Report The Panel agreed on the outline of the 2027 IPCC Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Additional guidance) at its 63rd Session held in Lima, Peru from 27-30 October 2025 (Decision IPCC-LXIII-6). The report will be a single Methodology Report comprising an Overview Chapter and six volumes consistent with the format of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The structure of the Methodology Report is consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines so as to make it easier for inventory compilers to use this Methodology Report with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Topics that will be addressed include: Transport, injection and sequestering of CO2 in relation to enhanced oil, gas, and coal-bed methane recovery Production of products containing or derived from captured and/or removed CO2 Carbonation of cement and lime-based structures Soil carbon sinks and related emissions enhanced through biochar and weathering and other elements Coastal wetlands carbon dioxide removal types not in previous IPCC Guidelines as well as additional information on mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass in coastal waters Durable biomass products Carbon dioxide capture from combustion and process gases Direct air capture Carbon dioxide utilisation Carbon dioxide transport including cross border issues Carbon dioxide injection and storage CO2 removal through direct capture of CO2 from water already processed by inland and coastal facilities; and related elements across the range of categories of the IPCC Guidelines. The national greenhouse gas inventory includes sources and sinks occurring within the territory over which a country has jurisdiction. Over 150 experts are expected to participate in the writing process, which will be completed by 2027. The participants will be selected by the Task Force Bureau taking into account scientific and technical expertise, geographical and gender balance to the extent possible in line with Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. The First Lead Authors’ meeting will be held in Rome, Italy, in April 2026. Preparatory Work The decision by the Panel to prepare this Methodology Report was informed by the work of experts at the scoping meeting held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from 14-16 October 2024. Prior to the scoping meeting, an expert meeting was held at Vienna, Austria 1-3 July 2024. These meetings considered Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods mentioned in the AR6 WGIII Report as a starting point for discussion and noted that several CDR activities have been already covered by the existing IPCC Guidelines. More Information The IPCC Secretary has written to national government focal points inviting nominations of authors by 12 December 2025.

Fast Facts Medicaid programs that cover prescription drugs are generally required to cover drugs that are (1) FDA approved and (2) made by a manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. 13 Medicaid programs didn’t cover Mifeprex and its generic equivalent, Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, when required. These drugs are used for medical abortion. We recommended the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ensure Medicaid programs comply with federal requirements for covering Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. We also reiterated our 2019 recommendation on Mifeprex, which hasn’t been implemented. White pills spilling from a pill bottle. Skip to Highlights Highlights What GAO Found Medicaid programs that choose to cover outpatient prescription drugs are required to cover all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs for their medically accepted indications when those drugs are made by a manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP), except as outlined in federal law. The FDA has approved two drugs—Mifeprex in 2000 and its generic equivalent in 2019, referred to as Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg—for the medical termination of an intrauterine pregnancy, known as a medical abortion. Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro are the exclusive manufacturers of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, respectively, and both manufacturers participate in the MDRP. Medicaid programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico cover prescription drugs and participate in the MDRP. According to officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for ensuring Medicaid programs’ compliance—none of the MDRP’s statutory exceptions apply to Mifeprex or Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. Thus, these 52 Medicaid programs must cover these drugs when prescribed for medical abortion in circumstances eligible for federal funding, such as when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. GAO identified gaps in Medicaid programs’ coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. Officials from 35 of the 49 programs who responded to GAO questions said their programs covered Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg for medical abortion, as of December 31, 2024. In contrast, officials from 13 programs told GAO their programs did not cover either drug for medical abortion. An official from the remaining program did not specify the medical indications for which its program covered the drugs. Medicaid Programs’ Coverage of Danco Laboratories’ Mifeprex and GenBioPro’s Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, as of December 31, 2024 Note: For more details, see fig. 1 in GAO-25-107911. State officials’ responses to GAO’s questions indicated that some states may not be complying with the MDRP requirements for covering Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. However, CMS has not determined the extent to which states comply with the MDRP requirements for these drugs. CMS officials told GAO they were not aware of the following: Nine programs did not cover Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg for any medical indication, as of December 31, 2024; GAO reported four of these programs did not cover Mifeprex in 2019. Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg was not available at the time of GAO’s 2019 report. Four additional Medicaid programs did not cover either drug when prescribed for medical abortion, as of December 31, 2024. CMS was not aware of these coverage gaps, in part, because it had not implemented GAO’s 2019 recommendation to take actions to ensure Medicaid programs comply with MDRP requirements to cover Mifeprex. CMS also has not taken actions related to the coverage of Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, as of August 2025. Without such actions, CMS lacks assurance that Medicaid programs comply with MDRP requirements and Medicaid beneficiaries may lack access to these drugs when appropriate. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to describe Medicaid programs’ coverage of mifepristone. This report examines Medicaid programs’ coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, among other things. GAO reviewed laws and CMS guidance on the MDRP, and coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. GAO also sent written questions to officials from the 52 Medicaid programs that participate in the MDRP regarding their coverage of these drugs, and reviewed officials’ responses from the 49 programs that provided GAO information. Recommendations GAO reiterates its 2019 recommendation that CMS take actions to ensure states’ compliance with MDRP requirements to cover Mifeprex. GAO also recommends that CMS determine the extent to which states comply with federal Medicaid requirements regarding coverage of GenBioPro’s Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, and take actions, as appropriate, to ensure compliance. In response to the recommendation, HHS noted it is reviewing applicable law and will determine the best course of action to address it moving forward. Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Affected Recommendation Status Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services The Administrator of CMS should determine the extent to which states comply with federal Medicaid requirements regarding coverage of GenBioPro's Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, and take actions, as appropriate, to ensure compliance. (Recommendation 1) Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. Full Report Full Report (11 pages)

05.12.2025 – The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, established under the European Climate Law, will continue to be supported in its second term (2026-2030) by Ottmar Edenhofer. The Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) has now been appointed by the Management Board of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen for another four-year term on the Advisory Board, beginning on 24 March 2026. Advising EU policymakers on the path to the declared goal of climate neutrality: PIK Director Ottmar Edenhofer. Photo: PIK/Karkow The Advisory Board gives independent advice and produces reports on EU policies, and their coherence with the Climate Law and the EU’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. It consists of 15 high-level scientific experts covering a wide range of relevant fields. Edenhofer is serving as the Advisory Board’s current Chair during its first term (2022-2026). Highlights during this period have included scientific recommendations for an ambitious EU climate target for 2040, an analysis of the action needed to achieve climate neutrality, and a study on scaling up atmospheric carbon removals. “I am very thankful for the great opportunity to continue supporting EU climate policy in this service role for the next four years,” says Edenhofer, who is also Professor for The Economics and Politics of Climate Change at the Technische Universität Berlin. “The European Union has taken some important steps in recent years towards its declared goal of climate neutrality by 2050. It remains important to make climate policy cost-effective, socially balanced and consistent with the requirements of an internationally competitive economy. As a member of the Advisory Board, I will do my best to provide scientific advice to policymakers on this task.” The composition of the Advisory Board for the next four-year term has now been decided through an open, fair and transparent selection process lasting several months. The decision on who will chair the body in future is not expected until beginning of the second term. The other members of the Advisory Board in the second term are: • Annela Anger-Kraavi – University of Cambridge • Constantinos Cartalis – National and Kapodistrian University of Athens • Suraje Dessai – University of Leeds’ School of Earth, Environment, and Sustainability • Laura Díaz Anadón – University of Cambridge • Vera Eory – Scotland’s Rural College • Lena Kitzing - Technical University of Denmark • Kati Kulovesi – University of Eastern Finland • Lars J. Nilsson – Lund University • Åsa Persson – KTH Royal Institute of Technology’s Climate Action Centre • Keywan Riahi – International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis • Jean-François Soussana – French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment • Giorgio Vacchiano – University of Milan • Detlef van Vuuren – PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency • Zinta Zommers – University of Toronto

