Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor party has won a “landslide” victory in the country’s election, BBC News reports. The broadcaster says: “Albanese’s centre-left government will dramatically increase its majority after the conservative Liberal-National coalition suffered a thumping defeat nationwide.” It reports that in his victory speech, Albanese addressed issues including climate change and energy, adding that he promised to “do more to address climate change and protect the environment”. CNN says that Albanese first took office in the “so-called ‘climate election’ of 2022, with promises to cut Australia’s carbon emissions and reach net-zero by 2050”. France 24 says the election was “shaped by living costs, climate anxiety and US president Donald Trump’s tariffs”. According to the Times, however, climate change was “rarely mentioned” in the campaign. Net Zero Investor says Albanese’s “decisive victory strengthens Australia’s climate policy outlook”. The Guardian says voters have “dealt a significant blow to the Greens, with the minor party on track to lose several MPs”. A second Guardian story says the Greens “blame poor election showing on Liberal vote collapse and targeted attack from rightwing groups”.

In related comment, Guardian Australia’s climate and environment editor Adam Morton writes that the country has “backed a rapid shift to renewable energy”. For the Conversation, Monash University’s Anna Skarbek and Anna Malos say the new government has “five huge climate opportunities”, including a new international climate pledge for 2035, a “firm plan” for net-zero and bidding to host the COP31 climate talks next year. Bloomberg says Albanese’s “next campaign is to secure COP31 climate talks” [in 2026]. For Bloomberg, columnist David Fickling looks at the “implausible plan to replace the government’s renewables-focused climate targets with a switch to nuclear energy” that had been put forward by the losing opposition leader Peter Dutton, who lost his seat. Another Guardian comment, by Flinders University researcher Intifar Chowdhury, says that “Gen Z want the government to address the big structural problems: housing supply, inequality and climate.”

The UN is “considering sweeping reforms…as it braces for even deeper funding cuts from the Trump administration”, the Financial Times reports, citing an internal memo. It adds: “The memo also suggested that the UN’s climate change arm be integrated into the environment programme. It mulled whether the COP climate change summits, which produced the landmark Paris Agreement [and] are attended by tens of thousands each year, ‘should be discontinued’ in its current form.” The newspaper continues: “The reforms would allow [UN secretary general António] Guterres ‘to go into the meetings and say – “Look, the UN is being proactive and is already creating efficiencies”’, said a person familiar with discussions around the review, which is called UN80. ‘What’s better – for the UN to make these changes now or be forced to make them when the money isn’t there?’ The UN said in a statement to the FT that the memo ‘is the preliminary result of an exercise to generate ideas and thoughts from senior officials on how to achieve the secretary-general’s vision” of making the UN “more effective and efficient’. The document was one of three “work streams” it is pursuing, the statement said.” Reuters, which first reported on the memo’s contents, says: “The memo contains a range of suggestions, some large, some small, some speculative, which, if all adopted, would represent the most sweeping reforms in decades.”

Meanwhile, the US is seeking to “weaken a global deal aimed at helping developing countries struggling with the impacts of climate change and other issues”, Reuters reports, citing an “internal UN document”. 

There is widespread media coverage of the 2026 budget outlined by the White House on Friday. Reuters reports that the proposal to Congress suggests cutting $163bn in 2026 federal spending. It continues: “The White House said the energy budget proposal cancels more than $15bn in carbon capture and renewable energy funding from the bipartisan infrastructure law that former president Joe Biden, a Democrat, signed in 2021. It also proposes to cancel $6bn from that law for EV [electric chargers.” The newswire adds: “The budget is meant to lay out an administration’s policies and what lawmakers ultimately adopt often differs from the White House request. It was not immediately clear how Congress would agree to cut funding approved in bipartisan law that is popular in many Republican districts. Congress would likely have to pass legislation such as rescissions or amendments.” Inside Climate News says: “Some of the largest percentage cuts are at EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], with a proposed budget of $4.2bn, down 55% from the current year, and the National Science Foundation, with a proposed budget of $3.9bn, down 56% from FY2025.” The Associated Press adds: “The proposal outlines $1.5bn in cuts to what it calls ‘climate-dominated’ NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] operations, research and grants, plus infrastructure and satellites. It says these are not aligned with the administration ending the Green New Deal, referring to the Democrats’ moonshot plan to combat climate change and shift away from fossil fuels.” Reuters says the EPA announced plans on Friday to “slash its budget by $300m in fiscal year 2026, reduce staffing to 1980s levels and dissolve its research and development office as part of a sweeping overhaul of the agency”. It adds: “Critics including the Union of Concerned Scientists said the staff cuts and changes in organisation of the EPA would force staff members to follow the political program of the president rather than scientific evidence.” The Associated Press reports that “some scientists and activists saw it as an attack on EPA’s Office of Research and Development, which has long provided the scientific underpinnings for EPA’s mission to protect the environment and human health”. The New York Times reports that scientists from the EPA’s research division will “disperse” to other divisions “where they among other things will be tasked with approving the use of new chemicals”. Separately, the New York Times reports that NASA would see a 24% cut in its budget under the White House proposals. The newspaper says the agency has proposed cancelling projects including “climate monitoring satellites”. The Guardian reports that alongside $163bn cuts in “discretionary non-defense spending”, the White House plan would boost the Pentagon’s budget by more than $1tn.  NBC News, CNN, the MailOnline, the Financial Times, the Associated Press and E&E News also cover Friday’s announcement.

