Most nations miss deadline for plans to fight climate change. UN says take your time to do it right.
UN Climate Secretary Simon Stiell said that more than 170 countries have told his office they are working on their national plans, so he is not worried. He emphasized quality over timeliness.
Advertisement
'Taking a bit more time to ensure these plans are first-rate makes sense,' Stiell said last week in a policy speech in Brazil. 'These will be the most comprehensive climate plans ever developed.'
Champa Patel, policy director of the nonprofit Climate Group, was not as forgiving.
'It's worrying that countries are failing to meet the urgency of the moment,' Patel said. 'The world cannot afford inaction.'
These plans — officially called Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs — are the main mechanism of the landmark international agreement. Every five years, nations are supposed to come up with new and stronger five-year plans that outline their voluntary plans to limit or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.
The latest versions are supposed to be compatible with the Paris agreement's goal of limiting long-term warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. The world is now at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s, and on pace to warm another 1.8 degrees Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the UN.
Advertisement
Scientists say the warming atmosphere is driving ever more extreme weather events, including flooding, droughts, hurricanes, heat waves, and wildfires that are killing people and causing billions of dollars in damage every year.
The new targets are also supposed to be for all greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. They should cover the entire economy not just the energy sector, according to a 2023 agreement.
Climate Action Tracker — a group of scientists and other experts who analyze nations' climate plans for domestic emissions — found that four of the six NDC targets they looked at so far got an 'almost sufficient' for their target of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Switzerland got an insufficient, with the group saying its plan was more compatible with 3 degrees of warming. The UK's plan was rated compatible for 1.5 degrees of warming.
Britain's plan aims to cut emissions by at least 81 percent by 2035 when compared to 1990 emissions, mentioning efforts to phase out new internal combustion cars — which only use gasoline and diesel — by 2030. Brazil in its plan gave a range of emission cuts of 59 percent to 67 percent by 2035, when compared to 2005 emissions, talking heavily about an emphasis on climate justice, repeatedly mentioning efforts to combat deforestation.
Most of those countries were rated insufficient when it compared what they plan to do with what they are actually doing and what their 'fair share' is considering their resources and history. That included the United States, where one of Trump's first actions last month was pulling out of the Paris agreement.
Advertisement
'We know already right now that whatever (other) countries put out, it is not enough,' Climate Action Tracker co-founder Niklas Hohne said Monday. 'They all need to do more.'
Stiell said the real deadline for the plans is in September. That is when the United Nations will tally up all the plans and figure out how much emissions will be cut and how much future warming will be prevented if countries do what they promise.
That's a big if.
The European Union and China should be done by the middle of the year and India will only submit their target after other major emitting nations do so, Hohne said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
Hot In The City: Why The Wrong Trees In The Wrong Places Matters
Cooling down: New York has recorded temperatures of nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit In the last days of last month, the death toll tripled in several major European cities in the face of sweltering heat. Milan, Paris, Barcelona and London were the worst hit. With more than two thirds of the world's population expected to live in cities by 2050, the race to cool them down is on. Tree planting has become an important part of urban heat mitigation efforts. But a Cambridge University-led study shows that planting the wrong species or combinations of trees may not just reduce the benefits, but actually make things worse, elevating night time temperature. The scientists found that planting trees in urban areas can lower pedestrian-height air temperature by up to 12 degrees centigrade (53.5 F). Introducing trees reduced the highest temperature in 83% of the cities studied. However, the extent will vary, depending on urban layout and species' traits. 'Our study challenges the common perception that trees are the ultimate panacea for overheating cities worldwide,' says Professor Ronita Bardhan from the University of Cambridge. 'Trees have a crucial role to play in cooling cities down, but we need to plant them much more strategically to get the best results.' For instance, adds Bardhan, 'The cooling behaviour of a species in a rural environment may be very different in an urban setting. It also matters where these trees are placed. In more sparsely populated areas they will do well, but in heavily built-up areas, they won't.' Until now, we've known relatively little about unique tree cooling mechanisms and how these interact with different urban features. Previous research has tended to focus on specific climates or regions, relying on fragmented case studies. The first comprehensive global assessment of urban tree cooling has changed all that. The authors looked at a wide range of studies over 17 climates in 100 cities and regions for the period 2010 – 2023. Understanding why planting matters is the first step in getting green right. How Trees Cool Cities In daytime, trees help reduce temperature by blocking solar radiation while water evaporation and foliage alters the airflow. In some circumstances, however, the 'wrong' trees can also increase air temperature at night. 'When the aerodynamic resistance is high and the leaf stomata close, heat dissipation through transpiration is reduced, limiting the escape of heat energy,' Bardhan says. 