Every nation in the world has committed to tackling “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” under the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). During Donald Trump’s second presidency, the US has already failed to meet a number of its UN climate treaty obligations, including reporting its emissions and funding the UNFCCC – and it has not attended recent climate summits. However, pulling out of the UNFCCC would be an unprecedented step and would mark the latest move by the US to disavow global cooperation and climate action. Among the other organisations the US plans to leave is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body seen as the global authority on climate science. In this article, Carbon Brief considers the implications of the US leaving these bodies, as well as the potential for it rejoining the UNFCCC in the future. Carbon Brief has also spoken to experts about the contested legality of leaving the UNFCCC and what practical changes – if any – will result from the US departure. What is the process for pulling out of the UNFCCC? The Trump administration set out its intention to withdraw from the UNFCCC and the IPCC in a White House presidential memorandum issued on 7 January 2026. It claims authority “vested in me as president by the constitution and laws of the US” to withdraw the country from the treaty, along with 65 other international and UN bodies. However, the memo includes a caveat around its instructions, stating: “For UN entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.” (In an 8 January interview with the New York Times, Trump said he did not “need international law” and that his powers were constrained only by his “own morality”.) The US is the first and only country in the world to announce it wants to withdraw from the UNFCCC. The convention was adopted at the UN headquarters in New York in May 1992 and opened for signatures at the Rio Earth summit the following month. The US became the first industrialised nation to ratify the treaty that same year. It was ultimately signed by every nation on Earth – making it one of the most ratified global treaties in history. Article 25 of the treaty states that any party may withdraw by giving written notification to the “depositary”, which is elsewhere defined as being the UN secretary general – currently, António Guterres. The article, shown below, adds that the withdrawal will come into force a year after a written notification is supplied. Excerpt from Article 25 of the UNFCCC (1992). Credit: UNFCCC The treaty adds that any party that withdraws from the convention shall be considered as also having left any related protocol. The UNFCCC has two main protocols: the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the Paris Agreement of 2015. Although former US president Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, its formal ratification faced opposition from the Senate and the treaty was ultimately rejected by his successor, president George W Bush, in 2001. Domestic opposition to the protocol centred around the exclusion of major developing countries, such as China and India, from emissions reduction measures. The US did ratify the Paris Agreement, but Trump signed an executive order to take the nation out of the pact for a second time on his first resumed day in office in January 2025. Is it legal for Trump to take the US out of the UNFCCC unilaterally? Whether Trump can legally pull the US out of the UNFCCC without the consent of the Senate remains unclear. The US previously left the Paris Agreement during Trump’s first term. Both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement allow any party to withdraw with a year’s written notice. However, both treaties state that parties cannot withdraw within the first three years of ratification. As such, the first Trump administration filed notice to exit the Paris Agreement in November 2019 and became the first nation in the world to formally leave a year later – the day after Democrat Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. On his first day in office in 2021, Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement. This took 30 days from notifying the UNFCCC to come into force. The legalities of leaving the UNFCCC are murkier, due to how it was adopted. As Michael B Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, explains to Carbon Brief, the Paris Agreement was ratified without Senate approval. Article 2 of the US Constitution says presidents have the power to make or join treaties subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate – including a two-thirds majority vote (see below). Source: US Constitution. However, Barack Obama took the position that, as the Paris Agreement “did not impose binding legal obligations on the US, it was not a treaty that required Senate ratification”, Gerrard tells Carbon Brief. As noted in a post by Jake Schmidt, a senior strategic director at the environmental NGO Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the US has other mechanisms for entering international agreements. It says the US has joined more than 90 per cent of the international agreements it is party to through different mechanisms. In contrast, George H Bush did submit the UNFCCC to the Senate in 1992, where it was unanimously ratified by a 92-0 vote, ahead of his signing it into law. Reversing this is uncertain legal territory. Gerrard tells Carbon Brief: “There is an open legal question whether a president can unilaterally withdraw the US from a Senate-ratified treaty. A case raising that question reached the US Supreme Court in 1979 (Goldwater vs Carter), but the Supreme Court ruled this was a political question not suitable for the courts.” Unlike ratifying a treaty, the US Constitution does not explicitly specify whether the consent of the Senate is required to leave one. This has created legal uncertainty around the process. Given the lack of clarity on the legal precedent, some have suggested that, in practice, Trump can pull the US out of treaties unilaterally. Sue