Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Recent proposals in Congress and across federal agencies have emphasized fully suppressing wildfire.
Putting out every wildfire as quickly as possible can increase the threat posed to communities by the most dangerous wildfires. Sometimes a slower approach to firefighting can help protect firefighters and nearby communities while reducing the risk of more catastrophic wildfires in the future.
Past approaches prioritizing near-total suppression offer important lessons for today’s policy decisions. For many years the U.S. Forest Service chased what was known as the “10 a.m. policy,” full containment of all wildfires by the morning after ignition. While rapid fire suppression is critical in many situations, especially near communities, overly prescriptive mandates can make it harder for firefighters to respond to wildfire flexibly and effectively.
Most U.S. ecosystems have adapted to routine wildfire of some kind. Fire is nature’s way of keeping fuels like drier trees and kindling from building up. Reducing all instances of fire can allow wildfire fuels to build up, leading to more harmful, more catastrophic wildfire.
A more strategic approach to firefighting, and equipping wildland firefighters with the right tools and resources, can help protect firefighters and nearby communities while reducing the risk of more catastrophic wildfires in the future.
Expanding community risk reduction efforts alongside ecological fuel treatments can help reduce the risk of loss from wildfire.
Homeowners with homes in wildfire prone areas can address fuel on their property. Creating defensible space (buffer areas between homes and surrounding wild areas) and hardening homes by using fire-resistant materials reduces the likelihood these homes will ignite and spread fire.
Ecological fuel treatments, such as thinning dense trees and prescribed fire, create forest conditions where wildfire behavior will be less severe. There is an urgent need to sustain and rapidly expand fuel treatments alongside community risk reduction efforts, including home hardening and creating defensible space. Together, with safe, effective wildfire response, these strategies reduce risk of loss from wildfire.
The Forest Service has a backlog of over 80 million acres that need treatment, which is over 41% of all national forestland. Because of the removal of fire as beneficial process, trees in these areas are less healthy, fire-loving species are less abundant, and when trees burn, they are more likely to burn hotter than what local plants, animal and fungi evolved to withstand. Meaningfully scaling restoration is also important for reducing climate-harming pollution from wildfire.
Moreover, it is not possible for the Forest Service and other public land managers to treat every acre that needs it. Resources for fuel treatment are limited, and even with a massive expansion, many areas are difficult to treat because of steep slopes, remote locations, and restrictions on human activity, such as rules for wilderness areas. Managing wildfire for resource benefit, which is strategically letting some ignitions burn during favorable weather conditions in remote areas, is a tool for restoring ecological function and reducing risk.
We should prioritize our limited resources on projects that reduce risks to communities, sustain culturally important plants, protect drinking water source areas and make wildland firefighters safer and more effective. Under the right conditions, at an appropriate scale and with thoughtful pre-planning, wildfires that are not immediately contained can restore backcountry ecosystems while reducing fuel that would otherwise be ready to burn during hotter, drier times of the year. Requiring all wildfire to be fully suppressed will make catastrophic wildfire stretch further and burn areas more severely.
Sometimes sending firefighters to put out newly ignited fire in wildland areas is risky and not necessary. The ruggedness of many wilderness areas could present dangerous conditions for firefighters and their remoteness means no nearby communities are at risk.
While no new wildfire is without risk, focusing on containing wildfire quickly misses the full picture. In the United States, our massive wildland fire system is actually very good at suppression: Over 98% of all new wildfire is contained quickly. The 2% that escape firefighting do almost all of the damage. These fires overwhelmingly happen during the hottest, driest, windiest weather, in the worst fuel conditions, and during peak months when firefighting resources are over-prescribed.
Choosing when and where to fight a new fire is an opening to reduce future risk and protect firefighter wellbeing. Mandates for aggressive suppression remove that choice. Moreover, legal mandates for full suppression could force wildfire response leaders to make difficult decisions: use their limited resources to respond to every ignition, even when the conditions are dangerous for firefighters, or face potential legal liability.
Policy should reflect proven ways to improve outcomes in wildland firefighting. There are many ways to improve our wildland firefighting system:
Wildfire is going to be a part of the equation no matter what. We choose whether they burn during a wet spring with many firefighting resources available or during a dry, windy, hot August when the firefighting system is stretched thin. Policy mandating full suppression results in firefighters and communities facing worse conditions for no benefit. Smart policies will help turn the tide on wildfire by taking a comprehensive look at what is driving risk and more intense wildfire, rather than narrowing the range of options available to fire managers.
The ocean is the foundation for life on Earth. It supports global trade, food and nutrition systems, energy security, and economic stability, while also serving as the planet’s largest active carbon sink, absorbing roughly 25% of global carbon emissions and more than 90% of excess heat from climate change.
