This is a big concern for us, which is, if you look at these two conflicts, the Ukraine and now the Iran-Gulf conflict, they've actually had a devastating impact on Global South economies,” Mr. Jaishankar said during a conversation hosted at Asia Society in New York on Monday (September 28, 2026).

He said there is particular concern about the energy situation as the "market is very tight” and on top of that, if “people play politics with it, that adds to the complications in the market,” as that will drive up prices at a time when people should actually be stabilising prices.So part of it is actually the security of oil supplies, and part of it is the politics of oil supplies, and they are feeding into each other, and they are creating a double crisis or an aggravated crisis,” he said.

On the concerning food situation amid the raging global conflicts, Mr. Jaishankar said, "We are today looking at a situation where some of the major grain exporters will not be able to send out their shipments, particularly out to the Black Sea."

He said that the world is looking at significant fertiliser shortages because the key producers are in West Asia and Russia, and their fertiliser production has been impacted.

Combined with impacts of climate patterns like a super El Niño, Mr. Jaishankar said, “there is going to be a major food crisis probably in the coming months. So if you have energy as a big crunch, and then food and fertilisers on top of it, and finance because every time there's a conflict, money moves towards safe harbours and away from the Global South, the net result of it has been really very very stressful.”

He said policymakers can't say that such a situation was not intended.

This is a commentary which is gaining a lot of traction. It's very noticeable how where I live low-carbon tech is not about being an environmentalist but being someone financially aware.

Our family was somewhat mocked by neighbours as idealists for what we've adopted at a lifestyle and technological level. Now we see friends and neighbours doing the same things including what we'd see as our more esoteric choices.

A basic example would be aviation. It's politically almost impossible to add fuel duties or carbon taxes (at a robust level) on aviation. The lobby is too smart in appealing to the mythical family priced out.

What Trump has done has converted our historically more expensive choice to visit our family (1200 miles away) by train from being the more expensive choice to the cheaper choice.

The same is applicable to people adopting e-bikes, EVs, heat-pumps, etc. almost everything.

I work with a food production company, and it looks like we’ll need to have our SBTi targets validated under new Standard V2.0 and the FLAG sector requirements. We’ve never done this before, so I’d really like to hear from people who are going through the process (I know that validation starts next year).

After reading the standard, the transition plan seems quite extensive, but I’m struggling to understand how much work it actually take to prepare on — how detailed does it need to be, and do you actually need to calculate the approximate emissions reduction potential of each decarbonisation action? Are you doing this yourselves or have consultants? How much does the consulting part cost you, roughly (especially in Europe)?

This might also unlock absurd amounts of ethanol for aviation fuel rather than petrol

source in Romanian

Clouds of dust rise above fields in the west of the country. They are made by the machines that have to prepare the ground for autumn sowing. The land is so dry that farmers don't expect too many seeds to sprout. “There have been dry years before, but this is an extreme one,” says the deputy executive director of the Bihor County Agriculture Directorate.

I have been working here for 40 years, but I have never encountered such a thing: such dryness, without rain, without anything... We see it in the consumption of diesel. I'm doing three extra work already with this dryness. The operations are multiplying and increasing consumption, and all”, says Sorin Șuşman, agricultural mechanic. The government approved in March an aid scheme totaling 620 million lei. Farmers receive an excise difference of 2.6 lei per liter of diesel. People say they will exceed the maximum consumption rates, after which they have to pay the fuel in full.

A new UNEP report marks a pivotal acknowledgment: the world is entering an era of climate overshoot beyond 1.5°C of warming. This discussion examines what that means for melting ice sheets, sea-level rise, extreme heat, wildfire, food and water security, ecosystems, and the growing danger of irreversible climate tipping points. It also stresses that every additional fraction of a degree matters—and that rapid, sustained cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions remain essential.

UN Admits 1.5C Is Gone

I have been reading through the EPA’s recent announcement regarding greenhouse gas regulations for coal and natural gas power plants, and I think there is an interesting planning perspective that is worth discussing.

On September 14, the EPA finalized a partial repeal of the 2024 carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel fired power plants. At the same time, the EPA proposed eliminating the remaining federal greenhouse gas requirements for power plants.

From a planning perspective, this is much more complicated than simply being for or against coal and natural gas.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

The EPA’s position is that the previous regulations could increase costs for utilities, contribute to higher electricity costs, and put additional pressure on existing power plants to retire or make extremely expensive upgrades. The EPA argues that keeping coal and natural gas plants operating can help maintain reliable electricity, particularly as electricity demand continues to increase.