Biniaz, former US principal deputy special envoy for climate and a key legal architect of the Paris Agreement, tells Carbon Brief: “In terms of domestic law, while the Supreme Court has not spoken to this issue (it treated the issue as non-justifiable in the Goldwater v Carter case), it has been US practice, and the mainstream legal view, that the president may constitutionally withdraw unilaterally from a treaty, ie without going back to the Senate.” Additionally, the potential for Congress to block the withdrawal from the UNFCCC and other treaties is unclear. When asked by Carbon Brief if it could play a role, Biniaz says: “Theoretically, but politically unlikely, Congress could pass a law prohibiting the president from unilaterally withdrawing from the UNFCCC. (The 2024 NDAA contains such a provision with respect to NATO.) In such case, its constitutionality would likely be the subject of debate.” How could the US rejoin the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement? The US would be able to rejoin the UNFCCC in future, but experts disagree on how straightforward the process would be and whether it would require a political vote. In addition to it being unclear whether a two-thirds “supermajority” vote in the Senate is required to leave a treaty, it is unclear whether rejoining would require a similar vote again – or if the original 1992 Senate consent would still hold. Citing arguments set out by Prof Jean Galbraith of the University of Pennsylvania law school, Schmidt’s NRDC post says that a future president could rejoin the convention within 90 days of a formal decision, under the merit of the previous Senate approval. Biniaz tells Carbon Brief that there are “multiple future pathways to rejoining”, adding: “For example, Prof Jean Galbraith has persuasively laid out the view that the original Senate resolution of advice and consent with respect to the UNFCCC continues in effect and provides the legal authority for a future president to rejoin. Of course, the Senate could also give its advice and consent again. In any case, per Article 23 of the UNFCCC, it would enter into force for the US 90 days after the deposit of its instrument.” Prof Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law School, believes there is a “very strong case that a future president could rejoin the treaty without another Senate vote”. She tells Carbon Brief that there is precedent for this based on US leaders quitting and rejoining global organisations in the past, explaining: “The US joined the International Labour Organization in 1934. In 1975, the Ford administration unilaterally withdrew, and in 1980, the Carter administration rejoined without seeking congressional approval. “Similarly, the US became a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration unilaterally withdrew the US. The Bush administration rejoined UNESCO in 2002, but in 2019 the Trump administration once again withdrew. The Biden administration rejoined in 2023, and the Trump Administration announced its withdrawal again in 2025.” But this “legal theory” of a future US president specifically re-entering the UNFCCC “based on the prior Senate ratification” has “never been tested in court”, Prof Gerrard from Columbia Law School tells Carbon Brief. Dr Joanna Depledge, an expert on global climate negotiations and research fellow at the University of Cambridge, tells Carbon Brief: “Due to the need for Senate ratification of the UNFCCC (in my interpretation), there is no way back now for the US into the climate treaties. But there is nothing to stop a future US president applying [the treaty] rules or – what is more important – adopting aggressive climate policy independently of them.” If it were required, achieving Senate approval to rejoin the UNFCCC would take a “significant shift in US domestic politics”, public policy professor Thomas Hale from the University of Oxford notes on Bluesky. Rejoining the Paris Agreement, on the other hand, is a simpler process that the US has already undertaken in recent years. (See: Is it legal for Trump to take the US out of the UNFCCC unilaterally?) Biniaz explains: “In terms of the Paris Agreement, a party to that agreement must also be a party to the UNFCCC (Article 20). Assuming the US had rejoined the UNFCCC, it could rejoin the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement (as it did in early 2021). The agreement would enter into force for the US 30 days after the deposit of its instrument (Article 21).” The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, an environmental non-profit, explains that Senate approval was not required for Paris “because it elaborates an existing treaty” – the UNFCCC. What changes when the US withdraws from the UNFCCC? US withdrawal from the UNFCCC has been described in media coverage as a “massive hit” to global climate efforts that will “significantly limit” the treaty’s influence. However, experts tell Carbon Brief that, as the Trump administration has already effectively withdrawn from most international climate activities, this latest move will make little difference. Moreover, Depledge tells Carbon Brief that the international climate regime “will not collapse” as a result of US withdrawal. She says: “International climate cooperation will not collapse because the UNFCCC has 195 members rather than 196. In a way, the climate treaties have already done their job. The world is already well advanced on the path to a lower-carbon future. Had the US left 10 years ago, it would have been a serious threat, but not today. China and other renewable energy giants will assert even more dominance.” Depledge adds that while the “path to net-zero will be longer because of the drastic rollback of domestic climate policy in the US”, it “won’t be reversed”. Technically, US departure from the UNFCCC would formally release it from certain