wri.org news and views

Clean Energy’s Growing Problem: Restrictive Siting Laws

alicia.cypress@wri.org — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 13:00:35 +0000

Clean Energy’s Growing Problem: Restrictive Siting Laws alicia.cypress… Fri, 03/27/2026 - 09:00

Electricity demand is surging across the United States, driven by electrification, rapid data center growth, industrial needs and more. Despite record progress on clean energy deployment in the U.S. last year, there is a critical need to pick up the pace — not only to replace aging infrastructure, but also to account for future load growth.

Renewable energy is the cheapest, quickest way to help meet increasing demand. Yet large wind and solar installations that feed into the grid are becoming more difficult to build across the country. Recent clean energy policy rollbacks, new restrictions and heightened scrutiny of wind and solar projects, and tightened federal permitting rules are only part of the story. The local laws that determine project locations and whether these projects can be built at all have become a growing hurdle.

By the end of 2024, at least 450 counties across 44 states had adopted severe restrictions on siting renewables, per a study from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center.¹ This was up 16% from the previous year. Some counties, cities and towns have temporarily paused new clean energy construction or banned it altogether.

What was once a technical issue has become a critical, complex and increasingly contentious obstacle, complicated by social and institutional challenges. But even as siting becomes more difficult, new strategies are emerging to help move projects forward. We explored how some of these strategies could help strike a balance — ensuring not just that clean energy gets built, but that the communities hosting these projects see real benefits.

A wind farm, still under installation, in the New Mexico desert. Restrictive siting laws have are often to blame for slow uptake of utility-scale installations across the U.S. Photo by halbergman/iStock.

Local Ordinances Are Key to Clean Energy Development

Siting, quite simply, is the process of determining where new energy infrastructure can and can’t be developed. As of mid-2024, one analysis found that 37 states give their local governments authority, either exclusively or conditionally, to set siting standards for solar and wind projects because they control local zoning laws and land-use regulations. Local authorities set standards around things like location, noise and height, which must be met for projects to obtain permits. If the standards are not met, state and local governments can also restrict or prohibit projects.

While local siting is most common, some states do maintain some state-level control over the siting process. Laws and regulations are evolving rapidly, with authority shifting between state and local governments. Some jurisdictions — both local and state — are attempting to expedite projects while others seek to restrict them.

Most “utility-scale” wind and solar projects (which generate power for the grid rather than on-site use) are sited in rural areas with large acreage. Between 2009 and 2020, more than 70% of utility-scale solar farms and 90% of utility-scale wind turbines were sited in rural agricultural land. The amount of land this entails is, however, small compared to total farmland in the U.S. and these projects, particularly wind, often allow continued agricultural use around the infrastructure.

Because rural landowners and communities will host a significant portion of future wind, solar and transmission projects, it’s particularly important that they are well versed in the siting process. Governments in these areas also need to be able to assess the benefits and impacts of renewable projects and develop ordinances that can balance clean energy goals with other local priorities.

How Local Siting Laws Can Hamper Clean Energy Growth

Local siting ordinances aren’t always a hindrance. They can provide clear guidelines to facilitate clean energy development. For instance, Albemarle County, Virginia, recently adopted an ordinance defining regulatory processes for both smaller and utility-scale renewable projects, designed to help meet the county’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050.

However, local ordinances can also use a range of approaches to restrict or ban clean energy projects. For example, they can impose low maximum height requirements to restrict large projects like wind turbines. Many jurisdictions have “setback” requirements that require projects to be located a certain distance from property lines or other structures. While reasonable setback requirements can ensure safety, larger distances are often meant to deter project development in some areas entirely. Other ordinances can limit energy capacity, physical size, noise or location that effectively block clean energy development.

These kinds of “restrictive ordinances” now exist in nearly every state in the country.

Some local governments have also implemented moratoria banning clean energy development in the jurisdictions entirely. Moratoria can either have no expiration date or can be temporary, giving local governments the necessary time to review their siting policies. Earlier this year, Van Zandt County, Texas, passed a temporary moratorium on all new "green energy" projects, including solar, wind and battery storage. Newfane, a town in western New York, is pursuing a six-month moratorium on all battery energy storage systems.

Recent studies have found that stricter or restrictive ordinances can reduce land availability for renewable energy development. However, there is limited understanding of how local ordinances are impacting project outcomes. A study of the Great Lakes region found that local laws in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin could reduce utility-scale solar development by 18% by 2040. This represents roughly 8 gigawatts of lost solar capacity and $4.8 billion in lost investment. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory surveyed over 120 industry professionals and found that community opposition, often expressed through restrictive local ordinances, is a top reason for project cancelation. More analysis is needed to understand how restrictive local ordinances are affecting project delays and cancellations at the state and national levels.

Why Are So Many Communities Restricting Renewables?

Clean energy can bring direct benefits to host communities. When negotiated properly and developed well, rural wind and solar projects can provide family farms with a significant, long-term revenue stream that helps stabilizes them against volatile crop prices. Payments vary by project and state, but the clean energy industry pays out around $1.4 billion for land-lease payments to landowners each year. Projects also generate tax revenue to support local infrastructure, schools and fire departments.

But not everyone who lives in a rural area is excited about the prospect of clean energy development. While local opposition is often chalked up to “not in my backyard” or “NIMBY-ism,” residents can have concerns about potential impacts. A 2023 study found that many communities are worried about “possible impacts to farmland and agricultural production, biodiversity, stormwater runoff, home and property values, [and] solar panels' toxicity and safety.” Anti-clean energy advocates often prey upon these concerns by spreading misinformation about proposed projects, or about clean energy generally, and rallying opposition.

Local opposition can also be driven by a lack of transparent, early engagement from developers. One survey focused on wind development found that “a planning process that is perceived as ’fair’ can lead to greater toleration of the outcome, even if it does not fully satisfy all stakeholders.” Yet while developers generally understand the importance of community engagement, the pressure to secure site control before engaging the local community can create a “too little, too late” scenario that frequently hardens opposition.

Restrictive ordinances aren’t always driven by local pushback. Rural local governments often operate with minimal staff support and may lack the time, resources and expertise to keep updating complex zoning language for evolving new technologies. For instance, while an ordinance in 2010 would have allowed for smaller wind turbines, the same ordinance might not accommodate current turbines, which are much taller and more powerful.

Sometimes local governments use restrictive ordinances to manage the pace of project development, especially when it threatens to overwhelm infrastructure, environmental resources or the character of their communities. Some may have welcomed clean energy projects previously but now demand a pause — often by imposing a moratorium — because the scale of growth has become too significant.

A solar farm located in Port Murray, New Jersey. Between 2009 and 2020, more than 70% of utility-scale solar farms in the U.S. were located in rural areas or farmland. Photo by halbergman/iStock.

Emerging Strategies to Unlock Clean Energy Siting

A variety of strategies are emerging to help balance clean energy goals with land use, environmental protection and local interests. These can help overcome siting hurdles in ways that make sense for nearby communities. While some strategies show promise and/or are already seeing success, others face resistance, highlighting that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

1) State-Level Preemption and Streamlining Permitting

Some states are stepping in to address local siting challenges through state-level preemption, expedited permitting processes and creating uniform state standards.

Preemption of local authority limits local governments’ ability to outright ban or unreasonably restrict clean energy development. In places where this is happening, a state-level siting authority approves projects that meet state standards, reducing local veto power. The process involves establishing uniform statewide standards for setbacks, noise and height for projects to prevent more restrictive local ordinances. Some states are pairing preemption with a streamlined, one-stop-shop approach for environmental reviews and permits.

Maryland’s Renewable Energy Certainty Act (RECA) preempts local zoning requirements that prohibit the construction or operation of solar projects, especially solar installations over 1 megawatt (MW) and energy storage projects. State agencies are required to develop standardized land-use requirements for siting these projects. Michigan’s Public Act 233 of 2023 allows the Michigan Public Service Commission to gain authority over wind, solar and storage projects of certain sizes, unless the local government adopts a compatible renewable energy ordinance that is “no more restrictive” than state requirements for setbacks, noise and safety. California, Illinois and New York have taken similar steps. In New York, the Office of Renewable Energy Siting creates uniform siting standards and issues a single permit for renewable energy projects larger than 25 MW, replacing multiple state and local permitting requirements.

State preemption can accelerate large-scale renewable deployment to meet state decarbonization goals, while reducing developer risks from inconsistent, localized decisions. But there are risks, too. It can undermine local government efforts to shape their own communities, reduce or eliminate opportunities for meaningful community engagement in the siting process, and even spur litigation and organized opposition to future projects. Some argue that state preemption should be a last resort, implemented only when engagement with local officials fails or when local ordinances are overly restrictive. Maryland’s RECA demonstrates a middle ground, it caps 5% of a county’s priority preservation area (designated agricultural and forest lands), thereby protecting local control while still allowing for clean energy development.

2) State Assistance and Incentives

Local governments can design more effective siting rules when they are equipped with the staff, data and tools to do so. State governments can help provide these resources, helping to address capacity and knowledge gaps and ensure that local officials can respond to developers’ and communities’ needs.

A growing number of states are already offering technical assistance, mapping tools and planning guidance to help local governments understand the impacts and siting needs of large-scale renewable energy projects. They can offer regulatory and financial incentives to communities that align their local ordinances with state renewable and clean energy goals. They can also help local governments navigate opposition and incorporate community feedback early in the process.

One example is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Reliable Energy Siting through Technical Engagement and Planning (R-STEP) program, which provides funding to state-based collaboratives to build local capacity for renewable deployment. Local governments get access to technical assistance, training and workshops to navigate complex siting, permitting and community engagement challenges. One R-STEP grantee, the Renewable Energy Academy in Michigan, is helping local officials prepare for the new renewable energy siting law under Public Act 233 (see above). Another, Purdue Extension, is leading an Indiana Renewable Energy Planning and Technical Engagement Collaborative to help communities with renewable energy planning, evaluation and decision-making.

Michigan has created other state-funded programs that collectively encourage local renewable development. The Renewables Ready Communities Award provides $2,500 to $5,000 per megawatt to local governments hosting solar, wind or storage projects. The Community Energy Management Program offers financial and technical assistance to local governments to accelerate the deployment of renewables and energy efficiency projects. The University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute is providing training, model ordinances, and expert guidance to help local governments understand siting and permitting strategies.

