Latest news with #climateimpact
CNA
4 days ago
- Science
- CNA
Singapore Botanic Gardens embarks on digitalisation effort to aid research
The Singapore Botanic Gardens is embarking on its largest digitalisation effort. It will capture more than 850,000 local botanic specimens and documents in a two-year project. These will go toward enhancing international research and the study of climate impact using AI.
BBC News
19-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
New guidance published for North Sea oil and gas projects
The UK government has published guidance on how it will consider fresh applications for oil and gas move will determine whether production can go ahead in the controversial Scottish fields, Rosebank and Jackdaw - but gives no indication as to whether ministers would give their will now have to draw up new environmental impact assessments that take emissions released from burning oil and gas into account - not just the emissions from Minister Michael Shanks said the guidance provided clarity on the way forward for the North Sea oil and gas industry. Climate campaigners say new developments will make "barely a dent" in the UK's reliance on imported fossil new guidance was drawn up in response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling last year, that Surrey County Council should have considered the full climate impact of burning oil from new those assessments took into account emissions generated by the process of extracting oil and gas. However, they did not count the greenhouse gases which would be released when those fossil fuels were eventually burned - known as "downstream" or "Scope 3" January, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that the decision in that case should apply retrospectively to Rosebank and Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea was originally approved by the previous UK Conservative government, and the industry regulator, in summer for the Rosebank oil development, 80 miles west of Shetland in the North Atlantic, was granted in autumn Ericht said work on both fields could continue while the new information was gathered but no oil and gas could be extracted unless fresh approval was granted. The climate watchdog - Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning - and regulator the North Sea Transition Authority had paused decisions on licenses for new drilling projects and the granting of existing licenses until the government clarified its of the new guidance means offshore developers can submit their applications for consent to extract oil and gas in already-licensed Secretary Ed Miliband and the regulator will then reconsider whether or not to grant consent, taking downstream emissions into UK government said it would consider the significance of a project's environmental impact, "while taking into account and balancing relevant factors on a case-by-case basis such as the potential economic impact and other implications of the project".No decisions are expected until the end of the Shanks said: "This new guidance... marks a step forward in ensuring the full implications of oil and gas extraction are considered for potential projects and that we ensure a managed, prosperous, and orderly transition to the North Sea's clean energy future, in line with the science."We are working with industry, trade unions, local communities and environmental groups to ensure the North Sea and its workers are at the heart of Britain's clean energy future for decades to come – supporting well-paid, skilled jobs, driving growth and boosting our energy security." 'Incompatible' with climate commitments Tessa Khan, executive director of the climate campaign group Uplift, said the new guidance means that oil and gas companies will be "finally be forced to come clean over the enormous harm they are causing to the climate".She said: "In the case of the Rosebank oil field, which Equinor can now seek reapproval for, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the project is incompatible with the UK's climate commitments. "Whether or not this government then follows the science and rejects Rosebank will be a real test of its climate credibility."Ms Khan added that Rosebank is a "bad deal" for the UK, would not help lower fuel bills or boost energy update comes shortly after the UK government's Spending Review last week, which included about £200m for the Acorn Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) scheme in also told the BBC he expects plans to be announced "soon" for the future of Grangemouth. This is a significant moment for the future of the North Sea but it effectively tells us it does, though, is it takes the brakes off future development within existing licence seeking consent to produce oil and gas will now be allowed to resume their applications, which have been on hold since the Supreme Court now have to produce an environmental impact assessment which sets out at all the planet warming greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and consumption of the that, they have to set out what impact those emissions will have on the warming of the receive consent, they must set a compelling case for why those emissions must be offset against the benefits of giving the project the go the minister will use a matrix to decide whether to approve or reject any won't really know what impact all of this will have on those decisions until the first of them are there's a summer of uncertainty ahead. But we could start to gather a picture of whether the North Sea has a viable future from August onwards.