obligations, including the need to report national emissions. As the world’s second-largest annual emitter, this is potentially significant. “The US withdrawal from the UNFCCC undoubtedly impacts on efforts to monitor and report global greenhouse gas emissions,” Dr William Lamb, a senior researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), tells Carbon Brief. Lamb notes that while scientific bodies, such as the IPCC, often use third-party data, national inventories are still important. The US already failed to report its emissions data last year, in breach of its UNFCCC treaty obligations. Robbie Andrew, senior researcher at Norwegian climate institute CICERO, says that it will currently be possible for third-party groups to “get pretty close” to the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions estimates previously published by the US administration. However, he adds: “The further question, though, is whether the EIA [US Energy Information Administration] will continue reporting all of the energy data they currently do. Will the White House decide that reporting flaring is woke? That even reporting coal consumption is an unnecessary burden on business? I suspect the energy sector would be extremely unhappy with changes to the EIA’s reporting, but there’s nothing at the moment that could guarantee anything at all in that regard.” Andrew says that estimating CO2 emissions from energy is “relatively straightforward when you have detailed energy data”. In contrast, estimating CO2 emissions from agriculture, land use, land-use change and forestry, as well as other greenhouse gas emissions, is “far more difficult”. The US Treasury has also announced that the US will withdraw from the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) and give up its seat on the board, “in alignment” with its departure from the UNFCCC. The Trump administration had already cancelled US$4 billion of pledged funds for the GCF. Another specific impact of US departure would be on the UNFCCC secretariat budget, which already faces a significant funding gap. US annual contributions typically make up around 22 per cent of the body’s core budget, which comes from member states. However, as with emissions data and GCF withdrawal, the Trump administration had previously indicated that the US would stop funding the UNFCCC. In fact, billionaire and UN special climate envoy Michael Bloomberg has already committed, alongside other philanthropists, to making up the US shortfall. Veteran French climate negotiator Paul Watkinson tells Carbon Brief: “In some ways the US has already suspended its participation. It has already stopped paying its budget contributions, it sent no delegation to meetings in 2025. It is not going to do any reporting any longer – although most of that is now under the Paris Agreement. So whether it formally leaves the UNFCCC or not does not change what it is likely to do.” Dr Joanna Depledge tells Carbon Brief that she agrees: “This is symbolically and politically huge, but in practice it makes little difference, given that Trump had already announced total disengagement last year.” The US has a history of either leaving or not joining major environmental treaties and organisations, such as the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol. (See: What is the process for pulling out of the UNFCCC?) Dr Jennifer Allan, a global environmental politics researcher at Cardiff University, tells Carbon Brief: “The US has always been an unreliable partner…Historically speaking, this is kind of more of the same.” The NRDC’s Jake Schmidt tells Carbon Brief that he doubts US absence will lead to less progress at UN climate negotiations. He adds: “[The] Trump team would have only messed things up, so not having them participate will probably actually lead to better outcomes.” However, he acknowledges that “US non-participation over the long-term could be used by climate slow-walking countries as an excuse for inaction”. Biniaz tells Carbon Brief that the absence of the US is unlikely to unlock reform of the UN climate process – and that it might make negotiations more difficult. She says: “I don’t see the absence of the US as promoting reform of the COP process. While the US may have had strong views on certain topics, many other parties did as well, and there is unlikely to be agreement among them to move away from the consensus (or near consensus) decision-making process that currently prevails. In fact, the US has historically played quite a significant ‘broker’ role in the negotiations, which might actually make it more difficult for the remaining parties to reach agreement.” After leaving the UNFCCC, the US would still be able to participate in UN climate talks as an observer, albeit with diminished influence. (It is worth noting that the US did not send a delegation to COP30 last year.) There is still scope for the US to use its global power and influence to disrupt international climate processes from the outside. For example, last year, the Trump administration threatened nations and negotiators with tariffs and withdrawn visa rights if they backed an International Maritime Organization (IMO) effort to cut shipping emissions. Ultimately, the measures were delayed due to a lack of consensus. (Notably, the IMO is among the international bodies that the US has not pledged to leave.) What about the US withdrawal from the IPCC? As a scientific body, rather than a treaty, there is no formal mechanism for “withdrawing” from the IPCC. In its own words, the IPCC is an “organisation of governments that are members of the UN or World Meteorological Organization” (WMO). Therefore, just being part of the UN or WMO means a country is eligible to participate in the IPCC. If a country no longer wishes to play a role in the IPCC, it can simply disengage from its activities – for example, by