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

Peer Reviewed 8 January 2026 Nature Communications Bishal Bharadwaj, Tara Gates, Sobia Rose, Ernoiz Antriyandarti, Sarva Mangala Praveena, Chizoba Obianuju Oranu, Monjit Borthakur, Pramesh Kumar Dhungana, Aminath Shazly, Gabriel Enrique De-la-Torre, Ayşe Lisa Allison, Dinushika Madhushani Yapa Abeywardhana, Sizwe Mabaso, Philip Kofi Adom, Margaret Banga, Witness Dlamini, Telesphore Kabera, Jessika Bohlmann, Chinnathan Areeprasert, Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil, Wasso Dieudonné Shukuru, Nyaladzani Nkhwanana, Alice Kammwamba, Rajesh Kumar Rai, Bakary Conteh, Victoria Ndinelago Erasmus, Sadikou Agbere, Keophousone Phonhalath, Hope Njoroge, Darcy Glenn, Esther Ishuga, Gilbert Mubalama Mugisho, Raeesa Moolla, Fèmi E. Hounnou, Madina Mwagale Guloba, Ulemj Damiran, Hari Vuthaluru, Yacob Mulagetta, Marc Jeuland, Ian D. Gates, Peta Ashworth Abstract Anecdotal evidence suggests that households burn plastics to manage waste and help satisfy their energy demand. To examine the prevalence, extent, and reasons for using plastic waste as household fuel, we report on a survey with 1018 key informants from cities in 26 countries in the Global South. Informants were purposively selected due to their familiarity with the living conditions in their communities. One-third of respondents reported being aware of plastic waste burning, with some reporting that their households engaged in this practice. Analyses of the data reveal significant correlations of plastic waste burning with both supply factors, such as, the massive amount of waste generated (p = 0.000), expensive clean fuels (p = 0.004), and demand factors, including self-management of waste (p = 0.000). Expanding essential public waste management services and implementing programs that enhance the affordability of clean energy technologies, especially among marginalized and low-income communities, could reduce this health- and environment-damaging practice. Topics Energy Policy Design Urban Water EfD Authors Bharadwaj, Bishal Oranu, Chizoba Obianuju Kofi Adom, Philip Banga, Margaret Guloba, Madina Jeuland, Marc Mulagetta, Yacob Files and links Link to document Programs Sustainable Energy Transitions Initiative (SETI) Sustainable Development Goals Affordable and Clean Energy Reduced Inequalities Sustainable Cities and Communities Responsible Consumption and Production Publication reference Bharadwaj, B., Gates, T., Rose, S., Antriyandarti, E., Praveena, S. M., Oranu, C. O., Borthakur, M., Dhungana, P. K., Shazly, A., De-la-Torre, G. E., Allison, A. L., Abeywardhana, D. M. Y., Mabaso, S., Adom, P. K., Banga, M., Dlamini, W., Kabera, T., Bohlmann, J., Areeprasert, C., … Ashworth, P. (2026). Prevalence of plastic waste as a household fuel in low-income communities of the Global South. Nature Communications, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-67512-y Publication | 9 January 2026 Facebook Linked in

Australian explorers continue to build momentum across a range of commodities, with recent updates highlighting progress in silica sand, gold and rare earths exploration programs. China offtakes strengthen VRX pathways VRX Silica has strengthened its development pathway for the Arrowsmith silica sand project in Western Australia after securing additional binding offtake agreements alongside a funding update. The company said the latest agreements further underpin demand for high-quality Australian silica sand, while supporting the staged development of Arrowsmith North. VRX noted the offtake arrangements complement existing contracts and improve project certainty as it advances toward production. The company said the two new offtake contracts are for the supply of an aggregate minimum of 550,000 tonnes per annum of high-quality silica sand products from Arrowsmith North to two well-established, reputable and substantial suppliers into the foundry and glassmaking industries in China. “These additional binding offtake contracts further demonstrate substantial interest in VRX’s Arrowsmith North silica sand foundry and glassmaking products. These offtake partners are well established companies in their industry and we expect them to be long-term buyers as we diversify our customer base,” VRX managing director Bruce Maluish said. Ballard Mining delivers standout infill drilling results at Mt Ida Ballard Mining Limited reported that its Phase 1 infill drilling program at the Baldock prospect within the Mt Ida gold project has delivered outstanding widths and high-grade gold intercepts. The results are consistent with its strategy to convert inferred resources into higher-confidence indicated classification ahead of a planned maiden ore reserve. Ballard managing director Paul Brennan said the results reaffirm the robustness of the Baldock deposit and support advancement of the broader Mt Ida project towards development. “The consistent high grades and widths across multiple lodes provides confidence in the current mineral resource estimate and its planned upgrade to indicated status,” Baldock said. “As the sixth set of results announced from the infill drilling program, these ongoing confirmatory results underpin the company’s objective of delivering a 400–500koz maiden ore reserve at Baldock by mid-CY2026, providing a 5-6 year reserve base.” Magnetite expands footprint Meanwhile, Magnetite Mines has expanded its rare earth exploration footprint in South Australia after being granted a new tenement adjacent to its Ironback Hill REE prospect. The newly awarded exploration licence covers key downstream drainage areas believed to be associated with clay hosted rare earth mineralisation identified at Ironback Hill. Magnetite Mines said the tenement provides optionality to grow its rare earths portfolio while it continues to prioritise development of its flagship Razorback iron ore project. Managing director Tim Dobson said the Braemar Creek ground was identified early in the company’s alternative commodities exploration program as a strategically important licence that secures key drainage corridors immediately downstream of the clay-hosted REE mineralisation we have reported at Ironback Hill. “The grant of this licence gives us optionality for future rare earth exploration, coincident with those local drainage features, should our ongoing work at Ironback Hill support follow-up. It is a logical addition to our local tenure position, and we will continue to advance this work in a disciplined manner while keeping our primary focus on the Razorback iron ore project,” Dobson said. Subscribe to Australian Mining and receive the latest news on product announcements, industry developments, commodities and more.