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Stone Harbor Investment Partners Introduces Emerging Markets Climate Impact Debt Fund
Actively managed, sustainable UCITS fund targets emerging market countries This is a marketing communication. NEW YORK, June 18, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Stone Harbor Investment Partners, an investment manager of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (NYSE: VRTS), has launched the Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Climate Impact Debt (Bloomberg: STHEMDI) (the "Fund"), a UCITS fund classified as Article 9 under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) that addresses decarbonization efforts occurring in Emerging Markets (EM) while seeking to deliver attractive long-term total returns for investors. The Fund invests in sustainable debt issued with proceeds dedicated to environmental activities, assets, projects or expenditures, with social bonds also permissible, of EM corporate, sovereign, quasi-sovereign and supranational issuers in hard currency. The Fund, with a sustainable objective to promote the transition towards an environmentally and socially sustainable economy, seeks to outperform the J.P Morgan EM Credit Green, Social and Sustainability Bond Diversified Index (GESSIE EM Credit Div USD Hedged). "Stone Harbor has incorporated sustainability factors into the EM debt investment process for well over a decade, and as issuance of emerging markets labelled bonds has grown alongside demand from our clients for sustainable investment solutions, we have responded with a comprehensive platform to cover the full spectrum of emerging markets fixed income exposure," said James E. Craige, CFA, Stone Harbor's chief investment officer and head of Emerging Markets, who oversees the management of the Fund. "The new Fund brings together our specialist investment skills in emerging markets with a sustainable investment framework that meets the Article 9 requirements of institutional investors." In addition to Craige, the Stone Harbor investment team managing the Fund includes Deputy Chief Investment Officer Stuart Slater-Booth and Portfolio Managers Steffen Reichold, Richard Lange and Darin Batchman. "The market for emerging markets green and sustainable bonds has been developing rapidly and now offers broad diversification in liquid markets as the Fund aims to provide access to measurable, high-impact investments while at the same time offering attractive risk-adjusted returns," Reichold said. The Fund's investments are identified through the Stone Harbor SFDR sustainable investments framework and complements the firm's Article 8 UCITS fund, the Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund. "To support our sustainability strategy, Stone Harbor helped transition our portfolio from traditional EM debt investments to a strategy focused on green and sustainable bonds that is managed in line with Article 9 requirements," said Marius Daheim of BarmeniaGothaer Asset Management, based in Cologne, Germany. About Stone Harbor Investment Partners Stone Harbor Investment Partners is a global credit specialist with three decades of expertise in emerging and developed markets debt. Stone Harbor's investment team – portfolio managers, credit analysts, economists, quantitative analysts, and risk management professionals – engages in disciplined and regular collaboration to carefully construct their global macroeconomic outlook and strategic allocation framework. As a research-driven firm, Stone Harbor drills deeply into the fundamentals to determine the attractiveness of individual credits, currencies, interest rates, and yield curves to find the best investments within select asset classes. About Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Virtus Investment Partners (NYSE: VRTS) is a distinctive partnership of boutique investment managers singularly committed to the long-term success of individual and institutional investors. We provide investment products and services from our investment managers, each with a distinct investment style and autonomous investment process, as well as select subadvisers. Investment solutions are available across multiple disciplines and product types to meet a wide array of investor needs. Additional information about our firm, investment partners, and strategies is available at Risk Considerations Interest Rate: The values of debt instruments may rise or fall in response to changes in interest rates, and this risk may be enhanced for securities with longer maturities. Currency Rate: Fluctuations in the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies may negatively affect the value of the portfolio's shares. Emerging Markets Risk: Investments in emerging markets may involve a higher degree of risk. Assets may not be properly held in custody and, as a result, may be lost. It may be more difficult to sell assets at a fair price in emerging markets. ESG: The interpretation of ESG and sustainability criteria is subjective meaning that the fund may invest in companies which similar funds do not (and thus perform differently) and which do not align with the personal views of any individual investor. The portfolio's consideration of ESG factors could cause the portfolio to perform differently from other portfolios. While Stone Harbor Investment Partners believes that the integration of ESG factors into the portfolio's investment process has the potential to contribute to performance, ESG factors may not be considered for every investment decision and there is no guarantee that the integration of ESG factors will result in better performance. There is no guarantee that ESG integration and engagement will enhance