not attending plenary meetings, nominating authors or providing financial support. This is exactly what the US government has been doing since last year. Shortly before the IPCC’s plenary meeting for member governments – known as a “session” – in Hangzhou, China, in March 2025, reports emerged that US officials had been denied permission to attend. In addition, the contract for the technical support unit for Working Group III (WG3) was terminated by its provider, NASA, which also eliminated the role of chief scientist – the position held by WG3 co-chair Dr Kate Cavlin. (Each of the IPCC’s three “working groups” has a technical support unit, or TSU, which provides scientific and operational support. These are typically “co-located” between the home countries of a working group’s two co-chairs.) The Hangzhou session was the first time that the US had missed a plenary since the IPCC was founded in 1988. It then missed another in Lima, Peru, in October 2025. Although the US government did not nominate any authors for the IPCC’s seventh assessment cycle (AR7), US scientists were still put forward through other channels. Analysis by Carbon Brief shows that, across the three AR7 working group reports, 55 authors are affiliated with US institutions. However, while IPCC authors are supported by their institutions – they are volunteers and so are not paid by the IPCC – their travel costs for meetings are typically covered by their country’s government. (For scientists from developing countries, there is financial support centrally from the IPCC.) Prof Chris Field, co-chair of Working Group II during the IPCC’s fifth assessment (AR5), tells Carbon Brief that a “number of philanthropies have stepped up to facilitate participation by US authors not supported by the US government”. The US Academic Alliance for the IPCC – a collaboration of US universities and research institutions formed last year to fill the gap left by the government – has been raising funds to support travel. In a statement reacting to the US withdrawal, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea said that the panel’s focus remains on preparing the reports for AR7: “The panel continues to make decisions by consensus among its member governments at its regular plenary sessions. Our attention remains firmly on the delivery of these reports.” The various reports will be finalised, reviewed and approved in the coming years – a process that can continue without the US. As it stands, the US government will not have a say on the content and wording of these reports. Field describes the US withdrawal as a “self-inflicted wound to US prestige and leadership” on climate change. He adds: “I don’t have a crystal ball, but I hope that the US administration’s animosity toward climate change science will lead other countries to support the IPCC even more strongly. The IPCC is a global treasure.” The University of Edinburgh’s Prof Gabi Hegerl, who has been involved in multiple IPCC reports, tells Carbon Brief: “The contribution and influence of US scientists is presently reduced, but there are still a lot of enthusiastic scientists out there that contribute in any way they can even against difficult obstacles.” On Twitter, Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele – IPCC vice-chair during AR5 – wrote that the US withdrawal was “deeply regrettable” and that to claim the IPCC’s work is contrary to US interests is “simply nonsensical”. He continued: “Let us remember that the creation of the IPCC was facilitated in 1988 by an agreement between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who can hardly be described as ‘woke’. Climate and the environment are not a matter of ideology or political affiliation: they concern everyone.” Van Ypersele added that while the IPCC will “continue its work in the service of all”, other countries “will have to compensate for the budgetary losses”. The IPCC’s most recent budget figures show that the US did not make a contribution in 2025. Carbon Brief analysis shows that the US has provided around 30 per cent of all voluntary contributions in the IPCC’s history. Totalling approximately US$67m (£50m), this is more than four times that of the next-largest direct contributor, the EU. However, this is not the first time that the US has withdrawn funding from the IPCC. During Trump’s first term of office, his administration cut its contributions in 2017, with other countries stepping up their funding in response. The US subsequently resumed its contributions. Chart showing the largest direct contributors to the IPCC since its inception in 1988, with the US (red bars), European Union (dark blue) and UNFCCC/WMO/UNEP (mid blue) highlighted. Grey bars show all other contributors combined. Figures for 2025 are January to June inclusive. Figures for 1988-2003 are reported per two years, so these totals have been divided equally between each year. Source: IPCC (2025) and (2010). Contributions have been adjusted, as per IPCC footnotes, so they appear in the year they are received, rather than pledged. At its most recent meeting in Lima, Peru, in October 2025, the IPCC warned of an “accelerating decline” in the level of annual voluntary contributions from countries and other organisations, reported the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. As a result, the IPCC invited member countries to increase their donations “if possible”. What other organisations are affected? In addition to announcing his plan to withdraw the US from the UNFCCC and the IPCC, Trump also called for the nation’s departure from 16 other organisations related to climate change, biodiversity and clean energy. These include: The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) – the biodiversity equivalent of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development – a voluntary group of more than 80 countries aiming to make the mining sector more sustainable. UN Energy – the principal UN organisation for international collaboration on energy. UN Oceans – a UN mechanism responsible for overseeing the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and other UN agencies related to ocean and coastal issues. UN Water – the UN agency responsible for water and sanitation. UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) – a UN collaborative initiative for creating financial incentives for protecting forests. International Renewable Energy Agency – an intergovernmental organisation supporting countries in their transition to renewable energy. 