On his first day in office, President Trump issued dozens of executive orders attacking the nation’s climate and clean air protections.

Buried in one of these orders is direction to the Environmental Protection Agency to make recommendations by February 19th on the “legality and continued applicability” of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The Endangerment Finding is EPA’s science-based determination that greenhouse gases – the pollution that causes climate change – harm public health and welfare.

The directive to reconsider the Endangerment Finding comes straight from Project 2025 and is both cynical and deeply concerning given the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the Finding, the devastating climate harms Americans are experiencing right now, and EPA’s clear obligation to protect Americans’ health and welfare.

Shortly after receiving President Trump’s directive, EPA’s acting Administrator summarily fired the agency’s independent Science Advisory Board – the very scientists who can speak to the extensive scientific basis supporting EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The real-world consequences of any effort by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the Trump administration to destabilize the Endangerment Finding would be severe and unlawful and would hurt Americans across the country.

What is the Endangerment Finding?

In 2007, the Supreme Court determined that greenhouse gases are air pollutants within the unambiguous meaning of the Clean Air Act and that EPA must make a science-based determination as to whether greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, in 2009, EPA issued the Endangerment Finding, which determines that climate pollution threatens the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Here are a few things you should know about EPA’s finding:

It’s supported by extensive science

The Endangerment Finding is based on a vast amount of scientific evidence that climate pollution harms human health. It was adopted after extensive public process, including multiple opportunities for public input and evaluation of more than 380,000 public comments.

The final Endangerment Finding includes detailed information confirming that greenhouse gas pollution is driving destructive changes in our climate that pose a grave and growing threat to Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being, both now and in the future. These include health harms from increased smog, rising temperatures and extreme weather events, among other things.

Over time, the scientific evidence has only become stronger. The intergovernmental expert body charged by Congress with assessing the impacts of climate change on the United States has issued a series of National Climate Assessments, most recently by the Trump Administration in 2018 and the Biden Administration in 2023. The National Climate Assessments confirm that climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is causing extensive, and increasingly severe harms throughout the country.

EPA has also continued to document the science behind greenhouse gases’ contributions to climate change, including in earlier responses to requests that it reevaluate the Endangerment Finding (here and here) and in multiple actions establishing pollution standards for power plants, cars and freight trucks, and oil and gas facilities – some of which include scientific assessments that were completed within the last year.  And in legal filings supporting these actions, climate scientists have pointed to very recent scientific evidence that even more strongly confirms these climate pollution harms.

In short, the science unequivocally supports what so many Americans are already experiencing – climate pollution is causing harm in communities across the country. There is no question about the Endangerment Finding’s “continued applicability.”

Courts have repeatedly affirmed its Legality

Unsurprisingly, given the extensive evidence supporting it, courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to the Endangerment Finding.

For instance, the finding was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012. Industry groups had challenged EPA’s use of scientific assessments, but the court held that EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence before it in “a rational manner.”

Then the Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari (review) that raised challenges to the Endangerment Finding in October 2013.

More recently, the D.C. Circuit again rejected challenges to the finding and the Supreme Court again denied review.

The findings have been the basis of agency decisions across administrations of both parties and have been the basis of numerous judicial decisions. As to the Endangerment Finding’s “legality,” the answer is also a clear and unequivocal “yes.”

Commonsense steps to cut pollution, protect communities

Beyond being grounded in the science, law, and the everyday experience of many Americans, the Endangerment Finding is important because it empowers EPA to do its job – protecting Americans from harmful climate pollution.

EPA has done just that since adopting the Endangerment Finding by taking commonsense steps to reduce climate pollution from large sources like power plants, cars and trucks, and oil and gas operations. These actions have been enormously successful in reducing pollution and delivering immediate benefits to Americans across the country.

It is vital that these commonsense measures remain in place. Recent EDF analysis looks at 11 key actions (including the foundational EPA climate protections mentioned above) that together will reduce more than 28 billion metric tons of climate pollution by 2055. That’s almost five times the total amount of annual emissions from the United States today.

New threats to the Endangerment Finding

President Trump’s efforts to reverse the Endangerment Finding come straight from Project 2025 – the infamous policy playbook crafted in part by Russell Vought, the new head of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. Targeting the Endangerment Finding is extreme, dangerous, and puts the important benefits mentioned above at risk. It also goes well beyond anything the first Trump administration undertook.