the quality of asset allocation or portfolio construction. ESG characteristics and risks could have a materially positive or negative impact on the performance of a Fund. Credit Risk: The issuers of securities or similar instruments that we buy may not be able to make payments, which could lead to an investment loss. This risk is greater for investments with a medium or low credit rating. Counterparty: There is risk that a party upon whom the portfolio relies to complete a transaction will default. Derivatives Risk: A small movement in the value of the underlying asset may cause a large movement in the value of the derivative which can result in a loss to the Fund. Investment Risk: Investing is subject to risk, including the risk of possible loss of principal. Prospectus: For more information in relation to these and other risks, please refer to the "Characteristics and Risks of Securities and Investment Techniques" section of the prospectus. The fund described above is a sub-fund of Stone Harbor Investment Funds plc (the "Fund"), an investment company with variable capital incorporated with limited liability in Ireland and established as an umbrella fund with segregated liability between the funds pursuant to the European Communities (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) Regulations, 2011 (as amended). Please refer to the current prospectus and to the relevant PRIIPS KID/KIID before making any final investment decision. The prospectus for the Fund, the PRIIPS KID/KIID for each of the share classes of the Fund (in an official language of the relevant jurisdiction), and the summary of investor rights (in English) are available online at or may be received upon request via email by contacting legal@ Share classes of certain sub-funds are currently notified for marketing into a number of EU Member States under the UCITS Directive. A decision may be taken at any time to terminate the arrangements made for the marketing of the sub-fund in any Member State in which it is currently marketed. In such circumstances, Shareholders in the affected Member State will be notified of this decision and will be provided with the opportunity to redeem their shareholding in the Fund free of any charges or deductions for at least 30 working days from the date of such notification. The sub-funds have not been registered under the United States Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Fund is not available for sale in the U.S. or to U.S. Persons. This information and material shown on this page are for information only and do not constitute an offering or investment, legal, tax or other advice. The information shown on this page constitutes an advertising document in certain jurisdictions. View source version on Contacts Laura Parsons, Media Relations(860) Jaime Doyle, Media Relations(973) 944-8105jdoyle@ Mark Weiller, Stone Harbor(212) 548-1130mweiller@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
BBC News
05-06-2025
- Climate
- BBC News
Worcester dairy farm cutting grass to feed cows after dry spring
The warmest spring on record has left a Worcester dairy farm feeding grass to its cows in the sheds because of a lack of grass in the fields where they usually Bennett from Manor Farm, Lower Wick, said the business had bought grass from neighbouring farms and used crops from its silage fields which normally provide food for the comes after the UK recorded its warmest spring on record and its driest in more than 50 years, according to provisional Met Office farm's website states 85% of the milk produced by the pedigree Holstein Friesian herd goes to a co-operative dairy, 10% to Bennetts Ice Cream and 5% to local customers and cafes. Mr Bennett said there was no such thing as a typical year at the moment, but 2025 had been a had started growing well, but the dry spring meant it "tailed off quite quickly" after the initial surge, he added the situation now was that the normal grazing pastures were not being as productive as they should be, and the cows had eaten what there was more quickly than normal. Last month, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board called on farmers to plan ahead for increased feed needs after the dry spring weather."At this point, it is worthwhile for farmers to assess both summer and winter feed requirements and start building contingency plans," said Katie Evans from the board."This might include reviewing silage stocks, being prepared to cut earlier than usual to prioritise feed quality over bulk and considering fast-growing catch crops for summer or autumn grazing." Normally, Mr Bennett's cows graze twice a day and also at night, but farm workers have resorted to cutting grass from fields further away, and had bought supplies from neighbouring farm had also used grass from silage fields, which would normally provide food for the winter, he said, adding: "We've been snipping that off and feeding that to them, green in the shed."The cows were being fed and were happy, he said, but it meant extra work on the farm. Workers were "nervous" after using winter supplies, but Mr Bennett said: "It's still quite early in the season and the weather does tend to have a way of righting itself, so you never know, we might have a good autumn."He said a better autumn yield could allow the farm to fill sileage clamps, but the worst-case scenario would be having to reduce cow numbers in the winter if the farm did not have enough food. Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
The Guardian
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
How the US became the biggest military emitter and stopped everyone finding out