The Guardian reports that “the Trump administration has ordered the closure of 25 scientific centres that monitor US waters for flooding and drought, and manage supply levels to ensure communities around the country don’t run out of water”. Axios says: “Defense secretary Pete Hegseth says the Pentagon will no longer ‘do climate change crap’.”

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have said they will “try to fill the void from the Trump administration’s dismissal of scientists writing a cornerstone federal report on what climate change is doing to the US”, the Associated Press reports. The newswire continues: “Earlier [last] week, Trump’s Republican administration told about 400 scientists working on the National Climate Assessment (NCA) that they were no longer needed and that the report was being reevaluated. That report, coming once every four to five years, is required by a 1990 federal law and was due out around 2027.” The Guardian says the AMS and AGU “will work together to produce over 29 peer-reviewed journals that will cover all aspects of climate change including observations, projections, impacts, risks and solutions”. It adds: “According to the AMS and AGU, the collection will not replace the NCA but instead create a mechanism for important work on climate change’s impact to continue.” CNN reports that the announcement by the societies “is a solicitation for authors to contribute scientific studies that would have gone into the sixth NCA”. Bloomberg adds that a statement by the two groups called the effort a “first-of-its-kind special collection” of research on climate change in the US. NBS News, Reuters and the New York Times also cover the news.

Meanwhile, the Times reports that “France and the EU have jointly unveiled plans to spend hundreds of millions of euros on incentives for US-based scientists to move to Europe to escape President Trump’s funding cuts and his battles with academia”. The newspaper reports that the EU will allocate €500m and France an additional €100m “to attract foreign researchers”. It continues: “Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, accused the US president of a ‘gigantic miscalculation’ in making federal funding and tax breaks for American universities dependent on scrapping diversity policies.” Bloomberg adds: “French president Emmanuel Macron made a plea to US-based researchers who have been affected by Donald Trump’s policies to choose Europe…The French education ministry said in a statement it has created an online platform to facilitate relocation for those focusing on topics ranging from health, to climate, biodiversity, decarbonisation and natural resources.” The New York Times also covers the news. 

A group of Democratic state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit arguing that the Trump administration’s decision to pause all federal wind-energy approvals “is unlawful and must be blocked”, Reuters reports. The newswire continues: “The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring the indefinite pause unlawful and barring the agencies including the US Departments of Commerce and Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing Trump’s directive.” The Associated Press reports that Trump filed the executive order “pausing approvals, permits and loans for all wind energy projects both onshore and offshore” on his first day back in office. It adds that attorneys general from 17 states and Washington DC “say Trump doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally shut down the permitting process, and he’s jeopardising development of a power source critical to the states’ economic vitality, energy mix, public health and climate goals”. The Guardian also covers the news. 

In further US news, a Guardian “exclusive” says that “the expected amount of greenhouse gas emissions from active and planned projects in US oil and gas fields has jumped under Trump, after previously dropping under Biden”. Separately, the Guardian reports that “Puerto Rico has voluntarily dismissed its 2024 climate lawsuit against big oil…two days after the US justice department sued two states over planned litigation against oil companies for their role in the climate crisis”. Inside Climate News covers draft legislation released on Friday, which “cuts fossil fuel royalty rates, expands drilling on public lands and in the Arctic, reinstates canceled mining leases and cancels Western resource management plans that balanced conservation with development”. 