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact – a UN initiative launched in 2021 pushing governments, companies and organisations to achieve 100 per cent low-carbon electricity generation. Commission for Environmental Cooperation – an organisation aimed at conserving North America’s natural environment. Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research – an intergovernmental organisation supported by 19 countries in North and South America for the support of planetary change research. International Energy Forum – an intergovernmental platform for dialogue among countries, industry and experts. International Solar Alliance – an organisation supporting the development of solar power and the phaseout of fossil fuels. International Tropical Timber Organization – an organisation aimed at protecting tropical forest resources. International Union for Conservation of Nature – an international nature conservation organisation and authority on the state of biodiversity loss. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century – a global policy forum for renewable energy leadership. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme – a regional organisation aimed at protecting the Pacific’s environment. As well as participating in the work of these organisations, the US is also a key source of funding for many of them – leaving their futures uncertain. In a letter to members seen by Carbon Brief, IPBES chair and Kenyan ecologist, Dr David Obura, described Trump’s move as “deeply disappointing”. He said that IPBES “has not yet received any formal notification” from the US, but “anticipates that the intention expressed to withdraw will mean that the US will soon cease to be a member of IPBES”, adding: “The US is a founding member of IPBES and scientists, policymakers and stakeholders – including Indigenous peoples and local communities – from the US have been among the most engaged contributors to the work of IPBES since its establishment in 2012, making valuable contributions to objective science-based assessments of the state of the planet, for people and nature. “The contribution of US experts ranges from leading landmark assessment reports, to presiding over negotiations, serving as authors and reviewers, as well as helping to steer the organisation both scientifically and administratively.” Despite being a party to IPBES until now, the US has never been a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the nature equivalent of the UNFCCC. It is one of only two nations not to sign the convention, with the other being the Holy See, representing the Vatican City. The lack of US representation at the CBD has not prevented countries from reaching agreements. In 2022, countries gathered under the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, often described as the “Paris Agreement for nature”. However, some observers have pointed to the lack of US involvement as one of the reasons why biodiversity loss has received less international attention than climate change. This story was published with permission from Carbon Brief. Like this content? Join our growing community. Your support helps to strengthen independent journalism, which is critically needed to guide business and policy development for positive impact. Unlock unlimited access to our content and members-only perks. Find out more and join us. → Find out more and join us. → Related to this story Topics Carbon & Climate Energy Policy & Finance Water Regions Global United States Tags biodiversity COP international cooperation IPCC mining renewable energy treaty UN UNFCCC energy climate sustainable development Paris Agreement sustainable finance climate risk climate finance oceans SDGs 6. Water 7. Energy 9. Infrastructure 10. Inequality 11. Cities 13. Climate 14. Oceans 15. Biodiversity 16. Peace 17. Partnerships

Wildfires in California in January 2025 David McNew/Getty Images The impacts of climate change are occurring sooner than expected, but governments and businesses continue to underestimate the risks, which could add up to trillions of dollars in economic losses by 2050. A report by climate scientists and financial experts has warned that the world may have seriously underestimated the rate of warming and faces “planetary insolvency”, where global warming begins to severely damage both the environment and economic growth. Decision-makers typically focus on the middle-ground estimates of climate impacts. But they should be preparing for the worst-case scenarios instead, the report says, since impacts like short-term precipitation extremes in some regions are happening earlier than anticipated. Advertisement Read more Is Earth’s climate in a state of 'termination shock'? “Governments need to agree on a planetary solvency plan quickly,” says David King, former top climate adviser to the UK government who contributed to the report. “We are looking at an accelerated rate of temperature rise. We’re not sure if that will continue into the future but we can probably assume it’s not going to relax backwards.” A first step towards such a plan could be to stop assuming the world economy will keep expanding, says Sandy Trust at UK investment management