Larvotto Resources’ Clarks Gully prospect continues to deliver for its Hillgrove antimony-gold project, with recent diamond drilling results confirming potential significant antimony-gold mineralisation. Mineralisation at Clarks Gully in New South Wales continues at depth and along strike towards the north, with the company saying that the shallower nature shows a strong relationship to the resistivity geophysics anomaly. Larvotto managing director Ron Heeks said the results from Clarks Gully have “strengthened” the company’s understanding of the mineralised system. “This confirms both the continuity of antimony and gold mineralisation to the north and high-grade zones at depth,” he said. “Drill hole CLG127 targeted an untested resistivity anomaly to the north, with results confirming mineralisation associated with that response, validating the effectiveness of our geophysical targeting approach.” With this drill hole, other key antimony-gold results include one from CLG126 at 6.4 metres at 12.92 grams per tonne (g/t) of gold equivalent (AuEq) from 208 metres, including one from 4.1 metres at 19.76g/t AuEq. CLG127 returned with 8.0 metres at 8.835g/t AuEq from 160 metres, including 1.60 metres at 22.81g/t AuEq from 160.4 metres. As part of the near-mine exploration program, three diamond drill holes were drilled at Clarks Gully for a total of 505.9 metres, between October to November 2025. According to Larvotto, this program was designed to test the depth and strike extension of high-grade antimony, gold, and tungsten mineralisation and test for the presence of splays and parallel mineralised structures. It was also geared to validate the Clarks Gully IP and resistivity survey, and supplement the 2024 reverse circulation (RC) drill program with greater drill depths and diamond drill core samples. “This hole (CLG127) was also extended to close a knowledge gap within the main Clarks Gully lode, returning a standout intercept that exceeded modelled grades currently,” Heeks said. Heeks added that drill hole CLG126 tested the depth extension of the mineralisation below the planned open pit. “The exceptional intercept of 6.4 metres at 12.92g/t AuEq provides important geological and grade continuity in this key area,” he said. “Also in CLG126, a potential newly identified parallel lode was intercepted in the footwall of the main Clarks Gully mineralisation. “This intercept of 3.6 metres at 8.74g/t AuEq highlights further near-mine upside and warrants further drilling to test this new zone.” Furthermore, Larvotto also hit further significant mineralisation associated with antimony-gold lodes, intersected in the drilling. Key tungsten results include, from hole CLG126 at 0.4 metres at 2.97 per cent tungsten trioxide (WO3) from 192.4 metres, and from CLG127 at 2.4 metres at 1.53 per cent WO3 from 60.9 metres. Larvotto said further drill testing is planned for 2026. Subscribe to Australian Mining and receive the latest news on product announcements, industry developments, commodities and more.

Abstract Interfaces in heterostructures possess inherent inversion asymmetry and display diverse physical effects, however, the pristine in-plane mirror symmetries of the constituent layers are usually preserved at the interface. On-demand manipulation of these symmetries remains challenging. Here, we demonstrate a strategy to control the in-plane mirror symmetries of interfaces by engineering the crystallographic orientation of heterostructures. We design a workhorse system with a new orientation, i.e., the LaAlO3/SrTiO3 heterostructure with metallic interfaces in the (112)-plane. Such a high index orientation leads to the breaking of all the pristine mirror symmetries except the mirror plane perpendicular to the \([1\bar{1}0]\) direction (\({M}_{[1\bar{1}0]}\)), resulting in the Cs point symmetry with a metallic conduction. Consequently, this interface exhibits a giant nonlinear Hall effect characterized by a large Berry curvature dipole, a circular photogalvanic effect, and current-induced out-of-plane magnetization, all functional at room temperature. The magnitude of the nonlinear Hall effect rivals the Weyl and Dirac systems. Our work establishes a new strategy in exploring emerging electronic properties with nontrivial quantum geometry by designing the interface symmetry.