There is widespread ongoing media coverage of last week’s local elections in the UK, where the hard-right populist Reform party made big gains. BusinessGreen reports that Reform gained more than 500 councillors, the Liberal Democrats gained nearly 100 and the Greens gained 29. The outlet quotes Reform leader Nigel Farage using a victory rally in County Durham to say: ​​“I would advise anyone who’s working for Durham county council on climate change initiatives, or diversity, equity and inclusion, or thinks they can go on working from home, I think you had all better really be seeking alternative careers very, very quickly.” The Guardian also covers Farage’s comments. A frontpage story for the Daily Mail says Farage “hit out at Labour’s ‘lunatic net-zero policies’” in his speech. The Daily Telegraph reports that “Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, said the party will use its new control of ten councils to use ‘every lever’ available to block renewable projects”. The i newspaper outlines the solar and windfarm projects that Reform UK could target. The Sun reports that Labour prime minister Keir Starmer is “facing a growing revolt”. Using an anonymous quote, it says: “One senior Labour MP told The Sun: ‘Keir now has to have a reshuffle. Ed Miliband has to be first in line to go. The net-zero policy has been a disaster’.” Similarly, the Mail on Sunday does not quote any named Labour MPs in reporting: “Many Labour MPs fear that the party’s ‘obsession’ with the net-zero policies championed by energy secretary Ed Miliband, and a failure to tackle immigration, are driving their supporters into the arms of Reform.” Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph reports that Labour peer and former home secretary Lord Blunkett has “urged Keir Starmer to take a more flexible approach towards green targets to save businesses and consumers money”. (Under the news article is a comment piece by Blunkett that says Reform’s policy of scrapping the UK’s net-zero target is “insane”. He continues: “Decoupling the price of electricity from the global gas market is an essential move.” Blunkett adds: “It is absolutely true that we can accelerate growth by investment in renewables and away from dependence on carbon fuels. But it’s also true that the price of energy for our industrial base is a major drag on growth and on our competitiveness. We have to square that circle.”) The MailOnline adds: “The Labour peer also put pressure on the government to not leave the UK totally reliant on electricity. He pointed to recent blackouts in Spain and Portugal as a ‘timely reminder of just how dependent we are on electricity supply’.” Covering a comment in its own pages, the Times reports that Gary Smith, the GMB general secretary, has “warned that the government’s pledge to switch to clean power by 2030 was unrealistic and could lead to blackouts like those seen in Spain last week”. (See comment below.)

The Financial Times reports: “A Labour pledge to spend an extra £6.6bn on insulating millions of homes is under scrutiny after the Treasury declined to say whether the promise still stood ahead of the spending review next month.” It continues: “Whitehall officials said ministers had been assessing whether they could trim the scheme as part of the review of all departmental expenditure, which will conclude in early June.  The Treasury declined to say whether ministers would stick to Labour’s manifesto commitment of a total £6.6bn of spending over the parliament.” Meanwhile, the Sun reports that Port Talbot is to get a £20m “South Wales Industrial Transition from Carbon Hub”. In other UK news, the Press Association reports that Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, “urged politicians from all parties to ‘recommit’ to action to tackle rising global temperatures”. The Times reports that “in an unusually blunt attack on John Swinney, Friends of the Earth has highlighted ten major climate policies which have been dropped during his first year in office, including core targets to drastically reduce emissions and slash car travel”. The Sunday Express reports: “‘Extreme weather threatens our ability to feed the nation’ producers warn.” The Daily Express also reports: “Nigel Farage’s future constituencies could face this major issue because of climate change.” Separately, the Daily Telegraph reports: “Dame Mary Archer has been sacked from the board of Ed Miliband’s net zero department in what has been described as an attempt to ‘suppress all opposition’ to his policies.” It quotes a government spokesperson saying the move was “part of a wider restructuring of the departmental board”. The Daily Express and Mail on Sunday also cover the story. The Daily Telegraph reports that “Shell faces paying an extra £380m in tax following Rachel Reeves’s raid on North Sea oil and gas companies”. The Guardian reports that “two men who say they are being failed by the UK’s flawed response to climate breakdown are taking their case to Europe’s top human rights court”. The Daily Telegraph has a story with the headline “how the Green Party forgot the environment and was torn apart by trans rows”.

The European Commission will set a 2027 deadline for EU companies to “sever any remaining energy contracts with Russia and shift to other sources including the US”, reports the Financial Times. It adds: “The plan…has been closely guarded ahead of publication by senior EU officials wary of its likely impact on the energy market…Four officials briefed on the commission document said it would require companies to end all spot market gas contracts with Russian suppliers by the end of this year, and to end all long-term contracts by 2027.” Reuters also covers the story: “Around 19% of Europe’s gas still comes from Russia, via the TurkStream pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. That is far below the 40% Russia supplied before 2022. But European buyers still have ‘take-or-pay’ contracts with Gazprom which require those that refuse gas deliveries to still pay for most of the contracted volumes.” Bloomberg says: “The stakes are huge: The EU purchased a total of €23bn ($26bn) in Russian energy in 2024, exceeding its military assistance to Ukraine last year. Politico also covers the story.