Today, it sits at the nexus of interconnected challenges: climate change, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, and economic resilience. As countries move into the next phase of the Paris Agreement – implementation – this shift is unfolding against a backdrop of growing geopolitical and economic strain. Shipping disruptions, shifting fish stocks, supply chain volatility, rising food insecurity, and fertilizer shortages have exposed how vulnerable our global systems remain to climate shocks and political conflict.
While the ocean’s role as a carbon sink is well recognized, its role in adaptation is just as critical. Recent disruptions to fertilizer supply chains in the Strait of Hormuz have underscored how dependent global food production remains on trade that is vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. This rings particularly true for coastal communities and developing economies already on the front lines of climate impacts. Blue foods – fisheries and aquaculture – are a clear example, offering locally-led, climate-resilient alternatives that do not rely on fertilizers, offering a pathway to strengthen food security, livelihoods, and economic stability in times of global disruption.
The ocean is no longer a niche issue at the margins of multilateral negotiations. It is now central to whether countries can meet climate goals while protecting biodiversity and supporting livelihoods.
A growing awareness of the ocean as a climate ally defined this year’s Ocean and Climate Change Dialogue at the 64th Sessions of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) in Bonn. Discussions centered on implementation – specifically on the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), means of implementation (including finance and capacity), and strengthening synergies across sectors and international processes.
Three themes emerged clearly from the Dialogue at SB64 in Bonn:
Countries are increasingly recognizing the importance of ocean-based solutions in national climate planning. Efforts such as integrating blue foods into NDCs demonstrate how ocean action can support adaptation, mitigation, and resilience simultaneously – but greater support is needed to move from recognition to delivery.
Fisheries and aquaculture can strengthen resilience, support nutrition and livelihoods, and reduce dependence on vulnerable global supply chains – but many countries still face barriers to fully integrating these solutions into climate plans, including gaps in policy coordination, technical capacity, and financing.
While more than 300 ocean solutions have been identified in the dialogue process, scaling and replicating them requires sustained financing, technical capacity, and stronger enabling environments – particularly in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) where capacity and access are limited.
Financing is central to bridging this gap. Ocean-based solutions currently receive less than 1% of global climate and development finance, despite their cross-cutting benefits. Compounded with high borrowing costs and declining Official Development Assistance (ODA) – the challenge of scaling these solutions becomes even more acute. Strengthening the link between NDC priorities, investment-ready projects, and accessible finance will be critical to moving from ambition to delivery.
Within the UNFCCC process, attention to ocean and water is increasing, including through upcoming discussions under the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), which has an opportunity to further shape how ocean priorities move from policy into funding pipelines.
There is growing momentum to align climate, biodiversity, and ocean governance across the UNFCCC, CBD, and BBNJ processes. The challenge now is demonstrating how these synergies can be implemented in practice. The mesopelagic (or “twilight”) zone offers a clear example of this integrated, “One Ocean” approach in action – and how Rio Convention synergies can be translated into practice. Stretching roughly 200 to 1,000 meters below the surface, the mesopelagic zone plays a critical role in marine food webs and in regulating the Earth’s climate through the biological carbon pump.
EDF is working with partners to advance precautionary, science-based governance approaches that prioritize ecosystem integrity while improving scientific understanding. This work reflects a broader climate-biodiversity approach and offers a practical example of Rio Convention synergies in action – connecting climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable fisheries management.
From Bonn to Mombasa: turning dialogue into delivery
The Our Ocean Conference (OOC) in Mombasa, Kenya, marks the next step in shifting these priorities from dialogue toward implementation.
Across developing economies – particularly in Africa – this transition is already underway. EDF is working with partners through the Aquatic Blue Food Coalition and convening OOC-linked workshops with African stakeholders to translate ambition into actionable commitments, grounded in local priorities and supported by policy and finance.
Further, EDF is also advancing the Rio synergies approach on mesopelagic conservation. At OOC, this effort will move forward through the launch of the Mesopelagic Zone Conservation Challenge, led by champion countries in partnership with the Ocean Conservancy, the Marine Conservation Institute, and EDF. The Challenge aims to catalyze action to protect biodiversity and the ocean’s biological carbon pump, calling for a precautionary approach, stronger science, and the development of robust, transparent management frameworks.
OOC provides an opportunity to take forward the priorities identified in Bonn – on NDC integration, financing, and Rio synergies – and translate them into concrete pledges, partnerships, and delivery mechanisms.
For more information on what EDF is doing at OOC, see here.