'This typically happens at night. If there is a high humidity load, this humid-warm air can be trapped and re-circulate beneath the tree canopy.' The scientists found that urban trees in compact settings are most effective in cooling cities in hot and dry climates but are less effective in hot, humid ones. In tropical wet and dry climates with distinct wet and dry seasons, such as central Africa, parts of South America and northern Australia, trees can be very effective in cooling cities by day. In Nigeria, trees can cool temperatures by as much as 12 degrees centigrade. But at night, trees warmed cities the most, by up to 0.8 degrees. Evergreens beside Dubai's International Financial Centre A lush green canopy hangs over parts of Dubai City. Among the acacias, neem, olive, palm and other desert trees the evening air carries the scent of Indian jasmine. Last year the municipality planted 216,500 new trees as part of its ambitious 2023 Quality of Life Strategy. Bardhan and colleagues found that trees performed well in arid climates such as Dubai's, cooling cities by just over 9 degrees and warming them at night by 0.4 degrees. Elsewhere, however, in a tropical rain forest climate with higher humidity, daytime cooling was only 2 degrees. Closer to home, trees in more temperate climates, such as London, can cool cities by 6 degrees but warm them up by 1.5 degrees. In many hot countries, trees tend to be evergreen. By including deciduous trees in the mix, the cooling effect can often be greater. Recent planting schemes in Saudi Arabia have incorporated deciduous as well as evergreens. The nature of the local urban environment will have an impact on the potential cooling while the idea balance of temperate and deciduous trees will vary. Urban layouts such as London's are more likely to benefit from the inclusion of deciduous trees alongside evergreens, but to a lesser extent than in Saudi Arabia. 'If you plant deciduous trees in a densely populated part of London, they won't perform in the same way as in the wild,' Bardhan observes. 'It's also important where these trees are placed. Trees may perform well in sparsely populated areas, but in dense urban settings the limited cooling impact reflects failed design. "To be effective for the climate, cities need to treat nature as a fundamental design variable, rather than an afterthought.' Selecting the optimum type and location for trees in an urban setting is critical. Few cities can afford projects on the scale of Dubai's and those who may need the right trees most because of global warming – are often the poorest. Bardhan and her colleagues at Cambridge have come up with a solution. They are developing a prototype shading device, inspired by nature's way of cooling. It's already been tested out successfully in dense urban areas. 'It mimics everything that natural trees do,' explains Bardhan 'We can control humidity along with temperature unlike standard shading devices that only regulate temperature. The design also allows the release of trapped radiation at night, unlike a tree.' The shading device can resemble a tree or take other forms, such as a vending cart. Rather than just being a luxury in affluent neighbourhoods, shade and cooling can come to schoolchildren and the most vulnerable communities at relatively low cost. As Bardhan says, it's climate action put into reality. With the data provided by the Cambridge study, urban planners have an invaluable tool that could transform efforts to reduce heat. You can see the cooling effect of trees in the cities researched on the interactive map here.
Forbes
14 hours ago
- Forbes
The Burning Man Of Brain Science And How Croatia Became Ground Zero For AI's Next Breakthoughs
TOPSHOT - A robot using artificial intelligence is displayed at a stand during the International ... More Telecommunication Union (ITU) AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, on May 30, 2024. Humanity is in a race against time to harness the colossal emerging power of artificial intelligence for the good of all, while averting dire risks, a top UN official said. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP) (Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images) While venture capitalists pour billions into the latest AI startups—with global VC investment in AI surging to an unprecedented $110 billion in 2024—the most transformative breakthroughs may be happening in an unexpected place: a sun-soaked conference center on Croatia's Dalmatian coast. As Silicon Valley chases the next ChatGPT and investors scramble to fund everything from AI-powered dating apps to automated hedge funds, a small but influential gathering of neuroscientists and AI researchers is quietly working on something far more fundamental—understanding how intelligence actually works. The venture capital frenzy surrounding artificial intelligence has created a curious paradox. While hundreds of startups receive funding to build applications on top of existing AI models, relatively little attention—and even less money—flows toward the basic research that could unlock the next generation of truly intelligent systems. The current AI boom, built largely on scaled-up neural networks and massive datasets, may be reaching its limits just as investors double down on incremental improvements. But in Split, Croatia, a different conversation is taking place—one that could reshape not just how we build AI, but how we understand the very nature of intelligence itself. The world's brightest minds gathered in Split, Croatia, for what one attendee called "neurIPS crossed with Burning Man." This wasn't your typical academic conference. For four days in May 2025, the sixth International Conference on Mathematics of Neuroscience and AI brought together an extraordinary collection of researchers, entrepreneurs, and visionaries who are wrestling with some of the most profound questions of our time: How do we think? How do machines learn? And what happens when the two converge? The conference's origins trace back to a simple yet ambitious idea six years ago during the pandemic. Dr Ruairidh McLennan Battleday, a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard's Center for Brain Science and