These initiatives are still too new to have had an observable impact and more research is needed to evaluate the long-term impacts that state-level incentives — such as financial support and technical assistance — have on local siting and permitting.

3) State-Level 'Fair Share' Approach

The “fair share” approach is gaining traction as a framework to balance the urgent need for renewable energy with local control, ensuring that no single community bears a disproportionate burden. Modeled on fair-share affordable housing programs that have existed for decades to reduce exclusionary zoning, this approach would require states to set renewable and/or clean energy requirements for all municipalities based on their “fair share” of energy potential or some other metric. Local governments would determine how they meet their targets and could opt out after meeting their fair share of development. Such policies can be supported by state-level technical and financial assistance to help local governments identify suitable areas for development and mitigate impacts.

The “fair share” approach balances state and local control, shifting the focus from state-level preemption to shared responsibility for state-wide clean energy goals. While no state has fully adopted a “fair share” policy for renewable energy projects, some have incorporated elements of this approach in existing legislation and new bills.

Several questions remain on how a “fair share” approach for renewables could work. Determining what constitutes a “fair share” can be complex and would require coming up with equitable metrics such as available land, energy capacity and emissions reduction. It’s possible that some areas with the highest renewable resource potential could be left under-utilized. Even when a fair share is established, there’s no guarantee that there wouldn’t be political and local community resistance. Finally, depending on how fair share is defined, there might be the challenge of addressing rural-urban divide and the difficulty of siting large projects in densely populated urban areas.

4) Community Benefits Frameworks to Address Local Opposition

Unlocking faster clean energy development will mean getting nearby communities on board. One promising way is by using community benefits frameworks, which can minimize project risks, overcome opposition and ensure communities benefit from new energy infrastructure.

These frameworks encompass a range of different benefits-sharing agreements and plans, which can vary in scope, legal enforceability, signatories and benefits delivered. In general, however, they can offer local communities a voice in project development and tangible benefits, such as local hiring guarantees, job training programs, financial investments, and other social and economic improvements. They can also generate community support, helping to minimize political risks for local officials working to advance renewable energy projects. Developers can also see benefits, including reduced project risk, streamlined siting and permitting approvals, and the social license to operate.

Benefits-sharing agreements, such as community benefits agreements and host community agreements, are increasingly common for wind, solar and energy storage projects. In 2021, the Town of East Hampton in New York and South Fork Wind LLC signed a host community agreement which included nearly $29 million in payments over 25 years to benefit the community.

A few state governments, including California, Michigan and New York, now mandate some version of benefits sharing in clean energy projects. Under California’s AB 205, developers seeking certification for renewable energy facilities with 50 MW of capacity or more must enter into “one or more legally binding and enforceable agreements with, or that benefit, a coalition of one or more community-based organizations.” With the Trump administration rolling back Biden-era requirements around community benefits plans, more states are being called upon to support such frameworks.

Community benefits frameworks are not meant to be a silver bullet. While they show promise, several questions remain about their structure, benefits, accountability and enforcement mechanisms and overall effectiveness.

Local Ordinances as a Lever for Progress

Utility-scale wind and solar projects are an essential piece of the puzzle to meet growing electricity demand in the U.S. Local ordinances can function as a powerful tool to accelerate the deployment of these projects — particularly when federal policies are introducing uncertainty and increased oversight.

However, this hinges on creating guidelines that provide clear, predictable pathways for renewable energy and balances development with community priorities that help build local support. Such an approach would balance renewable energy goals with community interests without substantially slowing down project development.

¹The Sabin Center’s annual report is not a comprehensive review of every jurisdiction in the country but provides a helpful data point to track the increase in restrictive ordinances. Other organizations, including Heatmap Pro and Center for Progressive Reform, are also tracking the rise of restrictive local ordinances hindering U.S. renewable energy projects.

utility-scale-solar-installation.jpg

Despite local siting laws hampering development of new wind and solar projects, new strategies can help ensure clean energy gets built while communities hosting these projects see real benefits.

Energy

United States

U.S. Climate

U.S. Climate Policy-Clean Power

U.S. Community Benefits Frameworks

renewable energy

Type

Explainer

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Authors

Andrew Light

Devashree Saha

Produced by

Energy

2026 Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship Now Open for Submissions

shannon.paton@wri.org — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 20:16:53 +0000

2026 Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship Now Open for Submissions shannon.paton@… Thu, 03/26/2026 - 16:16

Looking for an opportunity to catalyze efficient, sustainable transport? The Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship wants to help you transform ideas into reality.

The Schipper family, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, Volvo Research and Education Foundations (VREF) and the Kuehne Climate Center are pleased to announce that applications are now open for the 2026 Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy Efficiency. Jointly provided by VREF, WRI, the Kuehne Climate Center and the Schipper Family, the scholarship will award five extraordinary candidates up to US$12,500 each to advance transformative research in efficient and sustainable transport, including:

Two international scholars
One African scholar
One international scholar researching sustainable freight transport or logistics
One African scholar researching sustainable freight transport or logistics

Applications are due by April 17, 2026.

Dr. Leon J. Schipper (“Lee” or “Mr. Meter”), 1947–2011, was a co-founder of EMBARQ (now WRI’s Urban Mobility program) and dedicated his professional life to the efficient use of energy in mobility. An international physicist, researcher and musician, Schipper inspired and shaped the thinking of a generation of students and professionals. Widely recognized for enriching policy dialogue with his passion for data and challenging conventional wisdom, this scholarship celebrates his vision.

2025 winners Ignacio Tiznado Aitken, Shreya Banerjee and Mienke Knipe presented their research at Transforming Transportation 2026 in March.

Apply Now Read Guidelines

About the Scholarship

The Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship aims to expand contributions to research and policy dialogue about sustainable transport and energy efficiency. It prioritizes “iconoclastic” contributions that yield clear, transformative outputs and drive measurable change. Proposals relating to different aspects of policy dialogue are welcome, including data collection and quality, diagnosis through data analysis (qualitative and quantitative), policy analysis and evaluation, and interdisciplinary and international comparative analysis.

Who’s Eligible?

The scholarship is open to young researchers, defined as individuals with five or fewer years of experience since their last academic degree (master’s or Ph.D.) and who have not yet turned 36 years by the expression of interest submission deadline (born after April 17, 1990^[1]). There are no geographic restrictions on scholarship applicants, so young researchers and students of all national origins and fields are eligible to apply. While applications should be submitted in English, research may be completed in other languages to enhance its impact.

Applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

Consistency with Lee Schipper’s contributions
Alignment with the idea of sustainable transport and energy efficiency
Creation of innovative, transformational outcomes (“real impact”)
Feasibility (timely, realistic)
Applicant (affiliation, background, previous contributions, references)

Additional Freight Transport Scholar Eligibility Requirements

In addition to the global selection criteria above, applicants to the two freight scholarships should propose research projects related to sustainable freight transport or logistics.

Additional African Scholar Eligibility Requirements

The two African Scholarships support young researchers from the African continent currently living and working in Africa. In addition to the global selection criteria above, applicants to the African Scholarship should also:

Hold citizenship in an African country
Currently live and work in Africa
Be associated with an African-based institution (or an African branch of an international institution)
Propose research taking place in Africa

How to Apply

The first selection phase requires an expression of interest to be completed by April 17, 2026. Candidates chosen to advance to the next selection round will be notified in May 2026, when a more detailed research proposal will be required. Final awardees will be notified in August 2026.

Apply Now Read Guidelines

^[1] The eligibility periods can be extended in case of specific and properly documented circumstances such as parental leave. In case of parental leave, the applicant may request up to 18 months’ extension of eligibility for each child born. The Scholarship Committee will assess the eligibility period on the basis of evidence provided at the time of submission of the expression of interest.

Schipper-Bus-EMBARQ-1140x518_0.jpg

Photo of Lee Schipper, co-founder of EMBARQ, standing in a bus doorway.

full_content_with_attribution

Cities

Urban Mobility

Type

Project Update

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Produced by

Cities

STATEMENT: India Announces New 2035 Climate Commitment

sophie.brady@wri.org — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:48:16 +0000

STATEMENT: India Announces New 2035 Climate Commitment sophie.brady@wri.org Thu, 03/26/2026 - 09:48

NEW DELHI (March 26, 2026) – India announced its new nationally determined contribution (NDC). India aims to reduce its emissions intensity of GDP by 47% by 2035 compared to 2005. India also pledged to achieve a 60% share of non-fossil sources in installed electricity capacity by 2035 and to expand its forest and tree cover to absorb up to 4.0 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2035 from 2005 levels.

The announcement also emphasizes adaptation measures across key sectors including agriculture, water, and health and highlights the importance of sustainable lifestyles.

Following is a statement by Melanie Robinson, Global Climate, Economics and Finance Director at World Resources Institute:

“India's new climate commitment demonstrates that the country remains firmly committed to the multilateral climate process and achieving its goal of net-zero emissions by 2070. The new target to reach 60% non-fossil electricity capacity by 2035 is particularly notable given rising energy demand. Domestic trajectories suggest India is on course to exceed this target, further proof that the country's clean energy transition is gaining real momentum. This reflects India's foresight in shifting to a cleaner, more diverse energy mix, reducing its dependence on fossil fuels and the geopolitical uncertainties that come with them.

“Recent government modelling underscores that India has a credible pathway to its 2070 net-zero goal. Getting there will require scaling up public funding, attracting private capital through clear policy signals, and securing substantial international finance – both public and private.

“In the coming years, India has a major opportunity to transform its industrial sector, which in 2025 surpassed power as the largest source of its emissions and holds enormous potential for green growth and good jobs. Boosting efficiency standards, switching to cleaner fuels such as green hydrogen, and transitioning to low-carbon cement will all be essential. Equally critical is for the country to keep accelerating the adoption of zero-emission vehicles, which can immediately improve communities’ health and economies while cutting the country's dependence on fossil fuel imports.

"The commitments to expanding forest cover and strengthening resilience across agriculture, water and health make clear that India's climate strategy is about more than decarbonizing energy – it's about protecting people and nature too.