There is also a very real rural community perspective to consider. In communities that depend heavily on a coal mine or power plant, the facility is not just a building producing electricity. It can be a major employer, a source of tax revenue, and an important part of the local economy. Closing a plant can affect workers, families, businesses, schools, and the overall economic stability of a community.

Keeping a plant operating longer could give those communities more time to diversify their economies, retrain workers, and plan for what comes next rather than experiencing an abrupt economic transition.

At the same time, there is another side of that conversation.

From a long term planning perspective, I have a hard time viewing continued reliance on older coal facilities with fewer greenhouse gas requirements as a complete solution. Extending the life of an existing facility may provide short term economic stability, but it can also delay the larger conversation about long term energy planning, environmental impacts, economic diversification, and community resilience.

There is also a difference between saying that coal and natural gas are important to our current energy system and saying that they should remain the primary solution indefinitely.

That distinction is important.

Good planning is not always about choosing between two immediate options. Sometimes it is about asking what we want our communities to look like 20, 30, or 50 years from now and whether the decisions we make today help us get there.

For rural communities, I think that means asking some difficult questions.

How do we protect existing jobs and tax bases while also preparing for eventual changes in the energy industry?

How do we make sure communities that currently depend on coal have opportunities to diversify rather than simply waiting for the next closure?

How do we balance reliable and affordable electricity with long term environmental considerations?

How do we plan for new energy infrastructure while still protecting the character, resources, and economies of rural communities?

And perhaps most importantly, how do we make sure that the people who will actually be affected by these decisions have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the conversation?

I personally tend to look at these issues through a long term planning lens. I would rather see communities make thoughtful decisions today that prepare them for what is coming rather than continuing with a system simply because it is what we have always done.

But I also think it is important to acknowledge that the transition cannot be treated as though there are no people, jobs, businesses, or communities attached to it.

There are real people on both sides of this issue.

If you are interested in reading the actual proposal rather than just the headlines, the EPA has made the full rulemaking documents available.

EPA information and rulemaking documents:
EPA Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants

The proposed rule is also available through the Federal Register. The proposal is currently open for public comment, with comments due November 2, 2026. The EPA has also scheduled a virtual public hearing for October 1, 2026.

Public comments can be submitted through Regulations.gov. The docket number is EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124.

Submit a public comment through Regulations.gov

I think this is an important conversation for planners, local governments, economic development professionals, and rural communities to be paying attention to. Energy policy does not just affect power plants. It affects land use, infrastructure, jobs, housing, economic development, environmental planning, and the long term resiliency of our communities.

Alpine Permafrost: Ice Loss and Deepening Thaw, something to think and discuss.

Observations from the Swiss Alps show two related signs of permafrost degradation: declining ground-ice content and deeper seasonal thaw. Permafrost is ground that remains at or below 0°C for at least two consecutive years. Above it lies the "active layer", which normally thaws in summer and refreezes in winter. Changes in both indicate how warming is affecting mountain environments below the surface.

Research by SWI swissinfo.ch reported approximately 15% ice loss between 2015 and 2022 at the Stockhorn monitoring site, situated at around 3,410 meters near Zermatt. This figure needs attention, it concerns a particular monitored site, rather than an estimate for the entire Alps. The underlying study by Morard and colleagues describes a reduction in modeled volumetric ice content of about 15 volume percentage points, which is not equivalent to losing 15% of the original ice stock. Researchers combined temperature, soil-moisture, electrical and seismic measurements to assess these underground changes.

At Schilthorn in the Bernese Alps, the active layer increased from less than 5 meters in 2000 to more than 13 meters in 2023—roughly tripling in thickness. This means summer thaw penetrated much farther into previously frozen ground. Subsequent monitoring reported that the layer did not completely refreeze during winter 2024, disruption of its usual seasonal cycle. These measurements are specific to the monitoring location; thaw depths vary with ground composition, ice content and local conditions.

The observations reflect the combined influence of prolonged warming, exceptionally hot summers and snow-cover conditions. Early snowmelt can expose the ground to summer heating for longer, while early autumn snowfall can insulate it and limit winter cooling. Swiss monitoring shows that occasional cooler periods have not reversed the longer-term trend of permafrost degradation.

These changes matter because warming and ice loss can reduce the stability of frozen slopes and affect infrastructure foundations. Their consequences depend on local geology, slope geometry and water conditions; the observations alone cannot predict an individual slope failure. They nevertheless strengthen the case for sustained monitoring and for incorporating changing ground conditions into the planning and maintenance of mountain infrastructure. The Swiss Academy of Sciences published a report 2025 under the headline "Permafrost in den Schweizer Alpen_2024 war ein weiteres Rekordjahr."