Looking ahead: from ambition to action
The trajectory from Bonn is now set in motion: ambition is translating into implementation.
The dialogue has built shared understanding and momentum, but there is a clear and growing appetite to go further. The next phase must focus on delivery – anchoring ocean priorities in concrete outcomes, supported by financing, and driven by country leadership.
Upcoming convenings, including the UNFCCCC Pre-COP, COP31, and future COPs across the Rio conventions, will play a critical role in carrying this momentum forward – ensuring that ocean priorities remain integrated across processes while translating commitments into measurable outcomes.
The ocean has always connected ecosystems, economies, and communities across borders. The task now is to ensure that global processes can do the same – a shared collective goal to elevate ambition through coordinated, practical, and locally grounded action at scale.
Results were released today for the second auction of the year, and 14th overall, in Washington’s Cap-and-Invest program. The auction, conducted last week, followed shortly after Washington’s Department of Ecology officially launched its formal rulemaking process to link Washington’s Carbon Market with the California-Québec market.
This is the second major linkage milestone achieved this year; in March, Washington, California and Québec released a joint draft linkage agreement, which lays out the logistics of integrating Washington into the California-Québec market.
Washington’s Cap-and-Invest auctions are administered quarterly by the Department of Ecology. During the auction, participating entities submitted their bids for allowances.
Under the Climate Commitment Act — Washington’s landmark climate law that sets a binding, declining limit on pollution — major emitters in Washington are required to hold one allowance for every ton of climate pollution they emit, with the total number of allowances decreasing each year.
This system requires Washington’s polluters to reduce their emissions in line with the state’s climate targets, as fewer allowances become available annually.
Today’s results, which settled below the APCR trigger price for the first time in a year, continue the gradual cooling trend in the Washington market which began earlier this year following the release of a draft linkage agreement between Washington, California and Québec.
This second quarterly auction was conducted just a few days after the announcement on June 1 that the Washington Department of Ecology was launching its formal rulemaking process on linkage, and the auction results seen today may reflect the growing confidence among covered entities that, upon finalization of linkage processes in each jurisdiction, they will have access to a larger pool of allowances from a future joint market with California and Québec.
California and Québec have shared a linked market for over a decade, demonstrating that well-designed linked cap-and-invest programs can lead to deeper pollution cuts while supporting economic growth.
Linking these three markets would bring about significant advantages for all participants, including:
Linkage is a key opportunity for climate leadership for Washington, California and Québec, to take a step that will strengthen one of our best and most cost-effective tools to reduce emissions and raise revenue for community investments. With Washington’s linkage rulemaking underway, we expect to see similar steps taken by Québec and California in the coming months.
The need for scalable, durable climate action at the state level has never been greater, and these jurisdictions are showing how working across borders can drive meaningful progress.
When a utility company like Duke Energy plans for the future, they try to predict how much electricity their customers will need a decade from now. It’s a guessing game involving new factories, data centers and population growth.
But what happens if those guesses are wrong? According to energy expert Robert Patrylak, North Carolinians might end up paying for a multi-billion-dollar gas plant that the state doesn’t actually need.
Patrylak, an engineer with over 30 years of experience in the power industry, submitted testimony on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund in Duke’s Carbon Plan hearings. These are annual hearings held by the North Carolina Utilities Commission that allow experts, ratepayers and advocacy groups to directly weigh in on Duke Energy’s energy plans. His message to the Utilities Commission is clear: Duke is moving too fast in pursuit of new fossil fuel power plants, and North Carolina families shouldn’t have to foot the bill for a “just in case” project.
Here is a breakdown of why this testimony matters for your wallet and our state’s clean energy future.
Duke Energy’s current proposal calls for building a fleet of new gas power plants by 2033. Duke argues these are necessary to keep the lights on as North Carolina grows.
After running 17 different “stress tests” on Duke’s math, Patrylak found that of the two gas plants Duke is currently seeking approval to move forward with, the case for the first is questionable and the second is “not robust” when looking at a realistic range of scenarios — meaning North Carolina can and should wait until the 2027-28 Carbon Plan cycle to consider whether or not to allow Duke to commit your hard-earned money to pay for it.
Duke’s plan for these new fossil fuel power plants depends on everything going perfectly according to their forecast. And their forecasting track record is not especially great. Duke is counting on a massive wave of new “large-load” customers like data centers, to show up exactly on time.