“India's new commitment signals a growing recognition that climate action and nature conservation are engines for economic growth, development and long-term prosperity. A well-managed low-carbon, climate resilient transition will deliver tangible benefits to people today through improved energy and food security, good jobs and cleaner air.”

full_content_with_attribution

Climate

India

National Climate Action

NDC

Climate

Type

Statement

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Charted: How Could Rising Temperatures Affect Your City?

margaret.overholt@wri.org — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:11:46 +0000

Charted: How Could Rising Temperatures Affect Your City? margaret.overh… Tue, 03/24/2026 - 13:11

A decade ago, scientists believed that unchecked global warming could heat the world to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above preindustrial levels sometime around 2045. It now looks like we could pass this critical threshold as soon as 2030. Indeed, some research points to up to 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F) of warming by 2050.

The difference in numbers here may sound small, but the implications are huge. Every fraction of a degree of warming above 1.5 degrees C will bring new weather extremes to many places — heat waves, fires, floods and more — alongside devastating impacts on lives and livelihoods.

While climate treaties and their negotiators trade in the language of degrees, it can be hard to relate global temperatures to what people are likely to experience in a particular locale — or how governments can prepare for these impacts.

To help fill in the picture, we analyzed dozens of climate models to discover how 1.5 and 3 degrees C of global warming might affect approximately 1,000 of the world’s largest cities. We focused on a few key impacts that many cities will face as temperatures rise:

Extreme heat directly impacts health, productivity and economies, and is especially severe in cities due to urban heat island effect. We looked at the average number of heat waves cities could experience per year, as well as the average duration of each year’s longest heat wave.
Energy demand for cooling has implications for power grids, electricity costs and greenhouse gas emissions. We looked at the number of cooling degree-days cities could face at each temperature threshold.
Disease risk; specifically, how many days per year cities could experience temperatures conducive to the spread of insect-borne diseases, including arboviruses and malaria.

So, what do the models show where you live?

How Rising Temperatures Could Affect Your City

About the Data

For details on how we chose and calculated these hazards, read our methodology paper. To learn more about how these hazards could play out globally, regionally and across income levels, read our article unpacking large-scale trends in the data.

Choose a city below, and you will see five visualizations — one for each of the climate hazards we studied. Each chart compares the hazard at 1.5 and 3 degrees C of warming based on three separate climate models. Because different models usually produce different estimates, we present them as ranges rather than single numbers. The wider the ranges, the more the models disagree with each other. They commonly agree on the direction, if not the magnitude, of change.

A few notes of caution. Climate models cannot offer perfect predictions due to scientific uncertainty, technical limitations and the fact that weather is always somewhat unpredictable. Our models are also built on global climate simulations which do not consider many local details, such as buildings and landforms. Because buildings and pavement are not well represented, the models tend to underestimate urban heat island effect and therefore temperatures.

Because of the uncertainties involved, these modeling results should also not be seen as predictions, but as general trends for these cities as the world warms.

Interpreting the Charts

[Read more]

Each dotted line represents the average prediction from one climate model. These are based on thousands of predictions run through the three best-performing models for each city. The shaded areas show the full range of roughly 95% of all the estimates made by the three climate models used for each city.

We expect our projections for individual cities to be broadly correct, particularly in the direction of change. But there will inevitably be inaccurate predictions for some individual cities. Modeling partially random processes, like weather, will always produce some extreme but unlikely outliers. Because we cannot know which cities’ predictions are outliers, results should be interpreted with caution.

In reading these charts, we recommend that readers pay attention to patterns, the direction of change and aggregate results — and be aware of the inherent uncertainty in any climate modeling. What you see here are our best current estimates based on these climate models.

These Impacts Aren’t Inevitable

These models underscore how much every fraction of a degree matters. As the planet warms, we will feel the impacts ratcheting up — damaging economies, hurting our health, and making cities, which are home to more than half of humanity, less livable.

Responding to the impacts that are already here is critical. Governments can do much to protect communities by investing in cooling infrastructure and data-driven climate-resilient planning. WRI recently launched the Cool Cities Lab, a data visualization and scenario-testing tool supporting cities in their responses to extreme heat.

But it’s important to remember that how much global warming the world experiences is driven by human systems.

Some countries have ramped up their commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and climate action worldwide has already made the most unimaginably hot futures much less likely. It’s still within our power to stop well short of 3 degrees C and avoid much of the damage we’re likely to see if we carry on with business as usual. It will require greater ambition and stronger commitment to act, and it must happen right away — but we can still secure a safer, more livable future.

shutterstock_editorial_2167758135.jpg

Every fraction of a degree matters. New WRI analysis explores how 1.5 and 3 degrees C of global warming might affect around 1,000 of the world's largest cities — and the people who live there.

Featured

Popular

Type

Charted

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Authors

Ted Wong

A New Community of Practice Sparks Financial Solutions for Electric School Buses

shannon.paton@wri.org — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:27:19 +0000

A New Community of Practice Sparks Financial Solutions for Electric School Buses shannon.paton@… Tue, 03/24/2026 - 11:27

Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs) account for 21% of the United States’ transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and are a major source of air pollution in low-income areas and communities of color. Electrifying MHDVs is essential to protect public health and reduce emissions. School buses are a particularly effective entry point: Across the U.S., the total school bus fleet includes half a million buses, and more trips are taken on school buses than on public transit buses each year, reaching every type of community.

Yet financing these vehicles remains a major obstacle to electrifying fleets in the communities that could benefit most. To address this challenge, in August 2024, WRI’s Electric School Bus Initiative and Clean Energy Works launched the Community to Advance Finance for Electric School Buses (CAFE), which brings together finance practitioners and equity advocates to develop innovative solutions.

The most significant barriers to electric school bus (ESB) adoption include high upfront vehicle costs and the charging infrastructure required for the buses. These hurdles make widespread deployment of electric fleets challenging — even more so for those who face greater barriers to accessing finance, such as small fleets, women- and minority-owned businesses, and community-based operators. By helping overcome financial barriers, CAFE presents a high-impact opportunity to reduce the upfront capital required for electric vehicles that can improve air quality and public health while reducing GHG emissions.

The Financing Gap

National- and state-level funding programs, such as grants and rebates developed to address cost barriers, cannot meet the scale of investment required for widespread adoption of ESBs (and the wider e-MHDV segment) on their own. Frequent policy shifts have further increased uncertainty in the funding landscape. What's needed is innovative financing that can unlock the lifetime operating savings of electric vehicles — lower fuel and maintenance costs — as a source of capital to offset upfront costs.

The problem? Financial product innovation for the electric MHDV segment has been virtually nonexistent. Traditional financing models do not account for the unique opportunities and characteristics of this emerging technology, and they do not address the specific needs of communities facing systemic inequities, including underinvestment in infrastructure and services, lack of collateral and weaker municipal credit.

Financial instruments, including debt products, project finance structures and insurance tools, will play a central role in leveraging future savings to reduce the upfront capital requirements of EV adoption. Financial innovation is needed to address real and perceived technology and counterparty risks to draw private capital into the MHDV segment. These tools may disrupt traditional business models, depending on how risks and responsibilities are allocated for critical assets (such as battery health) and services (such as managed charging) required for electrification. Importantly, innovation can meet the needs of specific communities by offering features like flexible term lengths and preferential interest rates.

Mobilizing financial institutions is timely and necessary to sustain momentum in transportation decarbonization. As electrification scales, financial solutions for MHDVs will reduce costs, broaden adoption and address systemic inequities in access, participation and benefit-sharing.

Community to Advance Finance for Electric School Buses Initiative

To address this need, WRI’s Electric School Bus Initiative and Clean Energy Works convened the Community to Advance Finance for Electric School Buses (CAFE), an action-oriented community of practice in which leading green and social impact finance practitioners and transportation equity groups collaborate to develop and implement innovative financing solutions for electric MHDVs.

WRI and Clean Energy Works host monthly facilitated discussions that surface key financial barriers, promote cross-pollination of ideas and rapid iteration of potential solutions, and strengthen relationships among stakeholders across geographies. They also share resources and provide technical assistance. CAFE members shape the community’s priorities and goals, while the WRI and Clean Energy Works coordination team facilitates the work and offers technical expertise, raises collective ambition and ensures solutions are responsive to member and community needs.

Image credit: Clean Energy Works

Impact to Date

Through more than 15 convenings, direct one-on-one engagement and technical assistance over the past year and a half, CAFE has demonstrated significant results. A major outcome came in December 2024, when the Connecticut Green Bank announced a first-of-its-kind financing program for electric MHDVs in the U.S., using blended-finance structures that can leverage federal and state grant funds. The Green Bank is leading with innovation and accessibility in structuring their program by offering features like below-market interest rates, tailored repayment schedules aligned with school revenue cycles, and loan terms matched to asset lifecycles. Because of Connecticut’s financing program, students in the state will experience zero-emission rides to school.

Connecticut is a model for scaling ESB fleet adoption through its requirement to transition all school buses that serve Environmental Justice communities to electric by 2030, and all school buses by 2040. The state’s Green Bank has committed to a minimum 60% federal Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities target when making ESB investments. Not only is the Connecticut Green Bank on the cutting edge of ESB financial solutions, it is also investing in the communities most affected by the dangers of diesel pollution. This is essential, especially in today’s political environment, when programs benefiting environmental justice and underserved communities are under fire.

What’s Next?

The target outcome is for CAFE members to deploy at least three new financial solutions by December 2027. These solutions will be developed jointly with CAFE members based on market needs, such as residual value guarantee products or procurement aggregation platforms. CAFE members are exploring ways to bring electric MHDVs to depots and routes in underserved communities that currently rely on diesel vehicles, leverage private capital to achieve greater scale, reduce technology and implementation risks (which, in turn, will lower financing costs), and create replicable financial models that can be shared across the CAFE community and with private capital providers.

In the medium term, as community members deploy financial products, the initiative will serve as a space to capture lessons learned and support the development of financial product offerings for electric MHDVs from market-rate commercial capital providers. Green banks and social impact financial institutions regularly take on risk levels or terms not found in the mainstream market to demonstrate proof of concept for new technologies and business models. The goal of this work is to lay the groundwork for mainstream capital providers to step in and scale. WRI and Clean Energy Works will track and publicize the deployment of these financial products.