MIT's Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines, was frustrated by what he saw as a fundamental gap in neuroscience. "There aren't any truly general theories about how human brains learn and function," he explains. "In a lot of other sciences—including biochemistry—the pathway to discovering these unifying theories has been about bringing in more sophisticated mathematics." What began as a gathering of Battleday, his colleagues Professor Dan Nicolau Jr, Dr James Whittington, and a dozen friends has evolved into a premier international forum featuring what organizers boldly call "the best line-up of the decade for a neuroscience and AI conference." This year's roster included Professor Juergen Schmidhuber, widely regarded as the "father of modern AI," and Professor Jay McClelland, one of the pioneers of artificial neural networks. The Mathematics of Mind The conference's focus on mathematical rigor reflects a growing recognition that neuroscience, despite being only a century old, needs more sophisticated theoretical frameworks. Unlike physics, which has unified theories like relativity and quantum mechanics, neuroscience remains largely descriptive. "We're still trying to figure out the basic rules," Battleday notes. "But if we learn more about human brains, we understand ourselves better, gain clues as to how to treat neurological disease, and can build much better machines and AI." This interdisciplinary approach was evident throughout the conference's programming. Seven internationally renowned keynote speakers delivered presentations that ranged from theoretical neuroscience to practical AI applications. Thirty additional talks and two hundred posters covered everything from biocomputation to cognitive science, creating what attendees described as an unusually rich intellectual environment. Professor Juergen Schmidhuber's keynote to a packed auditorium exemplified this blend of theory and application. Although Juergen himself developed many of the algorithmic components of modern AI in the early 1990s, he argued that we are still lacking the physical means to allow these systems to learn from and develop in the real world effectively. Two of the forefathers of artificial neural networks together—Professors Jay McClelland, Professor ... More of Psychology at Stanford, and Juergen Schmidhuber, AI lead at KAUST and head of the Swiss AI Institute. Watched intently by conference chairs Dr Ruairidh McLennan Battleday (Harvard / MIT) and Dr James Whittington (Stanford / Oxford) The Human Edge Perhaps the most thought-provoking presentation came from Professor Jay McClelland of Stanford and DeepMind, who posed the question: "Are People Still Smarter than Machines?" His answer was a qualified yes. While acknowledging AI's tremendous progress, McClelland argued that the human brain deploys "a more efficient and creative algorithm that follows a different—and better—logic." This perspective challenges the prevailing narrative that AI systems are rapidly approaching or surpassing human intelligence across all domains. McClelland's argument suggests that the competition between human and artificial intelligence may be less about raw computational power and more about fundamental differences in how information is processed and creativity emerges. The implications extend far beyond academic debate. If McClelland is correct, the future of AI development may require not just bigger models and more data, but fundamentally different approaches that more closely mirror human cognition. This could reshape everything from how tech companies invest research dollars to how educators prepare students for an AI-integrated future. Beyond the Ivory Tower One of the most striking aspects of the Split conference was its blend of academic rigor and practical urgency. Erwann Le Lannou from XTX Markets, the conference's main sponsor, joined Battleday in reflecting on the growing focus of research in startups and industry. This shift represents a significant change in how neuroscience and AI research is conducted and funded. The presence of industry leaders alongside academic researchers created a unique dynamic. While universities traditionally drive basic research, companies are increasingly pushing the boundaries of practical applications. This convergence was evident in the conference's atmosphere, which one attendee described as having "exceptional talent yet a relaxed vibe, allowing people to speak freely with each other and the great minds we attract." The informal interactions may have been just as valuable as the formal presentations. Conference organizers emphasized that "offline discussions are a key part of the conference—that's where the really radical insights are proposed and debated." In the ancient Roman squares of Split's old town, over dinners and walks along the Adriatic coast, participants engaged in the kind of freewheeling intellectual exchange that has historically driven scientific breakthroughs. A toast to the team. Very hard work from a group where everyone is a volunteer (with no former ... More experience in event planning), as well as an academic researcher. A toast to the team. Very hard work from a group where everyone is a volunteer (with no former experience in event planning), as well as an academic researcher. The Stakes of Understanding The conference's timing couldn't be more relevant. As Battleday observes, "Right now, with AI, it feels like we are on the verge of something great or disastrous." The rapid advancement of AI systems, from language models to autonomous vehicles, has created both unprecedented opportunities and existential concerns about the future of human society. The interdisciplinary approach championed by the Split conference offers a potential path forward. By bringing together neuroscientists, AI researchers, mathematicians, and industry practitioners, the event creates space for the kind of cross-pollination that could yield breakthrough insights. Understanding how human intelligence works may be crucial for developing AI systems that are not just powerful, but safe and beneficial. Dr Ida Momennejad from Microsoft Research captured this spirit when she noted, "I think I finally get neuromonster!" – referring to the conference's playful