Patrylak points out three reasons why North Carolinians should be skeptical:
Patrylak’s main recommendation is a common-sense one: Let’s keep our options open. For example, in most modeled scenarios, the second gas plant under consideration was not needed until 2040, rather than 2033 as Duke asserts. Approving this plant would simply be premature, before North Carolina has a chance to see whether those data centers actually get built and if the demand for additional sources of electricity actually materializes. By waiting, if the data centers and the load don’t materialize, North Carolina households and other energy customers will have saved billions. If the demand does materialize, Duke can still build the plant, or better yet — a cleaner, more affordable alternative, later.
Offshore wind should have been another option North Carolina could tap into if needed, but Duke’s improper modeling takes it off the table. As Patrylak noted in his filed testimony, Duke simply didn’t follow the NCUC’s directions when it came to modeling offshore wind. The Commission directed Duke to look into models where the utility would share the cost of wind farms with other partners to make it cheaper for customers (a common approach that’s been taken with other offshore wind projects), but Duke didn’t follow those instructions. If they had, offshore wind might have remained as another option, and would likely have been shown to be a much more competitive and affordable choice compared to building more gas plants than Duke alleges.
The bottom line is that in their ambition to lock in approval of new, expensive, fossil fuel power plants, Duke is pushing a false choice — suggesting North Carolina has to choose between reliability and affordability. By looking more deeply into the modeling and rejecting Duke Energy’s all out push for new fossil fuel power plants, North Carolina can:
As the NCUC weighs Duke’s Carbon Plan, experts like Patrylak remind North Carolina lawmakers that the most prudent path is the one that prioritizes household budgets. North Carolina can do that by keeping the most affordable energy options open — rather than locking in the most expensive ones — to meet future electricity needs.
International climate diplomacy continues next week in Bonn, Germany, where negotiators and advocates will set the stage for the United Nations’ climate conference COP31 later this year in Antalya, Türkiye. London Climate Action Week – taking place later in June – will then gather the largest mobilization of UK and EU-based companies, finance institutions, and civil society groups focused on climate action.
These climate meetings arrive at a moment of profound complexity in our world: Conflict in the Persian Gulf is fueling rising energy prices and cost‑of‑living pressures on our households; fertilizer shortages are straining food security; and communities everywhere are bracing for an intense wildfire season and flooding due to one of the most intense El Niño seasons. Responding to these pressures, countries and companies are forced to make challenging economic and energy decisions in real time.
But it is precisely in moments like this where windows of opportunity open to make clean energy and resilient development the easy choice for countries seeking energy security and economic prosperity.
Transforming these fierce headwinds into momentum requires collaboration and whole-of-society-engagement to unlock and mobilize around emerging opportunities; climate diplomacy that delivers clarity and direction toward real-economy solutions; inclusive processes to drive finance for climate action; and putting people at the heart of climate solutions.
An all-hands approach to seize opportunity in times of crisis
Energy security remains top of mind for governments worldwide. The challenge now is to implement solutions that meet people’s immediate needs—energy affordability, reliability and access—while maintaining momentum toward deep cuts in climate pollution and building resilience that reduces our climate risk.
The recent dialogues on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia underscored both the risk of backtracking toward fossil‑based systems and the enormous opportunity that clean energy offers.
We won’t achieve a just energy transition by choosing between security and sustainability; we need actions that deliver both. And in times of crisis, we need to work together to find rare opportunities.
Right now, the world is reeling from a shortage of oil and gas supply. Meanwhile, enough natural gas to power Japan, South Korea and Australia for a year is being wasted through leaks and flaring at oil and gas infrastructure around the world, and instead leaked into the atmosphere as climate pollution. We can turn this wasted energy into energy that powers people’s lives—and avoids near-term climate harm—by tightening the screws and batting down the hatches, equipment maintenance and worker training. We can eliminate 70% of fossil-fuel methane emissions with affordable fixes and technologies that we have today. And that’s not only an energy security win today, but a leg up toward enabling a more orderly and equitable longer-term energy transition.
The world’s energy crisis is an opportunity to catalyze energy security and climate solutions—but it requires all hands on deck to seize the opportunity, and spaces like the Bonn climate meetings and LCAW provide the convening power required for enhanced progress and action.
Pulling the economic levers to make the climate choice the easy choice
London Climate Action Week will spark a gathering of stakeholders and leaders from the United Kingdom and across the European Union, including many from the private sector and finance who can play a major role in shaping the standards, financial tools and partnerships that enable climate action with lasting impact. This crowd gives us an opportunity to focus on one central question: How can we mobilize the money to drive a global climate transition?
EDF will engage across sectors to help unlock the real‑economy pathways needed to:
Putting people at the center of solution design and implementation
I’m a firm believer that a climate solution that only works for our atmosphere and fails to work for people is no solution at all. Conversely, solutions that center peoples’ experiences and livelihoods at the heart of their design are the ones most likely to succeed and deliver benefits for the long haul.
