News
UN climate negotiations end on shaky geopolitical ground, but I see reasons for hope
Shannon Gibson, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
The 2024 United Nations climate talks wrapped up two days late, with an ending fitting that of a geopolitical reality TV show, complete with walkouts and recriminations.
Countries agreed on a new climate finance target on Nov. 24, 2024, promising to provide at least US$300 billion annually by 2035 to help developing countries build clean energy systems. But it was far less than the $1.3 trillion vulnerable countries were calling for.
The conference also delayed a debate over how to move forward on a 2023 agreement for all countries to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” and to submit climate pledges aligned with the 1.5C limit.
Some people may be ready to write the epitaph for global progress against climate change. But as someone who teaches global environmental politics and has followed international climate talks for years, I see both practical and moral reasons to remain hopeful.
The battle to keep the 1.5 C goal alive
In 2015, the world’s nations agreed as part of the Paris climate accord to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), with an aspirational target of 1.5 C (2.7 F). This target is important, but sometimes confusing. It is rooted in science, but it is not a singular “tipping point.”
As the planet warms beyond 1.5 C, multiple large-scale climate shifts will become more likely.
Ocean circulation is already slowing, coral reefs face increasingly common mass bleaching events as the oceans heat up, and Arctic permafrost is thawing, releasing greenhouse gases that further fuel climate change. Rising temperatures are also fueling increasingly frequent and more damaging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and flooding that put human lives and livelihoods at risk.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mRX0t/1
Recognizing these risks, the Paris Agreement was widely heralded, and many countries have made progress in lowering their emissions in the decade since. However, not all countries are pulling their weight.
In 2023, the U.N. acknowledged that the countries’ current commitments for addressing climate change, known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, would still result in a catastrophic 2.5 C to 2.9 C (4.5 F to 5.2 F) of warming by 2100.
The World Meteorological Organization issued a “red alert” in November 2024 that the world is on track to overshoot the 1.5 C goal this year. It notes that this overshoot can be temporary – if countries take greater action.
How the world can still meet the Paris goals
Countries can still turn the tide on climate change.
The outcomes of the 2023 climate talks provided a road map for countries to increase their efforts toward net-zero emissions:
- Triple renewable energy capacity globally.
- Accelerate a phasedown of coal power.
- Transition away from fossil fuels.
- Accelerate zero-emissions and low-emissions technologies.
- Cut methane and other noncarbon dioxide emissions.
- Reduce emissions from road transport.
- Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
Many countries are making progress on this transition.
Among developed countries, Norway is on track to phase out of fossil fuel vehicle sales in 2025. China has become a leader in renewable energy. It pledged in 2020 to double its renewable energy capacity by 2030, and, thanks to solar power deployment, it expects to complete that goal in half the time.
Other nations, including the U.K., Greece and Denmark, have embarked on major efforts to scale down coal power, with Portugal being the first to hit zero coal.
An important mechanism of the Paris Agreement is the expectation that countries will ratchet up their commitments every five years. The deadline for these new climate goals is early 2025, and some countries have gotten a head start.
Brazil announced its new climate commitments during the climate conference, pledging to reduce emissions 67% by 2035. The United Arab Emirates submitted a commitment to reduce its emissions by 47% compared with its 2019 baseline emissions. Other countries signaled their intentions in high-level statements. Belgium announced a doubling of its climate finance contribution.
These new announcements are a good sign of continued global support for the Paris Agreement goals.
Additionally, the conference made progress on agreements to reduce non-CO₂ emissions, namely methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons – also known as climate change “super pollutants” because of their extreme global warming potential.
Why the Paris Agreement will survive a second Trump presidency
There is no doubt that Donald Trump returning as U.S. president will pose significant roadblocks to efforts to slow climate change. As a candidate, he talked about throttling back U.S. efforts, including cutting funding for clean energy and eliminating regulations on the fossil fuel industry.
But efforts to deal with climate change are bigger than one person or even one country.
While Trump has declared that he will pull the U.S. out of the international Paris Agreement again, influential people are advising him to reconsider. Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods argued that a U.S. withdrawal would leave a hole at the global negotiating table.