WRI and Clean Energy Works’s convening power can also bring CAFE members and market-rate actors together to share insights and co-develop solutions that address remaining barriers for private capital providers. A future goal for CAFE is to involve private capital providers in deals led by CAFE members. When CAFE members encounter policy or regulatory barriers to developing and implementing financial products, CAFE coordinators can support them through engagement with state and federal policymakers to address these challenges.

With a proven model now in the market and ambitious goals ahead, CAFE is positioned to catalyze the next wave of electric MHDV financing centered on community needs and climate impact. As the initiative continues to develop and deploy new financing models, CAFE invites additional partners to help scale electric MHDV adoption and ensure equitable access to the benefits of transportation electrification.

bus-aerial-neighborhood.jpg

full_content_with_attribution

Cities

school bus

electric mobility

Type

Project Update

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Electric School Bus Initiative

Produced by

Cities

Reviving Nairobi's Libraries Is Building Healthier Communities

alicia.cypress@wri.org — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 13:00:47 +0000

Reviving Nairobi's Libraries Is Building Healthier Communities alicia.cypress… Tue, 03/24/2026 - 09:00

At Eastlands Library in Nairobi, Kenya, students compare notes and work through assignments as music from a tree-lined courtyard drifts through the windows. In another part of the library, a dance instructor is leading a group of children through breathing exercises and warm-up steps before the room fills with laughter as they attempt the choreography again.

For many visitors, the energy inside the library may be surprising. Public libraries are often hushed places with rows of desks, quiet reading rooms and whispers between bookshelves. Here, the atmosphere is animated, collaborative and unmistakably alive.

Children read together at Eastlands Library. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

That transformation is the work of Book Bunk Trust, a Kenyan nonprofit restoring historic public libraries and reimagining how they serve their communities. Across Nairobi, a city shaped by colonial prejudices, public space is often synonymous with neglect and danger. For more than three decades, the city’s few public libraries were restricted to white residents. Then many crumbled altogether.

Today, Book Bunk is working to physically and socially reinvigorate the libraries as vibrant civic spaces where all city residents can learn new skills, explore the arts, take part in environmental programs and connect with one another.

In recent years, nearly 200,000 people have visited Book Bunk’s two revitalized libraries, which have become trusted spaces where children can spend their afternoons learning, creating and growing alongside their peers.

“They feel safe coming into their libraries,” said Sharon Tarus, Book Bunk Trust’s communications manager. “They feel safe sending their children to the libraries and just leaving them there for the whole day.”

In this Series: WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities Finalists

Cities

This Hillside City in South America Rebuilt Itself Around Nature — and Got Healthier

Insights February 3, 2026

Cities

The Atlanta Beltline Paves a Path Toward a Healthier, More Connected City

Insights February 19, 2026

Cities

Manila’s Commuters Pushed for Safer Streets — and Won

Insights March 5, 2026

Cities

RELEASE: WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities Names Five Finalists Transforming Health and Daily Life in Cities

News January 28, 2026

‘Palaces for the People’

Book Bunk began with a simple but ambitious idea: reclaiming neglected libraries as “Palaces for the People” — free, trusted civic spaces at the heart of community life.

“We wanted to restore public libraries into civic hubs,” said Angela Wachuka, a publisher who co-founded Book Bunk Trust in 2017 with writer Wanjiru Koinange. The goal, Wachuka explained, was to create dignified spaces where people can access knowledge, arts education, homework support and even services like mental health clinics.

The spatial layout of Nairobi — including where libraries were built and who they were meant to serve — still bears the imprint of its colonial history. Even after Kenya’s independence from Britain in 1963, years of limited investment left many of these buildings underused or deteriorating. In a city where more than half of its residents live in informal neighborhoods, public spaces are created and maintained by residents as much as the city.

In 2018, Book Bunk partnered with Nairobi City County to restore historic libraries while keeping them publicly owned and accessible. So far, the organization has restored Eastlands and Kaloleni libraries, with work underway on McMillan Memorial Library, Nairobi’s oldest public library. Book Bunk leads restoration, fundraising, programming and day-to-day activation of the spaces, while Nairobi City County retains ownership and continues to provide core library staff.

Restoration has meant more than cosmetic improvements; it has changed how people use the libraries — and what they expect from them. From creative workshops to meals for kids, these libraries are helping to fulfill key social and educational services.

Angela Wachuka (center), co-founder of Book Bunk Trust, meets with team members at Eastlands Library. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

Through community consultations, interviews and focus groups, the team identified community priorities, which now shape programming. Initiatives like Music Bunk, Dance Bunk and Play Bunk introduce arts education alongside tutoring, reading programs and cultural events.

Marianne Wamuyu (right), programs and events director at Book Bunk Trust, works with students during an Art Bunk session at Eastlands Library. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

“Different locations have different audiences,” explained Marianne Wamuyu, Book Bunk Trust’s programs and events director. At Kaloleni Library, in one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, programming centers on holiday activities and youth-focused arts education. At Eastlands Library, programs support academic study, digital skills and creative collaboration for older students and those attending university.

Community feedback shapes the work in unexpected ways. During one program in Kaloleni, Wachuka met a young girl who struggled with her vision, so Book Bunk partnered with a local organization to begin providing vision tests.

That same bottom-up approach has shaped how Book Bunk works more broadly. Originally volunteer-driven, the organization has created pathways for community members to become staff and long-term stewards of the spaces. Restoration and operations have created 93 jobs, including 21 permanent positions — many filled by former volunteers and library users — while supporting more than 400 local vendors and small businesses.

Learning Beyond the Classroom

For many children, the libraries provide opportunities that extend beyond traditional learning.

Dance instructor Kelvin Kamuhia King’ori, who grew up in nearby Makongeni and used the Kaloleni Library as a child, pairs choreography and dance lessons with life-skills training focused on self-awareness, teamwork and confidence.

Dance Bunk students perform during Jamhuri celebrations at Kaloleni Library, marking Kenya’s Independence Day. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

“These kids really do have a lot in them,” he said. “But they don’t have safe spaces where they can fully express themselves.”

Within the library’s walls, students rehearse routines, practice public speaking and build self-esteem through creative expression. For some, the programs introduce entirely new possibilities.

“I never knew that I could get a chance to play the violin,” said Naya, a Music Bunk participant. “But when I came here, they offered me a chance to learn.”

Music Bunk students, including Naya (left), practice violin at Eastlands Library. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

Teachers involved in the programs say the benefits are multifaceted. Grace Nyongemukoya, a tutor at the library, emphasized the importance of nurturing emotional and social development alongside academic learning.

“Some learners come because they feel the library is a safe space for them,” she said. Supporting students holistically — emotionally and intellectually — can help them navigate challenges both inside and outside the classroom.

Green Spaces for Urban Well-Being

Environmental stewardship is another core dimension of the project.

Through Green Bunk, the project weaves environmental awareness into daily life at the libraries. Solar panels and rainwater systems help the sites run more efficiently, while courtyards, gardens and shaded outdoor areas bring nature back into dense urban neighborhoods where greenery can be hard to find.

Wachuka describes climate action as an integral part of Book Bunk, from planting micro-forests on library grounds to upcycling historic furniture. These efforts have helped the libraries to become small but significant green oases.

Book Bunk also distributes seed balls — small bundles of seeds coated in charcoal and soil — that residents can throw into open ground to help trees grow across the city. Cleanup days, tree planting and hands-on environmental activities invite community members to care for the spaces around them while learning how climate resilience (Nairobi has faced repeated deadly floods) can take root at the neighborhood scale.

Kaloleni Library, one of two Nairobi branch libraries restored by Book Bunk Trust. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

Libraries as Community Anchors

The renewed libraries also serve families in practical ways.

To date, Book Bunk’s library programs have provided more than 140,000 free meals to children, helping them remain nourished and engaged throughout the day.

Students line up for free meals at Eastlands Library. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

“We sometimes get 600 kids applying,” said Diana Were, administrator for Book Bunk Trust. “Yet we can only accommodate around 200.”

Parents play an essential role in sustaining the programs. Many check-in regularly with staff or encourage other families to participate.

“They are our biggest cheerleaders,” Were said. “They trust us with their children.”

That trust reinforces the libraries’ role as community anchors where residents feel welcome, regardless of age, background or income.

“When you step into the library, you’re part of a community,” Were added. “Everybody’s equal.”

For Liny Faith Onyi, a writer who visits the library, the most meaningful aspect of the space is its openness.

“It’s a protected space,” she said. “Anyone can come. You don’t have to look a certain way or act in any particular way to get in.”

Book Bunk’s work, Tarus said, has helped residents “regain their trust in civic life.” It has also encouraged communities to see libraries as spaces that belong to them — places worthy of pride, care and continued investment.

Liny Faith Onyi (second from right), a writer who visits the library, sits outside McMillan Memorial Library with friends. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

Restoring Culture and Connection

Book Bunk’s programming also highlights storytelling and cultural heritage.

The Missing Bit Project invites elders to share oral histories about Kenya’s past — from life in the 1940s and 1950s to experiences before and after the country’s independence — and makes those recordings available to younger audiences online.

Tarus described the project as an ode to Africa’s oral storytelling traditions, one that helps preserve Kenyan and African history that predates many written accounts.

Teachers and librarians are also expanding collections of African literature and creating spaces where local authors and stories are celebrated.

Jacob Ananda, assistant director of Nairobi City County Libraries, describes this effort as part of a broader cultural restoration process. Many libraries in Kenya were originally modeled after British institutions, he explained, and their collections reflected that legacy.

“We are trying to ‘Africanize’ the space,” he said, highlighting African authors, publishers and histories. “If a person abandons their heritage, they become a slave of the world.”

Jacob Ananda (right), assistant director of Nairobi City County Libraries, reviews archival materials at McMillan Memorial Library. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

Building a Network of Public Knowledge

While the two restored libraries in Nairobi are relatively modest in size — about 850 square meters (9,149 square feet) across two sites — the initiative is working to expand this model.