The climate impact of Donald Trump's geopolitical ambitions could deepen planetary catastrophe, triggering a global military buildup that accelerates greenhouse gas emissions, a leading expert has warned. The Pentagon – the US armed forces and Department of Defense (DoD) agencies – is the world's largest institutional greenhouse gas emitter, accounting for at least 1% of total US emissions annually, according to analysis by Neta Crawford, co-founder of the Costs of War project at Brown University. Over the past five decades, US military emissions have waxed and waned with its geopolitical fears and ambitions. In 2023, the Pentagon's operations and installations generated about 48 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) – more planet-warming gases than emitted by entire countries including Finland, Guatemala and Syria that year. Now, once again, the US military carbon footprint is on the cusp of rising significantly as Trump upends the old geopolitical order in his second presidency. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump threatened military action in Panama, Greenland, Mexico and Canada, dropped bombs on Yemen and increased military sales to Israel, which has intensified its military assault on Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen and Lebanon. Trump has also aligned the US with former adversaries including Russia, while hurling direct or thinly veiled threats at former allies including Ukraine and the entire Nato alliance. Relations with China have sunk amid Trump's chaotic trade war. 'If Trump follows through with his threats, US military emissions will absolutely rise, and this will cause a ripple effect,' said Crawford, author of the book The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of US Military Emissions. 'We're already seeing lots of escalatory rhetoric, with fewer off-ramps and less commitment to resolving conflicts. The allies or former allies of the US have increased their military spending, so their emissions will go up. As adversaries and potential adversaries of the United States increase their military activity, their emissions will go up. It's very bad news for the climate.' The Pentagon is the largest single fossil fuel consumer in the US, already accounting for about 80% of all government emissions. In March, the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, wrote on X: 'The @DeptofDefense does not do climate change crap. We do training and warfighting.' Trump has promised $1tn in defence spending for 2026 – which if approved by Congress would represent a 13% rise on the 2025 Pentagon budget amid unprecedented cuts to almost every other federal agency, including those that research and respond to the climate crisis. His military ambitions sit alongside orders to terminate climate research at the Pentagon and a broader assault on climate action across government, while also taking steps to boost fossil fuel extraction. 'No one spends like the US on the military and they want to spend even more. If they neglect education, health and infrastructure and their economy weakens, they will get paranoid about rivals, let's say China, and this fear will cause even more spending. It's an escalatory downward spiral, which often doesn't end well – especially for the country doing the escalating,' said Crawford. 'Of course, it depends on what they do and how they do it, and the DoD may slow-roll some of this, because it is, frankly, provocative, stupid and unnecessary, but we're going exactly the wrong way. Emissions go up in step with military spending, and this is exactly the wrong time to do this.' In 2024, worldwide military expenditure had its steepest rise since the end of the cold war, reaching $2.7tn as wars and rising tensions drove up spending, according to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. US military spending – and emissions – are both the highest in the world, by a long way. And it is thanks to the US that states are not required to account for military emissions to the UN. In the run-up to the Kyoto protocol, the 1997 international treaty that set binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions, the Pentagon lobbied the Bill Clinton White House to push for a blanket exemption for emissions generated by military fuel use. US pressure on its friends and foes worked, and Kyoto was celebrated as a win for American ambitions. 'We took special pains … to fully protect the unique position of the United States as the world's only superpower with global military responsibilities,' Stuart Eizenstat, undersecretary of the state department, told Congress. 'The Kyoto protocol did not limit the US.' Crawford's research began more than a decade ago after discovering there was no data to share with her undergraduate climate change students – despite the Pentagon having warned for decades about the threat of climate change to US national security. She found that military spending and emissions rise when the US is directly at war or preparing for war. During Ronald Reagan's anti-communism buildup in the 1980s, spending surged and with it fuel use and emissions. After the end of the cold war, spending and emissions fell throughout the 1990s, apart from a spike during the first Gulf war. After the 9/11 attacks, emissions again surged as the US launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. From 1979 to 2023, the Pentagon generated almost 4,000 MtCO2e – about the same as the entire 2023 emissions reported by India, a country of 1.4 billion people. Its installations and 700 bases account for about 40%, while 60% are operational emissions, resulting from fuel use in war, training and exercises with other countries, according to Crawford's analysis. In addition, the military industry – US-based companies manufacturing weapons, planes and other equipment for warfare – generates more than double the greenhouse gases emitted by the Pentagon each year. Still, the known US military climate impact is probably a significant undercount. Crawford's figures do not account for greenhouse gases generated by dropping bombs, destroying buildings and subsequent reconstruction. The additional CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of destroying carbon sinks such as forests, farmland and even whales killed during naval exercises are also not included, nor are those generated by burning oil fields or blowing up pipelines during conflicts. