Climate Action

You can't... repeal... a scientific finding. At that point it's just called lying about it.

Voor iedereen die de sprookjes gelooft dat het allemaal makkelijker wordt als je de #kdw uit de wet haalt en gaat sturen op #natuurkwaliteit. Dit zijn de drukfactoren voor de #n2000 gebieden, gebaseerd op de eerste 70 natuurdoelanalyses. #stikstof en #water. Grotere gebieden én verbinden.

Synergistic threat: Climate stressors and pesticides multiply ecological harm Environmental stressors (food scarcity, heat) combined with pesticide exposure create effects 70x more destructive than pesticides alone, yet regulators ignore this lethal synergy. Agencies like the EPA refuse to test chemical mixtures, relying on ou

Environmental stressors (food scarcity, heat) combined with pesticide exposure create effects 70x more destructive than pesticides alone, yet regulators ignore this lethal synergy.

www.newstarget.com/2026-01-...

Trump to direct Pentagon to buy coal to revive industry, Bloomberg News says U.S. President Donald Trump is set to direct the Pentagon to use government funding and Pentagon contracts to sustain U.S. coal-fired power plants, Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday, citing a White H...

This is just criminal. It serves no purpose at all, except for helping his donors destroy the planet. www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-direct-pentagon-buy-coal-revive-industry-bloomberg-news-says-2026-02-11/?link_source=ta_bluesky_link&taid=698bf0f0f0b1700001e22762

US tech giants pressuring EU to keep us addicted to social media "They can leverage Trump's America First policies, framing EU digital laws as foreign extortion, censorship or discrimination."

A new report shows the enormous pressure EU lawmakers are coming under from American big tech giants.

"In one scenario, where emissions continue, and authorities rely largely on wastewater treatment to meet strict environmental standards, the total bill would soar to around €1.7 trillion by 2050, driven mainly by clean-up costs."

Forever chemicals to cost Europe half a trillion euros by 2050, EU says Even more ambitious clean-up goals would see the price tag soar.

"If the EU bans forever chemicals, the health costs would fall from about €39.5 billion a year in 2024 to roughly €0.5 billion by 2040, under a full phase-out scenario." www.politico.eu/article/fore...

Airlines target EU climate rules after carmakers showed the way The recent weakening of the ban on gasoline and diesel cars is fueling calls for a similar reversal in the aviation sector.

🤢 www.politico.eu/article/avia...

Graphic showing the countries importing US gas

Map showing deliveries of US gas across Europe

@vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu: Is this what energy dependency looks like?

61 US LNG tankers arrived in the EU in the first 23 days of 2026.

Every delivery makes the EU more dependent on #Trump.

Every dollar paid supports his agenda. Every tanker means more climate chaos.

Stop US gas! #StopFossilGas

All Reforestation Methods Can Support Tropical Tree Diversity Recovery, but Drivers and Species Composition Vary We assessed tree diversity recovery across five reforestation methods (white background) and compared them to three reference systems (grey background). In the rainforest, none of the restoration met...

Thrilled to share our new paper on restoring tree diversity in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest!🌳

Our findings are encouraging: restoration shows high diversity, though old-growth-like composition needs more time.

Amazing team effort from the Newfor team @ USP & @w-u-r.bsky.social
doi.org/10.1111/gcb....

Trump has growing stranglehold over EU and UK energy supply, study shows European countries now reliant on US liquified natural gas shipments, creating risk of higher bills amid recent tensions

Instead of trading dependency on Putin for dependency on Putin's best buddy, perhaps the EU should build out its own clean domestic power supply.

Europe take note. Stand side by side by Canada and stand up against this US extortionist regime. thehill.com/homenews/adm...

The latest in our climate chaos theatre: Arctic ice melting in January!

Ofwel, gaan de partijen handelen overeenkomstig de genoemde intenties in het verdrag of gaan de loopholes gezocht worden om eronderuit te komen? Maakt waarschijnlijk een wereld van verschil en wellicht daarom zo lastig exacte consequenties goed in te schatten.

Overigens krijg ik het idee dat veel afhangt van de intenties van alle partijen. Ik krijg namelijk de indruk dat veel goede intenties mbt klimaat en biodiversiteit zijn opgenomen en er ook enige "guardrails" zijn, maar dat het absoluut niet waterdicht is.

Deze zorgen delen we 100%!

Mbt Mercosurverdrag zeg ik dat ik het simpelweg niet weet. Ik heb geprobeerd de relevante delen uit het verdrag te lezen, te vergelijken met de kritiek, maar het is dusdanig complex en juridisch, dat ik als leek helaas niet zelfstandig kan opmaken wat gedegen kritiek is en wat niet.

Ik heb dat gedaan en ben (zie mijn account) zeer begaan met de gevolgen van de klimaatcrisis. Maar het verdrag lezende zijn daar ook waarborgen in opgenomen. Ik zoek naar onderbouwde argumentatie waarom dit verdrag zo slecht is op dat gebied. Zie deze draad: bsky.app/profile/clim...

Geopolitically, it seems a no-brainer. So I mainly wonder what the counterargument is from people like @baseickhout.bsky.social, who is a smart and capable person, which will most likely be based on negative climate/sustainability effects. But I'm really curious how strong those arguments are.

And another open question I have: what would be its impact compared to the counterfactual of no agreement? The agreement is likely not perfect on climate and sustainability, but would it be a step up (or step down) vs no agreement?

This paper deals more with these questions: caneurope.org/content/uplo... But for me, the analysis depends on a lot of uncertain and negative "what-if" scenario's. Q: If both parties sincerely commit to the spirit and content of the agreement, could it also have positive effects on climate?

Obviously, if the Mercosur trade agreement would make it possible to put pressure on EU climate laws and regulations by third parties, it would be a very bad thing. But does it? Unfortunately, hard for me as a layperson to independently verify.

It also opens with: "With regard to the implementation of sustainability measures affecting trade and the
placement on the market related to the protection of wooded ecosystems, [b]and where the European Union's law so allows:[/b]" Call me even more confused ;-)

Another example: Greenpeace states (see picture). But 55 doesn't state an obligation? And then art. 56: "Nothing under this section shall be understood or interpreted as a derogation, modification or incorporation of new definitions regarding the protection of wooded ecosystems under a Party's law."

But I'm no lawyer. It seems to me as a layperson that this covers it, but I could be completely wrong. Will read more about it and the references you gave. Thanks again.

and to adopt or modify its laws, regulations and policies. Such levels, laws, regulations and policies shall be consistent with each Party's commitment to the international agreements and
labour standards referred to in Articles 18.4 and 18.5." This includes Paris Agreement etc.

That explictly governs the "right to regulate", f.i. "The Parties recognise the right of each Party to determine its sustainable development policies and priorities, to establish the levels of domestic environmental and labour protection it deems
appropriate +

Thank you. One of the main criticism in the Greenpeace paper is that it allegedly allows "Mercosur to raise complaints against any new EU environmental, climate and human rights
measures if those have an impact on Mercosur exports to the EU". But how about Art. 18.2? 1/2

I have a hard time understanding exactly where the treaty is potentially lacking and what its (evidence based) effects will be. There certainly are environmental protections build in. But where are they severly lacking according to critics?

EU-Mercosur: Text of the agreement Read the different sections of the agreement.

Can someone explain to me what exactly the criticism is regarding climate / sustainability and the Mercosur-treaty based on the actual treaty? The trade and sustainable development chapter and annex can be found here: policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-rel...