Early in the project, the team was aghast to learn how little information was available about Kenya’s full public library system. In response, they launched an effort to map libraries nationwide, finding nearly 1,200 public libraries and creating the first comprehensive picture of Kenya’s public library network.

The research feeds into the Book Bunk Blueprint — a practical guide designed to share lessons from the project, including approaches to restoration, governance, financing and community engagement for any library or similar public space. In effect, it turns years of experimentation into a methodology that others can adapt for public community-gathering spaces distinct from home and work, often known as third spaces.

“There was no template for restoring civic infrastructure like this,” Wachuka said. With the library map and blueprint — as well as a third direct restoration project underway in Nairobi at McMillan Library — Book Bunk is working to scale up these approaches.

Spaces That Belong to Everyone

As afternoon programs wind down at Eastlands Library, students gather their belongings and drift toward the courtyard. Some compare notes from tutoring sessions, while others linger to finish a song or dance routine before heading home.

For Orpah Anyango Agunda, a library liaison who grew up in Nairobi, the change that Book Bunk has brought to the city is visible in these moments. The project, she said, “has brought life into libraries.”

“They made it a place where people come,” said senior facilities coordinator Lydia Mumbi. “It’s like a second home.”

Library liaison Orpah Anyango Agunda helps Art Bunk students at Eastlands Library. Photo by WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.

By transforming these neglected institutions, Book Bunk is bridging Nairobi’s past with a more hopeful future, where safe, trusted public spaces serve all residents in more ways than one.

Book Bunk was selected as one of five finalists for the 2025-2026 WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities, which celebrates projects and initiatives catalyzing healthy cities. The Grand Prize Winner, which will be selected by an independent jury and will receive a $250,000 grand prize, will be awarded in April 2026.

nairobi-mcmillan-library.jpg

McMillan Memorial Library, Nairobi's oldest library, has recently been restored to become one of the city's vibrant civic centers.

Book Bunk Trust is working to reinvigorate Nairobi's libraries into vibrant civic centers where city residents can learn new skills, explore the arts, take part in environmental programs and connect with one another.

Cities

Africa

WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities

health

Urban Transformations

Cities

Featured

Type

Vignette

Exclude From Blog Feed?

WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities

Authors

Dan Dredger

Jen Shin

What Do Ambitious Climate Commitments Look Like for the World’s Top Emitters? It’s Complicated

shannon.paton@wri.org — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 12:00:00 +0000

What Do Ambitious Climate Commitments Look Like for the World’s Top Emitters? It’s Complicated shannon.paton@… Mon, 03/23/2026 - 08:00

It’s been 10 years since 194 countries adopted the Paris Agreement on climate change. And while many have made strides forward, their collective efforts still fall far short of what’s needed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) and avoid increasingly dangerous climate impacts.

In 2025, countries were on the hook to submit new national climate plans, known as “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs). The expectation was that, collectively, these new plans would help put the world on course for no more than 1.5 degrees C of warming by 2100. The Paris Agreement requires that each successive NDC reflects a country’s “highest possible ambition,” as well as its “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” As of early February 2026, 133 countries had submitted updated NDCs, representing 75% of global emissions.

According to the UN’s latest assessment, full implementation of the newest climate commitments would lead to warming of 2.3-2.5 degrees C (4.1-4.5 degrees F) by the end of the century — still well off track to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. Policies that countries have adopted to actually follow through on their commitments lag even further behind. These current policies put the world on course for 2.8 degrees C (5 degrees F) of warming, with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions projected to hold steady at roughly 58 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2030 before declining slightly to 54 GtCO2e in 2035.

It's clear that, together, these new NDCs don't go far enough. But a critical question remains: What would ambitious targets look like for the world's highest emitting countries?

That’s where things get more complicated...

5 Approaches for Setting National Emissions-Reduction Targets for 2030 and 2035

Divvying up the responsibility of achieving any global goal to individual countries is a complex, value-laden process. For example, should countries that can achieve the largest and cheapest emissions reductions set the most ambitious targets? Or should wealthy nations that have historically emitted the most GHGs shoulder the greatest responsibilities?

Various corners of the climate community tackle these questions differently, using a range of methods to develop near-term national benchmarks. These perspectives can yield distinct — and for some countries, contradictory — results.

To illustrate what ambition looks like under different lenses for six major emitters, we compiled 2030 and 2035 national benchmarks derived from five of the most widely used approaches and compared them to targets in these countries’ most recent NDCs. They include:

1) 1.5°C-Aligned, Least-Cost Pathways: Modeled scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C at the lowest possible cost — such as those featured in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — are among the most common sources for establishing national benchmarks. While some global climate models can now generate least-cost pathways for major emitters, others still lack country-level data. They instead simulate global or regional scenarios that must be downscaled to the national level.

A Deeper Look at 1.5°C-Aligned, Least-Cost Pathways

In addition to maximizing cost-effectiveness globally, one of the main benefits of deriving national benchmarks from 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost scenarios is that they can account for important interactions across sectors (such as how decarbonizing power generation alongside scaling up electric vehicles can reduce transport emissions) and countries (for example, how supportive policies adopted in one major economy can help reduce the cost of zero-carbon technologies more broadly and, in doing so, accelerate adoption in other nations).

But these scenarios have also faced criticisms that extend beyond their treatment of equity and fairness. More specifically, some 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways feature large-scale carbon removal from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation that could harm biodiversity, food security and human rights.

So, while we present 2030 and 2035 benchmarks from least-cost pathways that hold warming to 1.5 degrees C from the IPCC scenario database, we filter out those that rely on unsustainable levels of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation to achieve this temperature goal, following criteria developed by Climate Analytics and used for global, sectoral benchmarking in the State of Climate Action series. Ideally, other approaches that rely on these least-cost pathways as a starting point for national benchmarking — namely 1.5 degrees-C-aligned, fair-share perspectives — would employ similar filters.

2) 1.5°C-Aligned, Fair-Share Pathways: A well-cited critique of relying solely on least-cost pathways to establish national benchmarks is that they ignore equity and fairness. Not only do inequalities in incomes, energy use and GHG emissions among countries persist in IPCC scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, but because they prioritize economic efficiency, these least-cost pathways can also assign some developing countries disproportionate responsibility for reducing GHG emissions, relative to their contributions to the climate crisis. Fair-share perspectives attempt to address such limitations — for instance, by considering historical responsibility for total emissions, economic capacity and equality in per capita emissions — when determining each country’s contribution to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C.

But even defining equity and fairness across different fair-share approaches remains hotly contested, and such perspectives do not necessarily consider feasibility. Some countries’ fair-share contributions, for example, require GHG emissions to reach net zero or net negative by 2030, but such steep declines strain the bounds of feasibility even under the most favorable political conditions. In these select cases, approaches may allow for countries to compensate for what they cannot reduce domestically by financing emissions reductions beyond their borders.

3) National Modeled Pathways to Net Zero: Still other methods avoid global pathways entirely and instead rely on country-specific modeling. These scenarios focus not on determining an individual nation’s contribution to the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, but rather on achieving that country’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions. They show how steeply emissions need to decline in 2030 and 2035 to stay on track to reach net zero — typically around mid-century for most countries.

4) Linear Trajectories to Net Zero: A related but simpler approach gaining traction among some governments is a “linear or steeper” trajectory to net zero. Essentially, if countries drew a straight line to their net-zero target — for example, 0 GtCO2e in 2050 — then their 2030 and 2035 targets should either be on this line or below it, reflecting a constant decline in GtCO2e each year. But the devil is in the details, as the starting point governments select may significantly impact the steepness of the line; the steeper the line, the more ambitious the national benchmarks will be.

5) Bottom-Up, Feasibility-Focused Modeling: This method relies on country-specific modeling to determine what level of mitigation is feasible within a given nation, irrespective of a global limit on warming or that country’s commitment to reach net zero. Often relying on more granular, country-specific data, these studies primarily estimate GHG emissions reductions that could be achieved if a government instituted a carbon price, championed a specific policy portfolio or deployed a particular suite of zero-carbon technologies. Some of these modeling efforts also quantify mitigation that is possible if a country pursues a “just transition” or achieves national development priorities, alongside efforts to mitigate climate change. These scenarios may end up charting pathways to net-zero emissions or show that deep GHG emissions cuts in line with 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways are feasible, but these end goals are not inputs to the modeling.

This list of methods is not exhaustive. For example, we excluded a carbon budgeting approach due to a lack of national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035. But like 1.5 degree C-aligned, fair-share pathways, this method aims to more equitably distribute responsibility for achieving the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal by allocating the global carbon budget to countries according to their relative shares of the world’s population.

What Do Ambitious 2030 and 2035 Emissions-Reduction Targets Look Like for 6 of the World’s Biggest Emitters?

Together, China, the United States, India, the European Union, Brazil and Indonesia currently emit more than half of the world’s GHGs each year. Their near-term climate ambition, then, plays an outsized role in determining whether the world can reduce emissions enough to hold global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.

Relying on the five approaches above, we assessed just how ambitious these major emitters’ 2030 and 2035 mitigation targets are, as well as what strong 2030 and 2035 targets could look like.

The headline is that while most major emitters have set near-term targets that would be considered ambitious under at least one perspective, none feature targets for 2030 and 2035 that are sufficiently ambitious across each of the five approaches assessed. What’s more, all six NDCs fall well short of what’s needed to keep the 1.5 degrees C limit within reach.

Brazil

Among the first countries to submit a new NDC in November 2024, Brazil committed to reduce GHG emissions 59%-67% by 2035, relative to 2005. While President Lula’s government did not strengthen the country’s 2030 target that aims to lower GHG emissions 53% from 2005 levels, it did reiterate Brazil’s pledge to reach climate neutrality by 2050. If achieved, these targets would cause GHG emissions to fall from 2.6 GtCO2e in 2005 to 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030, 0.84-1.0 GtCO2e by 2035 and 0 GtCO2e by 2050.

Brazil’s target for 2030 is considered ambitious under only two of the five approaches, while its target for 2035 is fully aligned with just one. More specifically, linear trajectories to net zero show that the country’s GHG emissions drop to 1.1-1.5 GtCO2e by 2030 and 0.85-1.1 GtCO2e by 2035 — equivalent to cuts of 43%-56% and 57%-67% from 2005 levels, respectively. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling affirm that near-term reductions of this magnitude are possible.