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Significantly, the ripple effect of increased militarisation and operations by allies and enemies is also not counted. For instance, the emissions generated by the armed forces and death squads of Argentina, El Salvador and Chile during the US-backed dirty wars are not accounted for, nor those from China increasing its military exercises in response to US threats. Jet fuel shipped to Israel and Ukraine can be counted if transported on a military tanker, while commercial shipments of crude used for warfare are not. 'These are important but, as yet, not well understood climate consequences of military spending and war,' Crawford said. 'We've long underestimated the impact of mobilisation, war and reconstruction.' Yet the Pentagon has long warned that water scarcity, sea level rise and desertification in vulnerable regions could lead to political instability and forced migration, framing climate change as a 'threat multiplier' to US interests. In 1991, former president George HW Bush formally acknowledged climate change as a national security threat. More recently, the direct threat posed by floods, wildfires and land degradation to US military capabilities has become clear. In 2018, during the first Trump administration, flood water from Hurricane Michael destroyed an air force base in Florida, and then a few months later another storm significantly damaged the Strategic Command base in Nebraska, headquarters of the nation's nuclear arsenal. Overall, the US military has reduced its fuel use and emissions since 1975, thanks to base closures, fewer and smaller exercises, switching from coal, and increasingly efficient vehicles and operations. But according to Crawford, this is driven by improving fighter efficiency – not the environment. 'The Pentagon has framed migration from climate change as a threat in order to get more money, which shows a lack of compassion and a failure to think ahead. If they really believed their own rhetoric, they would of course work to reduce their contribution to climate change by reducing emissions. The irony is difficult to stomach,' she said. The military ripple effect is playing out. In response to Russia's ground invasion of Ukraine – and more recently, Trump's shift towards authoritarianism and anti-Ukraine, anti-Europe rhetoric – the UK, Germany and other Nato countries have increased military spending. Here lies a fundamental problem, Crawford argues. 'We can't let Ukraine fall, but that doesn't mean you have to mobilise all of Europe's militaries in this way and spend this much. Russia is not the threat that they were years ago, yet the current response is based around the same old aggressive military doctrine. It's just nonsensical and bad news for the climate. 'There's a less expensive, less greenhouse gas-intensive way of standing up to the Russians, and that would be to support Ukraine, and directly,' said Crawford, an expert in military doctrine and peace building, and the current Montague Burton professor of international relations at the University of Oxford. Another global military trend that could have significant climate and environmental costs is the expansion of nuclear forces. The US and UK are considering modernising their submarine fleets, while China's expanding nuclear force includes a growing arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The production of nuclear weapons is energy- and greenhouse gas-intensive. 'Nuclear modernisation is supposed to be making us safer, more stable, but usually leads to adversaries also increasing conventional forces as well,' said Crawford. 'It's part of a broader militarisation, all of which leads to an upward spiral in emissions. The threat inflation always leads to emissions inflation.' The total military carbon footprint is estimated at about 5.5% of global emissions – excluding greenhouse gases from conflict and war fighting. This is more than the combined contribution of civilian aviation (2%) and shipping (3%). If the world's militaries were a country, this figure would represent the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world – higher than Russia. The global military buildup could be catastrophic for global heating, at a time when scientists agree that time is running out to avoid catastrophic temperature rises. And despite growing calls for greater military accountability in climate breakdown, Crawford fears the Trump administration will no longer publish the fuel data that she relies on to calculate Pentagon emissions. In addition to withdrawing from the Paris agreement, the Trump administration has failed to report the US's annual emissions to the UN framework convention on climate change for the first time and has erased all mention of climate change from government websites. 'Getting a handle on the scale, scope and impact of the world's military emissions is extremely important, so that there is accountability and a path toward reduction … but the US is shutting things down,' said Crawford. 'It's becoming a black hole of information. It's authoritarianism.'