firm Baillie Gifford, an author of the new report. According to the Network for Greening the Financial System, the world could lose trillions of dollars a year by 2050 due to climate-related impacts. But the network says it doesn’t foresee a recession, since it expects global economic growth to outpace those damages. Free newsletter Sign up to The Earth Edition Unmissable news about our planet, delivered straight to your inbox each month. Sign up to newsletter “This is Titanic risk modelling, looking backwards from the deck of the Titanic in April 1912 and predicting a smooth voyage,” says Trust. “This fails the first principles of risk management, how to have a best guess about the worst case.” The call to plan for the worst comes as a report by the European Union climate body Copernicus finds 2025 was the third warmest year on record after 2023 and 2024, with an average temperature of 1.47°C above pre-industrial levels. Because 2024 was 1.6°C higher, for the first time, the three-year average was more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. That’s another step towards the 20-30 year average needed to fail the Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming below the 1.5°C threshold. When the agreement was signed a decade ago, 1.5°C was predicted by 2045. But if the trend over the past 30 years continues, we will now breach that long-term threshold by 2030, according to Copernicus. The rate of warming has been quickening. Many scientists attribute that to the decline in sulphur-containing air pollution from coal power and shipping. As the skies have cleared, more of the sun’s heat has been reaching Earth’s surface, “unmasking” about 0.5°C of warming. Read more Mining for renewable tech inflicts huge damage. Is there a solution? But the biggest reason we could surpass 1.5°C sooner than expected is because emissions have continued to increase each year, says Samantha Burgess at Copernicus. Fossil fuel emissions set yet another record in 2025. “Emissions haven’t come down as fast as people believed they would,” says Burgess. Every tenth of a degree of warming will result in more frequent and intense extreme weather. Already, the Los Angeles wildfires in January 2025 – potentially the costliest natural disaster in US history – were twice as likely and 25 times larger due to climate change. Hurricane Melissa, the strongest storm to make landfall around the Atlantic Ocean, was associated with wind speeds at least 16 kilometres per hour faster than would be expected without climate change. Read more 'We're precipitating an extermination rather than an extinction event' “Because this is a global average, the reality is that when we have 1.5 degrees of warming at a global level, that means that heatwaves are often 3 or 4 or even 10 degrees warmer than they otherwise would have been,” says Burgess. “Children today will be exposed to more heat hazards, more climate hazards than we were or our parents were.” The greatest warming is at the poles due to feedback loops like the loss of reflective snow and ice, which allows more of the sun’s heat to be absorbed. Last year was the warmest year on record for Antarctica due to a rare stratospheric heating event. Combined sea ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctica reached a record low. But in a positive sign, global emissions are not rising as quickly as they once were, and China’s emissions have flatlined. “Because of this flattening of emissions of CO2, then we would expect warming to continue but without acceleration, just continue at the same rate,” says Timothy Osborn at the University of East Anglia, UK. Cracking down on methane leaks from infrastructure like gas pipelines and old coal mines could be a quick short-term fix, says King. Cutting methane emissions by 30 per cent this decade could reduce warming at least 0.2°C by 2050. “We need all the slow fixes as well, but this is a critical part of the pathway,” says King. “Because, frankly, the overshoot above 1.5°C is a major challenge to humanity.” Topics: climate change/ economics

Brightstar Resources has cleared a key regulatory hurdle at its Menzies gold project, receiving approval to commence open pit mining at the Lady Shenton deposit in Western Australia’s Goldfields. The WA Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration (DMPE) has approved the Mining Development and Closure Proposal (MDCP) for Lady Shenton, paving the way for production at the 352,000-ounce deposit, which sits within Brightstar’s broader 1.6-million-ounce Goldfields Hub. With a native vegetation clearing permit already in place, Brightstar said Lady Shenton is now mine ready, positioning the company to move quickly as it finalises development planning. Ore from the open pit is slated to be mined and trucked to Brightstar’s proposed carbon-in-leach (CIL) processing plant at Laverton, as outlined in the upcoming definitive feasibility study (DFS) 2.0 study. “We are pleased to receive approval for the Mining Development and Closure Proposal for the open pit development of the Lady Shenton mine in Menzies,” Brightstar managing director Alex Rovira said. “This signifies a key milestone for the development of our Menzies assets, which once in operation will represent the first mining to occur since the successful Selkirk mining JV in 2024,” Rovira said. “With over 4 million ounces of mineral resources on granted mining leases, Brightstar has a strategic objective of developing both the Goldfields and Sandstone projects in the coming years as part of our aspiration to be a multi-asset, mid-tier scale WA gold producer.” The company said updated mine planes from Yunndaga underground and Lady Shenton will be incorporated in the updated DFS 2.0 study. Subscribe to Australian Mining and receive the latest news on product announcements, industry developments, commodities and more.