nickname for itself. The comment, made during the conference's Arts Salon where speakers gave poetic renditions of their work, reflects the unique culture that has emerged around this gathering. Looking Forward As the conference concluded with participants toasting their collective efforts and planning for next year's gathering in Rhodes, Greece, the questions raised in Split remain as pressing as ever. The volunteer-run nature of the event – organized entirely by active researchers with no formal event-planning experience – speaks to the genuine passion driving this community. The conference's growth from a small gathering of friends to a major international forum reflects the increasing recognition that the boundaries between neuroscience and AI are not just blurring but becoming irrelevant. As artificial systems become more sophisticated and our understanding of biological intelligence deepens, the questions that matter most are not whether humans or machines are smarter, but how we can harness both forms of intelligence to address the challenges ahead. The conversations that began in Split's Roman squares and continued in the Marjan Hills will likely influence research directions, funding priorities, and technological development for years to come. In a world where the pace of AI advancement shows no signs of slowing, forums like this one may prove essential for ensuring that progress serves humanity's best interests. For now, the researchers who gathered in Croatia are returning to their labs and companies, armed with new insights and connections forged over four days of intense intellectual exchange. The real test of the conference's impact will come not in the papers published or the presentations given, but in the breakthroughs that emerge from the unique intersection of human curiosity and artificial capability that defines our current moment in history.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
This camera was 370 million miles away when radiation fried the electronics. What NASA did next literally saved the mission
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. As a photographer, I've known the horror of opening images to find them corrupted – but I imagine that feeling pales in comparison to what NASA felt when Juno, a spacecraft orbiting Jupiter 370 million miles away, began returning corrupted images from a radiation-fried camera. Launching another camera isn't exactly an option, considering the total costs of the Juno spacecraft and mission sit a $1.13 billion, and it's not like there's a camera repair shop on Jupiter. So what did NASA do? NASA took a risk and intentionally overheated the camera in an attempt to save it. Juno, a spacecraft studying Jupiter, successfully completed its primary mission in 34 orbits. But as the spacecraft continued to study the planet, around the 47th orbit, the images that Juno sent back were beginning to show signs of sensor damage. Nine orbits later, and nearly all of the images that Juno was sending back were corrupted, with lines running through the images and more graininess than normal. NASA scientists theorized that the damage was due to radiation. JunoCam – which is a color, visible light camera – is housed in a 'radiation vault' lined with titanium, NASA says, but Jupiter has some of the most intense radiation in the Solar System. Essentially, that camera is traveling through radiation as strong as 100 million X-rays. Based on clues, NASA researchers believed that the damage to the camera was in a voltage regulator. But how do you repair a component integral to a camera's power supply from 370 million miles away? NASA turned to a little-understood process called annealing, a procedure for heating up a material for a certain length of time, then allowing it to cool. Annealing has been shown to alter materials like silicone, an essential component in a camera's sensor and electronics. 'We knew annealing can sometimes alter a material like silicon at a microscopic level but didn't know if this would fix the damage,' Jacob Schaffner, a JunoCam engineer from Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego, said. 'We commanded JunoCam's one heater to raise the camera's temperature to 77 degrees Fahrenheit — much warmer than typical for JunoCam — and waited with bated breath to see the results.' After overheating the camera, JunoCam began sending back cleaner images. But after a few more orbits, continuing to venture further into the radiation with each pass, the images began returning with defects once again. No amount of post-processing was able to recover the data, Michael Ravine, the JunoCam Instrument Lead, said, but Juno was due to orbit near the moon Io at the time. The team, keen to photograph one of Jupiter's moons and continue gathering visual data from the mission, tried one more thing. 'With the close encounter of Io bearing down on us in a few weeks, it was Hail Mary time: The only thing left we hadn't tried was to crank JunoCam's heater all the way up and see if more extreme annealing would save us,' Ravine said. Test images showed improvement after the first week, then, finally, as Juno was making its close approach to Io, the camera returned images nearly as good as the day the spacecraft's first images were taken, allowing researchers to capture images of Io. Io is one of 95 moons on Jupiter, but NASA says the moon is the most volcanically active space in the solar system. Repairing the camera allowed Juno to photograph the volcanoes dotting the surface. This Hail Mary move happened in December of 2023, but NASA recently presented the data at an engineering conference earlier this month. Since using the process to repair Juno's camera, the team has also used it to repair other components aboard Juno. The team expects that the process could be used to maintain spacecraft as well as satellites in the future. Juno has now orbited Jupiter 74 times and is beginning to show signs of further radiation damage. But, the annealing allowed researchers to catch a glimpse of the moon Io and continue photographing the planet. Not bad for long-distance camera repair. You may also like Browse the best lenses for astrophotography or take a look at DCW's top picks for the best tripods.