Even if Trump does pull the U.S. out of the treaty, which he can do after a one-year waiting period, that doesn’t mean pro-climate actions in the U.S. will simply stop or that the agreement will fall apart.
There are commonsense business reasons to push climate efforts forward, starting with the fact that clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in much of the world. Nearly 1 in 5 vehicles sold in 2023 globally were electric. In the U.S., heat pump sales are beating gas furnaces for the third straight year. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy?tab=chart
A withdrawal from the Paris Agreement also does not prevent states and cities from continuing their progress against climate change.
In fact, after Trump announced he would withdraw the U.S. from the agreement in 2017, several U.S. states doubled down on their climate commitments. Hawaii, for example, passed legislation to be “Paris compliant” and get to net-negative emissions, meaning it will sequester more emissions than it emits.
California continues to report falling emissions even with a growing economy. The state sued several large oil and gas companies for deceiving the public about climate change.
Moreover, a U.S. retreat from the Paris Agreement would not be an embargo on individual actions. Engineers and scientists will continue to create innovative technology to reduce emissions and slow climate change, and corporations will reap the economic benefits of energy efficiency and clean energy market leadership.
This acknowledgment has given rise to calls for a blend of optimism and pragmatism.
Looking ahead to 2025
Next year’s COP30, to be held in Brazil, is important because countries face a deadline for setting new targets. Overall, their current policies still fall short of the 1.5 C goal.
Calls for greater commitments are not just optimistic, they are economically and morally compelling.
For one, the future cost of inaction now is greater than the cost of action, so concerted decisions to delay emissions cuts now will only harm countries in the future.
Morally, the international community has a responsibility to mitigate suffering. This is the very nature of long-held international norms and laws, such as the “responsibility to protect,” and reiterated in Pope Francis’ calls for global environmental responsibility.
While the climate will breach the 1.5 C warming limit, every fraction of a degree matters. I believe it is crucial that countries, states, business leaders and people everywhere continue the shift toward cleaner energy to minimize the impact.
Researchers Emerson Damiano and Lauren Segal, students in environmental studies at the University of Southern California, contributed to this article.
Shannon Gibson, Associate Professor of International Relations and Environmental Studies, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
News
How healthy is Sodastream?
The SodaStream Sparkling Water Maker is a device that forces carbon dioxide (CO2) gas (stored under pressure in a cylinder) into water, making it sparkling (fizzy)
Sodastream machines have been gaining popularity in recent years as an alternative to store-bought soft drinks. Not only are they more environmentally friendly, but they also offer several health benefits compared to traditional sodas.
Reduced Sugar Intake
One of the most significant health benefits of using a Sodastream machine is reducing sugar intake. Traditional sodas are loaded with sugar, and excessive sugar intake can lead to weight gain, obesity, and other health problems such as Type 2 diabetes. With a Sodastream machine, you can control the amount of sugar you add to your drink, allowing you to enjoy a refreshing beverage without the harmful effects of excessive sugar consumption.
No Artificial Sweeteners
Many store-bought soft drinks contain artificial sweeteners, which can have negative health effects such as headaches and digestive problems. Sodastream machines, on the other hand, allow you to use natural sweeteners such as fruit extracts, honey or agave nectar, giving you a healthier and more natural alternative.
No Preservatives
Another advantage of using a Sodastream machine is that you can avoid preservatives commonly found in store-bought soft drinks. Preservatives such as sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate have been linked to health problems such as cancer and allergies. By making your own drinks, you can avoid these harmful additives and enjoy a healthier, preservative-free beverage.
Eco-Friendly
In addition to the health benefits, using a Sodastream machine is also environmentally friendly. Traditional soft drinks are packaged in plastic bottles or cans, which contribute to environmental pollution. With a Sodastream machine, you can reuse the same bottle multiple times, reducing waste and helping to reduce your carbon footprint.
Variety
Finally, Sodastream machines offer a wide variety of flavors and options, allowing you to customize your drink to your liking. You can mix and match different flavors or create your own unique blends, giving you a healthier and more enjoyable alternative to traditional sodas.
In conclusion, Sodastream machines offer several health benefits compared to traditional store-bought soft drinks. By reducing sugar intake, avoiding artificial sweeteners and preservatives, and being eco-friendly, they offer a healthier and more sustainable alternative to traditional soft drinks. Moreover, with a wide variety of flavors and options, you can customize your drink to your liking, making it a fun and enjoyable way to stay healthy.