Undermining the Endangerment Finding would be inconsistent with the commitments EPA Administrator Zeldin made during his confirmation hearing. Despite EPA’s recent dismissal of its independent Scientific Advisory Board, Administrator Zeldin affirmed that “I am someone who believes strongly that we should work with the scientists, leaving the science to the scientists … Fortunately, at EPA, we do have many talented scientists who provide that research.” (Senate EPW Committee transcript page 34) He repeatedly committed to “honoring our obligations under the law,” and said that “we will have never done enough to ensure that our water and our air is clean, safe, and healthy. Whatever we do every day to achieve this objective, we need to wake up the next day looking for ways to do more.” (Transcript page 37)

It is simply not possible to square these statements with any effort to destroy a science-based finding, affirmed by the courts, that provides the foundation for EPA’s efforts to protect Americans’ health and well-being from harmful climate pollution today and going forward.

For more information, please see the letter and appendix of relevant documents EDF recently sent to EPA on the Endangerment Finding.

Posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Clean Air Act, EPA litgation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy, Science / Authors: / Comments are closed

President Trump’s attack on independent Inspectors General

A group of former Inspectors General for eight federal agencies just sued President Trump for illegally firing them.

President Trump fired about 17 independent Inspectors General en masse in a two-sentence email released Friday night, January 24th – including the Inspectors General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Interior. This week, President Trump also fired the USAID Inspector General. Inspectors General are nonpartisan, and many of the 18 who have been fired were appointed by President Trump during his first term.

In the new lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, eight of the fired Inspectors General – for the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, and Labor, and the Small Business Administration – point out that President Trump violated the law by failing to provide 30 days’ notice to Congress and failing to provide the statutorily required explanation for the dismissals.

Under the Inspector General Act on 1978, the president must provide Congress advance notice and explanation in order to remove an inspector general. Just days after the mass firings, the Congressional Research Service updated its report on Removal of Inspectors General to state, “It is not yet clear how President Trump’s action on January 26, 2025, will ultimately be resolved,” and that “it does not appear that the Administration followed the congressional notice and waiting period requirements laid out in the IG Act.”

Here are a few examples of why President Trump’s purge of our national Inspectors General, and this lawsuit challenging it, are so important.

Inspectors General play an essential role in illuminating government fraud and wrongdoing

Inspectors General play a key role in ensuring accountability within federal agencies, including ensuring that those agencies ensure transparency and follow proper processes.

For instance, during the first Trump Administration, the EPA Inspector General investigated and uncovered numerous legal and process violations at the agency, including:

  • An improper rollback of air pollution standards for cars and trucks

An audit completed in 2021 by EPA’s Inspector General confirmed that the first Trump administration violated transparency, record-keeping, and other procedural requirements while rolling back federal Clean Air Act standards to limit air pollution from vehicles.

The EPA Inspector General’s report documented EPA’s failure to conduct technical analyses, follow established processes, and provide transparency in its actions and assumptions. The report also stated that “EPA did not follow its established process for developing regulatory actions,” including a failure to “conduct analysis related to executive orders on the impacts of modified GHG standards on vulnerable populations.”

That audit was prompted in part by a request from Senator Carper, demonstrating that Inspectors General can play an important role in investigating concerns identified by Members of Congress.

  • A flawed and dangerous lead-based paint strategy

In 2019, EPA’s Inspector General found that the first Trump administration’s lead-based paint strategy focused on shallow public relations efforts rather than actually protecting children’s health.

The Inspector General’s report described EPA’s failure to effectively implement and enforce the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule. That rule was designed to protect children from dust or chips of lead-based paint. Lead poisoning causes serious health problems, particularly for children’s brain development, and there is no safe level of exposure. In 1978, the U.S. banned lead-based paint for residential use, but the paint is still commonly found in houses built before 1978.

The Inspector General’s report found that EPA’s program lacked sufficient “objectives, goals and measurable outcomes to track progress and determine accountability,” and that “[e]ffective oversight and enforcement are needed to further reduce lead exposures from renovation, repair and painting activities.”

  • More legal loopholes and scandals

During the first Trump administration, the EPA Inspector General helped create accountability for the agency’s unlawful attempts to create a loophole for super-polluting glider trucks.

The EPA Inspector General also scrutinized Administrator Scott Pruitt’s many scandals, including spending taxpayer money on lavish travel and a $43,000 phone booth. These episodes illustrate the unique and crucial role that Inspectors General play in protecting the public from government corruption.

Posted in News, Policy / Authors: / Comments are closed