Aligning Brazil’s NDC with 1.5 degrees C, however, would require deeper cuts. Least-cost pathways to 1.5 degrees C show the country’s GHG emissions dropping 84%-93% by 2035, relative to 2005, while a fair-share approach developed by Observatório do Clima calls for similarly steep declines, with GHG emissions decreasing 93% from 2005 levels by the same year. In real terms, this means that GHG emissions would fall to just 0.17-0.42 GtCO2e by 2035.

Although Brazil has already submitted its new NDC, there are still opportunities for President Lula’s administration to deepen mitigation efforts over the next decade. For example, the government has yet to publish a long-term strategy, which could help guide implementation.

China

China overtook the United States as the world’s largest emitter in the early 2000s, with annual GHG emissions climbing from roughly 7.1 GtCO2e in 2005 to 13.2 GtCO2e in 2023. In its previous NDC, the Chinese government committed to peaking CO2 emissions before 2030; reducing the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP produced (also known as “carbon intensity”) by at least 65% from 2005 levels by 2030; and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060.

China’s newest NDC commits to decreasing GHG emissions 7%-10% from peak levels by 2035, marking the first time the country has explicitly pledged to reduce its total, economywide emissions. Yet the lack of detail in China’s NDCs, as well as some ambiguity in the scope of the country’s net-zero target, makes it challenging to translate these commitments into absolute emissions levels. One recent analysis from Climate Watch suggests that China’s GHG emissions would reach roughly 13.4 GtCO2e in 2030 and 12.6-13.0 GtCO2e in 2035 if the government achieves both its near-term targets.

China’s 2030 target falls short on ambition across all approaches. These lenses, however, differ in the magnitude of cuts required by the end of this decade. For example, 1.5 degree C-aligned, least-cost pathways show steep declines down to 4.9-5.9 GtCO2e, while country-specific modeling to net zero suggests a smaller decrease, to roughly 11 GtCO2e. But across all perspectives, GHG emissions fall below the 13.4 GtCO2e implied by China’s 2030 target.

China’s 2035 target is also insufficient across all approaches. Fair share-based perspectives suggest relatively modest declines in GHG emissions, to 7.3-12 GtCO2e. (Note that these figures exclude emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), which acts as a net sink and accounts for -5% of China’s total net emissions.) Both modelled and linear pathways to net zero also fall within this range. Yet other approaches imply much deeper cuts. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, for example, indicates that China could reduce its GHG emissions to 4.8-8.9 Gt CO2e by 2035, while 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways project emissions falling lower still, to just 3.8-4.6 GtCO2e in the same year.

Emitting roughly a quarter of the world’s GHGs, China’s ambition on climate change significantly impacts the world’s ability to confront this global crisis. The earlier China reaches peak emissions, the more time it will have to reduce emissions and meet — or even exceed — the more ambitious end of its 2035 target. There is reason for cautious optimism: China has a history of overdelivering on its targets.

European Union

The EU’s most recent NDC commits its 27 members to reduce their collective GHG emissions 66.25%-72.5% from 1990 levels by 2035. This builds on the bloc’s previous commitments to reduce GHG emissions at least 55% from 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. While not yet formally adopted into law, the European Parliament and Council have also reached a provisional agreement to set an EU target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2040, relative to 1990 levels. Achieving these NDC targets would lower the EU’s GHG emissions from 3.1 GtCO2e today to 2.1 GtCO2e by 2030, 1.3-1.6 GtCO2e by 2035, and 0 GtCO2e by 2050.

The EU’s target for 2030 aligns with just two approaches. Linear trajectories to net zero show the region’s GHG emissions falling to 1.5-2.2 GtCO2e by the end of this decade, with bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling suggesting that the upper bound of this range is possible. But to help limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, the EU would need to strengthen its near-term ambition. More specifically, least-cost pathways aligned with this temperature goal project GHG emissions declining to 1.9-2.0 GtCO2e — equivalent to a 57%-60% reduction from 1990 levels. A fair-share-based contribution from the EU would require still greater ambition. Under this lens, GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) drop to near or below zero, representing at least a 91% reduction from 1990 levels. These trends roughly hold even when accounting for the region’s land sink, which has sequestered an average 0.29 GtCO2e per year since 1990.

The more ambitious end of the EU’s 2035 target range is consistent with three out of four approaches assessed, while the less ambitious end is aligned with only one. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling suggests that cutting emissions 69% from 1990 levels is possible by 2035, while linear trajectories to the EU’s net-zero pledge entail GHG emissions falling 64%-75% — declines that are both relatively consistent with the region’s 2035 target. But only the most ambitious end of the EU’s target range is aligned with least-cost pathways to 1.5 degrees C, which show emissions dropping 71%-80% relative to 1990. Fair share pathways that keep this Paris Agreement goal within reach call for an even steeper decline in the EU’s GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) — by more than 100%.

India

India’s GHG emissions have yet to peak, rising in recent years from about 2.0 GtCO2e in 2005 to 3.4 GtCO2e in 2021. India’s most recent NDC from 2022 commits to reducing the amount of emissions released per unit of GDP produced (also known as emissions intensity) by 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, as well as reaffirms its pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. The government, however, has yet to clarify whether these targets refer to all GHGs or just to CO2, and this lack of clarity complicates efforts to assess the country’s ambition. But assuming that India’s pledge to reduce emissions intensity covers all GHGs, recent analysis featured on Climate Watch suggests that achieving this near-term target would further increase emissions to 4.7 GtCO2e by 2030.

While all approaches allow India’s GHG emissions some room to increase through 2030, its current target aligns with only two of them. Country-specific modeling efforts that estimate feasible GHG emissions reductions under different policy portfolios, for example, show India’s emissions reaching between 3.4-5.1 GtCO2e in 2030, while national modeling to net zero similarly project GHG emissions rising to 4.8 GtCO2e by the end of this decade. 1.5 degrees C-aligned, fair-share approaches — which are particularly salient in the context of India’s relatively small historical contribution to the climate crisis, low per capita emissions and development challenges — show somewhat smaller increases in GHG emissions to 3.7-4.0 GtCO2e by 2030 (excluding emissions from LULUCF, which act as a net sink and accounts for just -1% of India’s total net emissions).

While approaches diverge on whether India’s emissions can continue rising through 2035, all agree that GHG emissions cannot grow substantially beyond levels implied by the government’s 2030 target. On one end of the spectrum, 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways model GHG emissions declining to 1.6-2.3 GtCO2e by 2035, while on the other, country-specific modeling to net zero indicates that GHG emissions roughly stabilize at their projected 2030 value of 4.8 GtCO2e in 2035. Fair-share approaches similarly find that GHG emissions remain relatively steady at 3.7-4.1 GtCO2e in 2035. But bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling project a more mixed bag of GHG emissions rising and falling between 2030 and 2035 across different scenarios.

Indonesia

Indonesia’s most recent NDC does not explicitly establish a new 2035 target. Instead, it features two scenarios that model different levels of economic growth, mitigation measures and associated reductions in GHG emissions, as well as a current policy scenario. In line with several independent tracking initiatives, we interpret Indonesia’s current policy scenario as forming the basis for the country’s “unconditional target” in 2035 (the level of mitigation that can be achieved without additional finance) and the two additional scenarios as comprising the bounds of Indonesia’s “conditional” target in the same year (the level of mitigation that can be achieved with international support). Because this NDC clearly specifies an implementation period of 2031 to 2035, we retain 2030 targets from Indonesia’s previous NDC, which the government published in 2022.

These inferred unconditional targets translate into absolute GHG emissions of 2 GtCO2e in 2030 and 1.8 GtCO2e in 2035, as compared to the approximately 1.4 GtCO2e emitted today. But with additional and improved climate finance, Indonesia could achieve steeper cuts, with emissions climbing only slightly to 1.6 GtCO2e in 2030 before falling to between 1.3 and 1.5 GtCO2e in 2035. The government has previously pledged to peak GHG emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2060 or sooner.

Indonesia’s 2030 target range falls short of all but one of the approaches assessed. Indeed, 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways show GHG emissions declining to 0.80-0.88 GtCO2e by 2030. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling calls for cuts of a similar, albeit smaller, magnitude. Only country-specific modeling to net zero by 2060 shows GHG emissions rising from current levels to reach 1.6-2.8 GtCO2e by 2030 — a range that encompasses both the country’s conditional and unconditional targets.

Indonesia’s conditional target range for 2035 represents a small improvement in ambition, now aligning with two approaches assessed. Emitting between 1.3 and 1.5 GtCO2e in 2035 falls squarely within the ranges implied by national modeling to net zero by 2060, as well as linear trajectories from Indonesia’s 2030 target range to this pledge. Both least-cost and fair-share pathways to 1.5 degrees C, however, would require steeper declines to less than 1 GtCO2e in the same year, and bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling affirms that cuts of this magnitude are technically possible.

United States

Just prior to leaving office, the Biden administration published the United States’ new NDC. It commits the world’s second-largest emitter to reducing GHG emissions 61%-66% from 2005 levels by 2035, as well as reaffirms the country’s previous pledge to cut emissions 50%-52% from 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. In real terms, this NDC promises that GHG emissions will fall from 6.6 GtCO2e in 2005 to 3.2-3.3 GtCO2e by 2030, 2.2-2.6 GtCO2e by 2035 and 0 GtCO2e by 2050.

But with the change in administration and President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the federal government is already beginning to roll back climate action, as well as adopt tariffs that are disrupting efforts to combat the climate crisis. Still, civil society groups and many state governments have rallied around this new NDC and have committed to still make progress toward these targets.

U.S. targets for 2030 and 2035 are fully consistent with three of the five approaches. Lowering GHG emissions to 2.2-2.6 GtCO2e by 2035 falls within the range estimated by bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, pathways to net zero, and linear trajectories to net zero. These same trends hold for the U.S.’ existing target for 2030.