Climate diplomacy and climate solutions must be grounded in and informed by the lived realities of households, farmers, workers and communities. You can’t protect trees without the leadership of the community living near forest. We need to work directly with farmers to grow and produce food that feeds the world with less pollution. In the same way, we cannot transform our energy systems without the involvement of those directly involved in producing and using the energy.
This is how a climate solution can be truly sustainable: by putting people first. In this moment of geopolitical tension and economic crisis, that principle is more important to our work than ever.
Looking Ahead
As the world moves from Bonn to Antalya, the stakes could not be higher. The decisions that countries and companies make in the midst of this moment of conflict and upheaval will shape not only the trajectory of global climate action but also the economic and energy security landscape for decades to come.
EDF will continue working with partners across governments, business and civil society to ensure that climate solutions are practical, investable and centered on people’s wellbeing. The path forward demands cooperation, creativity and courage—and we promise to bring all three to Bonn, London, and beyond.
Results were released today for the year’s second auction of the California-Québec carbon market, known as the Western Climate Initiative. This is the last auction before the California Air Resources Board votes on new regulations regarding the implementation of this program, at their hearing scheduled for tomorrow and Friday.
If CARB approves the draft regulations as they are currently proposed, they’ll be voting to blow a hole in the emissions cap and threaten critical community and household investments that make Cap-and-Invest such a powerful tool for delivering results for the climate and families.
These results come at a tumultuous time for California’s landmark climate program. Since 2012, it has served as the state’s emissions backstop: a foundational policy to cap and reduce climate pollution, while generating critical revenue to invest in energy affordability, climate resilience, infrastructure and more.
As detailed in our April blog, the creation of a Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive (MDI) in CARB’s proposed update to program regulations creates a significant problem for the most essential part of this climate program: the cap on climate-warming emissions.
When CARB votes, Board Members should make their approval of these regulations contingent on the removal of the MDI, and direct the CARB Executive Officer to issue a new 15-day package without this problematic new mechanism. Here’s why:
CARB has proposed creating exactly 118.3 million additional allowances to fund the MDI, the precise number of allowances they need to be removing from the cap to keep us on track for our 2030 targets. By both removing 118.3 million allowances from one part of the program, and then creating 118.3 million allowances in a new part of the program, CARB is essentially laundering pollution.
While the MDI is intended to provide assistance to industries, like oil refineries, to encourage investment in decarbonization technologies, it is layered on top of already generous free allowance allocation in CARB’s draft regulations, and its design jeopardizes California’s ability to meet our 2030 emissions reduction targets. One analysis from UC Berkeley finds that when all these proposed benefits are taken together, refineries could receive free allowances “well in excess” of what they actually need for compliance. Free allocation of allowances from under the cap is a proven strategy to avoid emissions leakage, but the MDI above the cap is a step too far.
By creating additional allowances for a market where prices have been hovering at the price floor for a year, this proposal effectively stands to flood an already weak market with even more allowances, driving down demand further.
The consequences are not theoretical: the Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report in May, based on CARB’s own estimates, predicting that with these proposed revisions projected to cut Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenue roughly in half, many critical programs that depend on GGRF funding — including AB 617 programs that fund clean air and safe drinking water — would be zeroed out. These findings build on analyses by the UC Santa Barbara Environmental Markets Lab and by Greenline Insights, which also predict huge losses in critical revenue for climate and affordability programs if this proposal is adopted. And that brings us back to today’s results:
Today’s settlement price, which cleared above the February auction price by less than a dollar, reflects the ongoing downward trend in allowance prices and GGRF revenue seen by this market since February, 2024 when prices peaked at $41.76. In 2024, the May auction settled at $37.02 and generated $1.1 billion for the GGRF — over $330 million more than what’s expected from this auction. In 2025 alone, California lost out on more than $3 billion in cap-and-invest revenue as the rulemaking process dragged on. The prices we saw today are also still far lower than the price projections CARB used in their Initial Statement of Reasons, which estimated weighted average allowance prices of $68. Had allowance prices in this auction settled at that price, this auction would have raised over $1.8 billion in revenue for the GGRF.
Today’s results make the stakes of tomorrow’s Board vote impossible to ignore. By making their approval contingent on removing the MDI, CARB can strengthen this landmark program and permanently reduce emissions in line with our statutory 2030 goal while also shoring up critical climate and affordability revenue — in short, CARB can fulfill its duty to the law, to Californians, and to the climate.
EDF and many others will be at the Board meeting in person to give comments — if you’re interested in tuning in or want to share your thoughts, you can find more information here.