Consumer Corner
Behind the Product: What Sustainability Looks Like in Beauty Development
Beauty Development: Shoppers want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
s
(Feature Impact) Shoppers are paying closer attention to the products they bring into their homes. They want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
Responsible product lines rarely come from sweeping change. They are built through smaller, connected choices made throughout development. Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning influence how a product performs, how much waste it creates and how sustainably products can be produced.
Consider this beauty sustainability information from Laura Badcock, Chief Operating Officer of NourishUs Naturals.
Why packaging matters beyond appearance
“Packaging is often the first thing shoppers notice,” Badcock said. “It can shape how someone feels about a product before they ever try what’s inside.”
A package should look appealing, though appearance is only part of the equation. It also needs to protect the product, travel safely, store well and hold up through regular use. Once the product is finished, the packaging should allow easy recycling, refilling or responsible disposal.
There is no single packaging option that works best for every beauty product. A lightweight container may reduce shipping weight. A refillable option may stay in use longer. A recyclable material may work well in one area but create challenges in another if local recycling systems cannot process it. Even packaging that appears sustainable can create problems in practice if it leaks, breaks or requires excess shipping materials.
Why ingredient sourcing matters
“Ingredient lists have become an important part of how people evaluate beauty products,” Badcock said. “Shoppers often look for familiar oils, butters, botanical extracts and information about how ingredients were sourced, which plays a major role in the environmental impact.”
A product’s environmental footprint is influenced by many factors, including shipping distance, processing methods, storage conditions and supplier practices.
These factors can also affect product consistency and ingredient availability over time. Beauty brands working with wholesale skin care suppliers or private label manufacturers often need to balance ingredient goals with sourcing reliability and production needs.
How better planning can lead to less waste
“Packaging and ingredients are usually the first things people associate with sustainability, but how much product gets made, stored and discarded matters, too,” Badcock said.
Overproduction is one of the biggest hidden sources of waste in beauty and personal care. Products that sit too long in storage may eventually expire or remain unsold. Excess inventory can also create additional packaging waste, warehousing needs and disposal costs.
Smaller batch sizes give producers more room to adjust as trends or demand shift, and producing closer to expected sales windows helps reduce long storage periods and unnecessary waste. Testing new products in smaller volumes and restocking based on actual demand makes overproduction less likely.
How sustainable beauty choices are connected
Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning are closely connected throughout development.
“A packaging choice can affect shipping weight, storage needs and whether a package can be refilled,” Badcock said. “Ingredient choices can influence sourcing timelines and how products need to be stored. Production planning affects how much material gets used and how much product could eventually go unsold.”
Beauty shoppers want more transparency around sustainability claims
Sustainability claims carry less weight when those claims aren’t explained in practice.
This shift is pushing many beauty brands to focus more heavily on traceability, supplier relationships and clearer product information. Transparency is becoming part of the customer experience itself.
More responsible product lines are built over time
Responsible beauty products come together through ongoing choices around packaging, sourcing, production and inventory planning. For shoppers, those choices influence the products they bring into their homes.
“The brands that build sustainability into early decisions tend to have the easiest time maintaining it later,” Badcock said. “Once supplier relationships, packaging formats and production routines are in place, small adjustments are far easier than major changes. Treating sustainability as part of product development from the beginning, rather than something to fix later, is what makes it work in practice.”
To find more information on the intersection of beauty and sustainability, visitNourishUsNaturals.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Protect yourself from the latest online scams with STM Daily News. From AI-powered fraud schemes to consumer safety tips, our Consumer Corner delivers practical information to help you make informed decisions. Visit STM Daily News for more news you can use this moment, and don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Automotive
EPA removal of vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles, but will make it harder, slower and more expensive
The EPA’s move to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” and roll back vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles—but it will slow adoption, raise costs, and increase climate and public health harms.
Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis
The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.
The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.
Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.
That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.
Putting carmakers in a bind
The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.
Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.
The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.
The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.
For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.
A slower roll
The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.
The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.
Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.
But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.
Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.
But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.
The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.
Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.