But aligning the U.S. targets with a 1.5 degrees-C future would require deeper cuts. Least-cost pathways to this temperature limit, for example, call for GHG emissions to fall to 2.4-3.1 GtCO2e by 2030 and 1.6-2.3 GtCO2e by 2035. Only the most ambitious bound of the U.S. target for 2035 falls within this range. Fair-share perspectives posit that the U.S. — as the world’s wealthiest country, a nation with relatively high per capita emissions and the largest cumulative emitter of GHGs since the pre-industrial era — has an imperative to go further still. Under this lens, GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) fall at least 87% by 2030 and 99% by 2035, relative to 2005. These trends roughly hold even when accounting for the country’s land sink, which has sequestered an average 0.90 GtCO2e per year since 2005. Since such steep declines would prove enormously difficult to achieve domestically, the United States could still deliver a fair-share contribution to 1.5 degrees C by providing additional finance to support emissions reductions and carbon removals beyond its borders.

Major Emitters Must Meet and Beat Their NDCs

The Paris Agreement is clear: NDCs should reflect countries’ “highest possible ambition,” with each round putting forward stronger targets than the last. But as this analysis confirms, there are still large gaps between major emitters’ near-term targets and what’s urgently needed to keep the 1.5 degree C limit within reach. Some countries’ 2030 and 2035 targets also fall short of the ambition required to achieve their own net-zero pledges.

Greater ambition from all countries — and especially these major emitters — is paramount. In a moment of global economic uncertainty, the need for ambitious climate action that also targets both inclusive economic prosperity and long-term stability is stronger than ever. Major emitters must meet this moment by immediately accelerating implementation of their NDCs to achieve their targets early — and, wherever possible, surpass them. There are few alternatives if we are serious about keeping the Paris Agreement goal within reach and protecting humanity from increasingly catastrophic climate impacts.

Editor's note: This article was originally published in April 2025. It was updated in March 2026 to include analysis of new NDCs submitted by major emitters.

About the Data

Brazil

For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modeled pathways to Brazil’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Deep Decarbonization’ scenario by Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative and from the two ‘Just Transition’ scenarios from the Climate and Development Initiative (2021). For linear trajectories to net zero, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from its 2005 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from Observatório do Clima (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Brazil’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.

China

For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modeled pathways to China’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Carbon Neutrality’ scenario by the Energy Policy Simulator and the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative’s ‘GHG Net Zero’ scenario. For linear trajectories to China’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing a straight line from China’s 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2060. Because China’s emissions have yet to peak, authors did not draw a straight line from the most recent year of historical data. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Climate Mitigation’ and ‘Towards Sustainability’ scenarios by Lu et al. (2024) and from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Climate Watch in 2019.

For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Climate Watch, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.

European Union

For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the minimum and maximum values of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s filtered pathways. Regional modeled pathways to the EU’s net-zero pledge were not available. For linear trajectories to the EU’s net-zero pledge, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from the EU’s 1990 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from the EU’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.

For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from the EU’s First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.

India

For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modeled pathways to India’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Enhanced NDC’ scenario by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative. For linear trajectories to India’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing a straight line from India’s 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2070. Because India’s emissions have yet to peak, authors did not draw a straight line from the most recent year of historical data. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Long-term Decarbonization’ and ‘NDC-SDG Linkages’ scenarios by the Energy Policy Simulator, GEM India’s ‘Net Zero’ scenario and the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Climate Watch in 2019.

Indonesia

For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modeled pathways to Indonesia’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘DDS Low’ and ‘DDS High’ scenarios by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative and the ‘NZ2060’ scenario by the Low Carbon Development Initiative (2021). For linear trajectories to Indonesia’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing straight lines from the country’s 2030 NDC targets and stated peak value in 2030 to net-zero GHG emissions in 2060. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Indonesia’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.

For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Indonesia’s First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.

United States

For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modeled pathways to the U.S.’ net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Central’ scenario by Jones et al. (2024), the ‘Net Zero’ scenario by Jenkins et al. (2024), the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative’s ‘Deep Decarbonization’ scenario and the Energy Policy Simulator’s ‘NDC’ scenario. For linear trajectories to the U.S.’ net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from the U.S.’ 2005 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modeling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Higher Ambition’ and ‘Higher Ambition+’ scenarios by Iyer et al. (2025), the ‘Enhanced Ambition’ scenario by Zhao et al. (2024) and from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from the U.S.’ First Biennial Transparency Report in 2021.

For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from the U.S.’ First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.

installing-solar-panels-hebei-province-china.jpg

National Climate Action

data visualization

climatewatch-pinned

Type

Technical Perspective

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Authors

STATEMENT: UK Aid Cuts Are a Setback While Offering a Reset for Climate Priorities

nate.shelter@wri.org — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 19:03:47 +0000

STATEMENT: UK Aid Cuts Are a Setback While Offering a Reset for Climate Priorities nate.shelter@wri.org Fri, 03/20/2026 - 15:03

London, United Kingdom (20 March 2026) — This week, the United Kingdom government announced the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office’s allocations of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget for the next three years, confirming substantial reductions across multiple regions, including Africa and the Middle East.

This follows the 2025 decision to reduce the overall aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income by 2027/28. The UK government stated that it will spend ‘around’ £6 billion over the next three years on international climate action. Under the previous five‑year arrangement, the UK provided £11.6 billion in total for climate, averaging £2.3 billion a year; this therefore marks a 13% cut. A previous earmark of £3 billion in funding for nature has also been removed.

Following is a statement by Edward Davey, Head of the World Resources Institute’s UK Office:

“The UK government’s new cuts to its international climate and development finance will have an undeniable impact on the lives of the world’s poorest people. They will also affect the UK’s chances of living up fully to its commitments to tackling the global challenges that affect everyone, including climate change, security and prosperity.

“There is still however major scope to use the remaining £6 billion of international climate finance in ways that bring significant benefits to people, climate and nature. The shifts towards supporting systemic change, capacity building, local solutions and equality are all welcome, as is the focus on using scarce public finance on the poorest and most vulnerable countries, including conflict and fragile states. The new funding rightly focuses on leveraging resources through development banks and mobilizing private finance.

“The key now is for the UK to pursue a bold, ambitious and more integrated approach to climate, nature and development — in the way it joins up across government, in the range of instruments it uses, and in how it works with low- and middle-income countries and other partners to press for faster and deeper reforms in the international system.

“The stakes are high and getting higher: as climate impacts intensify, levels of debt, inequality and vulnerability keep growing. Countries face a race against time to build and invest in the resilient, green and inclusive economies of the future.

“The UK still has a vital role to play in supporting a stronger and fairer economic future, even in light of the new budget – and its planned Global Partnerships Conference in May with South Africa is an excellent first opportunity before the UK G20 to take the new vision forward.”

full_content_with_attribution

Type

Statement

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Iran War Could Worsen Middle East’s Water Woes

sarah.brown@wri.org — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:05:32 +0000

Iran War Could Worsen Middle East’s Water Woes sarah.brown@wri.org Fri, 03/20/2026 - 12:05

Iran was already on the edge of a water crisis when the conflict began Feb. 28, 2026.

After five consecutive years of drought and years of unsustainable water use, Iran is moving toward what experts call “water bankruptcy.” Just last year, the capital, Tehran, came close to running out of water. Farmers took to the streets to protest water shortages and alleged mismanagement.

Liz Saccoccia,
Water Security Associate

Conflict like the current war in Iran can worsen these water challenges — not only nationally but across the region. Research shows that conflict can amplify existing risks associated with water scarcity and transform them into larger security emergencies threatening food security, energy and health. WRI water expert and WRI-lead for the Water, Peace and Security Partnership (WPS) Liz Saccoccia explains Iran’s long-running water crisis, how conflict and water crises can reinforce each other, and what it means for the millions of people caught in between.

Why is Iran so water-stressed, and what’s driving it?

The Middle East is the most water-stressed region on the planet. About 83% of its population is exposed to extremely high water stress — a figure expected to reach 100% by 2050. Iran sits at the sharp end of this trend.

WRI’s Aqueduct data shows that Iran’s baseline water stress score, which measures the ratio of total water demand to available renewable supply, falls in the “extremely high” category. This means the country uses over 80% of its renewable water resources in an average year — and even more in a drier-than-normal year.

What makes Iran’s situation especially precarious is that supply and demand are moving in opposite directions. Water supply is expected to fall from around 670 billion cubic meters in 2019 to roughly 540 billion cubic meters by 2080, a decline driven by decreasing rainfall and climate change. At the same time, demand is expected to increase by 30% by 2050, largely due to growing household demand as the population grows. Tehran, home to about 10 million people with high per capita water use, already struggles with this growing tension. In 2025, when Iran’s rainfall was 40% lower than the long-term average, reservoirs supplying the capital fell to about 12% of their capacity.

There are two main causes of Iran’s extreme water stress: a naturally arid climate with limited water supply and years of unsustainable water management. Iran adopted a food self-sufficiency policy that drastically increased irrigation, which today accounts for about 90% of the country’s water use. Iran also abandoned traditional water management practices, in particular the qanat system — a gravity-fed network of underground channels that sustainably draws on groundwater — in favor of increasing diesel-powered, deep tube wells. This transition has caused saltwater intrusion into groundwater, compromising already limited reserves, as well as land subsidence that threatens groundwater restoration and higher pumping costs. In addition, widespread dam building has increased evaporation, reducing freshwater supplies. In Tehran, so much water has been pumped from aquifers that parts of the city are sinking by more than 10 inches a year.

How could the war worsen these water challenges?

Conflict can certainly exacerbate water challenges. Research shows that across the world, infrastructure like desalination plants, dams, treatment facilities and pipes are increasingly targeted during warfare. Reports already suggest that military operations over the last few weeks have damaged desalination plants in Iran and Bahrain. In already water-stressed regions like the Middle East, damaged infrastructure can push vulnerable water supplies from bad to worse.

Water crises can also contribute to a country’s overall instability by compounding other pressures, such as food insecurity, unemployment, weak governance and displacement. Water scarcity has already decreased food production, driven farmers off their land and displaced about 16 million people according to 2018 figures, and caused power outages through reduced hydropower capacity.

Iranians have been protesting for years about water challenges. Farmer protests last year were met with violent crackdowns. Wider anti-government protests in January 2026 — which were partly linked to food price spikes driven, in part, by water scarcity — were among the Trump administration’s justifications for the recent military intervention. The ongoing conflict, and related infrastructure damage, are unlikely to help address the Iranian people’s current water challenges.

Beyond Iran, can you tell me more about the water-conflict relationship?

Water-related conflict is increasing, according to the Pacific Institute's Water Conflict Chronology. Its latest update found 844 new instances of violent conflicts associated with water resources and systems in 2024 — a 20% increase over 2023.

Water can be a trigger for conflict. We saw this in Syria, where prolonged drought and groundwater depletion contributed to rural collapse and mass migration to cities, contributing to conditions that preceded civil war. It can be a casualty — like the most recent destruction of desalination plants in the Middle East. And it can be a weapon. In 2023, a Ukrainian dam was reportedly targeted by Russian forces, killing people and livestock and releasing toxic contaminants.

And in some cases, these three roles can combine to create a vicious cycle — where water scarcity drives instability and violence, instability destroys water systems, and destroyed systems deepen water scarcity.

Is it possible to address Iran's water crisis amid conflict?

Once war grips a region, progress on food security, infrastructure and economic growth often suffers. The ongoing conflict makes even basic interventions, let alone rebuilding or upgrading infrastructure, nearly impossible. In the near term, the water crisis will likely get worse before it gets better.

When the opportunity arises, where should Iran go from here?

Longer-term solutions like desalination plants are essential to help strengthen water security, but they address symptoms, not the cause. An entire overhaul toward sustainable and equitable water access is needed. This means rethinking how water is managed from the ground up — including engaging with local stakeholders, recycling wastewater, reducing water losses by fixing leaky pipes and other infrastructure, and cutting back water demand by importing the most water-intensive crops.

What’s clear from WPS’s research across conflict-affected water systems is that inclusive, sustainable management underpins stability.

Dry riverbed in Iran

The dry riverbed of the Zayandeh Rud River in Isfahan, Iran.

WRI water expert Liz Saccoccia explains how the war in Iran could itensify water crises, potentially amplifying risks to food security, energy and stability across the Middle East.

Type

Expert Take

Exclude From Blog Feed?

Authors

Sarah Brown

RELEASE: New Global Platform Maps Urban Heat Risks Block by Block—and Shows Cities How to Cool Them

sophie.brady@wri.org — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:12:43 +0000

RELEASE: New Global Platform Maps Urban Heat Risks Block by Block—and Shows Cities How to Cool Them sophie.brady@wri.org Wed, 03/18/2026 - 14:12

Starting in over 25 cities across five continents, Cool Cities Lab maps heat down to the block level and helps cities identify the most effective solutions to lower temperatures and protect communities.

Washington, D.C. (March 18, 2026) — WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities today launched Cool Cities Lab, a first-of-its-kind global data platform that maps — down to individual city blocks and streets — where residents face the highest heat risk and which solutions can lower temperatures most effectively. The tool provides cities with detailed, actionable data to help guide heat planning, infrastructure investment and climate resilience strategies.

This free, open-source platform currently includes data for over 25 cities across five continents, including Jakarta, Boston, Nairobi, London, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City and more, with additional cities planned.

Extreme heat is already straining cities worldwide, contributing to an estimated 489,000 deaths each year while driving up hospital visits and disrupting work and economic activity. The threat is intensifying: 2023, 2024 and 2025 were the three hottest years ever recorded globally. Yet most governments lack the granular data needed to plan effective local heat responses and target strategic infrastructure investments.

“Cities can't afford to treat heat as a future problem — it's already reshaping daily life and putting people in danger,” said Rogier van den Berg, Global Director for WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. “Actionable data is essential for responding to this growing threat. It shows where risks are greatest and helps leaders direct solutions to the communities that need them most.”

Cool Cities Lab addresses critical data gaps that cities face when planning responses to extreme urban heat. The platform, co-developed with city decisionmakers, allows users to model how measures such as trees, shade structures and cool roofs could reduce heat stress and air temperatures in nearby areas. Because Cool Cities Lab is built on globally available open data, the platform can scale to cities worldwide. It enables city leaders to test different infrastructure scenarios, prioritize the most effective interventions and make an evidence-based case for investments in cooling solutions.

The platform reveals how heat exposure varies within cities and which communities face the greatest risks — often low-income and densely built neighborhoods with the least access to green space. By combining heat data with information on population and the built environment, Cool Cities Lab empowers planners and leaders to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable people in their resilience planning efforts from the neighborhood to the entire city—and design context-specific, effective solutions.

Early applications of Cool Cities Lab data show how targeted interventions can deliver significant benefits:

In Campinas, Brazil, increasing street trees by just 20% in a residential neighborhood could lower felt temperatures by 1.7-8 degrees C (3.1-11.4 degrees F), transforming heat-exposed routes into cooler, more walkable corridors for residents.
In Cape Town’s central business district, combining street trees with reflective rooftops could nearly double the cooling that people experience compared to using either measure alone.
In Hermosillo, Mexico, officials have already used the data to design a new park in one of the city’s hottest, least shaded areas, creating a cooler refuge for residents with few places to escape the heat.
In Atlanta, data on the heat-mitigation potential of reflective roofs helped spur the city's 2025 Cool Roof Ordinance. The policy, informed by Cool Cities Lab data from WRI and technical assistance from the Smart Surfaces Coalition, is expected to lower citywide temperatures by 1.4 degrees C (2.4 degrees F), and cool the city’s hottest and most vulnerable neighborhoods by up to 3.5 degrees C (6.3 degrees F).

To further expand adoption, WRI is collaborating with a range of initiatives supporting sub-national action on urban cooling, including the UN Environment Programme-led Cool Coalition’s Beat the Heat Implementation Drive, C40 Cities’ Cool Cities Accelerator and Smart Surfaces Coalition’s Cities for Smart Surfaces program, to make Cool Cities Lab data, analysis and targeted support available to cities within their networks to inform their cooling strategies.

Cool Cities Lab was developed by WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities in partnership with WRI's Data Lab, with support from Google.org and direct input from city officials and technical experts.

To learn more about Cool Cities Lab, visit: https://coolcities.wri.org/

Cities currently included in Cool Cities Lab include:

Buenos Aires (Argentina); Campinas, Florianópolis, Fortaleza, Recife, Rio de Janeiro and Teresina (Brazil); Addis Ababa (Ethiopia); Bhopal, Gwalior, Indore, Jabalpur (India); Jakarta (Indonesia); Kisumu and Nairobi (Kenya); Hermosillo, Mexico City and Monterrey (Mexico); Amsterdam (Netherlands); London (United Kingdom); Atlanta and Boston (United States); Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg (South Africa); Barcelona (Spain).

Quotes from WRI experts and partners

“Heat risks can vary dramatically from one block to the next,” said Eric Mackres, Senior Manager of Data and Tools at WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. “But most decision-makers today still rely on coarse data that obscures this variation. Cool Cities Lab gives decision-makers and communities game-changing information to accelerate action.”

“We have proven ways to bring temperatures down — people can feel much cooler in shaded areas, and cool roofs can reduce air temperatures across the city,” said Brian Juhyuk Lee, Sustainability Lead, Google.org. “But a tree canopy on a wide boulevard, a shade structure at a bus stop and a cool roof on an apartment block solve different problems. Cool Cities Lab helps cities match the right solution to their goals and to the needs of residents.”

“The launch of WRI’s Cool Cities Lab is a critical step forward for fighting urban heat,” said Adalberto Maluf, Vice Minister, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change of Brazil. “By equipping city leaders with the data and solutions needed to protect the most vulnerable and design smarter, more resilient urban spaces, Cool Cities Lab can support initiatives like Beat the Heat, which was announced at COP30 in Belém and co-led by the Brazil COP30 presidency. This will help turn ambition into action, accelerate sustainable cooling solutions that save lives, reduce emissions and build a more equitable future for our cities.”

“Cities are where extreme heat hits hardest, and Cool Cities Lab gives them the critical data they need to act,” said Dr. Eleni (Lenio) Myrivili, Global Chief Heat Officer, UN Habitat and UN Environment Programme & Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council's Climate Resilience Center. “Already, more than a dozen Beat the Heat local governments have asked for early access to the tool, and many more are coming. We look forward to working with WRI to help cities turn insight into action, cool neighborhoods and protect lives.”

“With Cool Cities Lab, we can model the gains from trees, shade structures and reflective roofs and layer that with data on vulnerability,” said Albert Ferreira, Manager: Resilience and Climate Change and Chief Heat Officer for the City of Cape Town. “This helps us pinpoint where risks intersect. It shows where people face both the most intense heat and the fewest resources to cope, so we can target solutions where they matter most.”

"The data products from Cool Cities Lab played an essential role in the recent passage of Atlanta's leading cool roof ordinance,” said Bill Updike, Director of U.S. Policy & Programs, Smart Surfaces Coalition. “Some of the city councilmembers were asking reasonable questions about the potential impacts of the legislation that simply could not have been answered, and certainly not so quickly, if we had not done advanced high-resolution modeling, and if we didn't have access to the analysis and data from our partnership with WRI's Cool Cities Lab team. With Cool Cities Lab many more cities now have access to the information they need to prioritize and implement actions to cool their cities, as Atlanta has done.”

About World Resources Institute (WRI)

WRI works to improve people’s lives, protect and restore nature and stabilize the climate. As an independent research organization, we leverage our data, expertise and global reach to influence policy and catalyze change across systems like food, land and water; energy; and cities. Our 2,000+ staff work on the ground in more than a dozen focus countries and with partners in over 50 nations.

About WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities

WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities is World Resources Institute’s program dedicated to shaping a future where cities work better for everyone. Together with partners around the world, we help create resilient, inclusive, low-carbon places that are better for people and the planet. Our network of more than 500 experts working from Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, the Netherlands, Mexico, Türkiye and the United States combines research excellence with on-the-ground impact to make cities around the world better places to live. More information at wri.org/cities or on social @WRIRossCities.

About Google.org

Google.org’s mission is to unlock the potential for everyone, everywhere. Beyond traditional philanthropy, we apply Google’s innovation, research, and resources to promote progress and expand opportunity for everyone.

full_content_with_attribution

Central African Republic

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Type

Press Release

Exclude From Blog Feed?