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage of last week’s blackouts in Spain and Portugal. Reuters interviews industry officials and explains: “Europe’s ageing power grid and lack of energy storage capacity will require trillions of dollars in investments to cope with rising green energy output, increasing electricity demand and to avoid blackouts.” Another Reuters article is headlined: “How warning signs hinted at Spain’s unprecedented power outage.” Bloomberg has three articles on the topic headlined: “Spain may find valuable lessons from South Australia’s 2016 blackout”; “Why Spain’s rooftop solar owners weren’t spared from the blackout”; “Before blackout, Spain’s power grid investment lagged solar boom.” The Financial Times has a “big read” on why “Europe’s first grid crisis may not be its last”.

In other news from Europe, Politico reports that the European Commission’s scientific service has warned that the “spring drought plaguing Europe since March is worsening and spreading to more countries”.

Oil major Shell “has been more seriously discussing the feasibility and merits of a BP takeover with its advisers in recent weeks”, Bloomberg reports. The outlet continues: “A successful combination of Shell and BP would be one of the oil industry’s largest-ever takeovers, bringing together the iconic British majors in a deal that’s been discussed on and off for decades. The companies were once close rivals – with a similar size, reach and global clout – but their paths have diverged in recent years. Shell’s stock is down about 13% in London trading over the last 12 months, giving the company a market value of £149bn. That’s more than double the £56bn market capitalisation of BP.” The Daily Telegraph says: “It comes amid turmoil at BP over its approach to green energy. The company vowed to slash its oil and gas production and invest heavily in renewables in 2020, making the boldest commitment to net-zero in the fossil fuel industry. However, the strategy failed to deliver financial returns and BP has recently abandoned the plans in favour of a return to focusing on oil and gas.” The Guardian and the Times also cover the story. Elsewhere, the New York Times reports that Chevron and Exxon, the two largest oil companies in the US, “reported their lowest first-quarter profits in years on Friday as they braced for the economic fallout from President Trump’s trade war, which has weakened consumer confidence and pushed oil prices down”.

Germany’s military, the Bundeswehr, using the rules that reserve airspace for the military, cancelled the construction of three wind turbines in the German city of Tübingen, located “far from any conflict zones”, reports Bloomberg. The outlet adds that across Germany, around 5 gigawatts (GW) of capacity – “more than enough to power a city the size of Berlin” – have been hampered since 2020 by military concerns over hindering the operation of radar and helicopters, according to wind-energy association BWE. The article notes that the German military “vetoed” around 6% of wind projects during the approval process in the past four years. It quotes Leonhard Probst from the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems emphasising that “while that might sound small, it translates to more than the capacity added annually in the country.” 

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel reports that Germany faces “pressure” from the European Commission to split its unified electricity price zone. According to European grid operator umbrella group ENTSO-E, such a move could save €339m annually, notes the newspaper. Frankfurter Rundschau notes that Bavarian premier Markus Söder “firmly rejects” the split, warning it would “divide the country” and weaken Germany’s “economic powerhouse”, south and west. (Söder is the head of the CSU, the Bavarian sister party to chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU.)

Finally, according to Newsweek, Germany’s Waterkant offshore windfarm, set to begin operations in 2028, will use turbines supplied by Mingyang Smart Energy, a Chinese firm that it says is closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party and military. The magazine notes that the 300-megawatt project is expected to power up to 400,000 households.

There is extensive comment reflecting on the UK’s local and mayoral elections last week and the net-zero policies of the different parties. UK prime minister Keir Starmer writes in the Times that “I get it” in response to Labour losses, adding: “When we came into government last year, I said there was no magic wand that would fix things overnight and that we would only get there through hard graft.” Starmer writes that “now is the time to crank up the pace on giving people the country they are crying out for”. Among the policies he mentions is making the “right investments to bring down energy bills once and for all”. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also pens a response to the elections, apologising in the Daily Telegraph for the Tory “bloodbath”. She writes that her party is “ending a decade of blithe consensus that net-zero by 2050 was possible or affordable”. [For more on Badenoch’s previous comments on net-zero, see Carbon Brief’s factcheck.] In the Times, former Conservative leader William Hague offers Badenoch a “10-step plan to save the Tories”. On climate change, he says it “cannot be a conservative position to deny what is happening and try to ignore it, which is the refuge of some on the right in Britain and America”. He urges Badenoch to “challenge the rigidity of Ed Miliband without joining Trump and Farage in living in denial”. In the Daily Express, Iain Duncan-Smith – another former Conservative leader – writes that “we must take action to rid ourselves of ideology like the mad rush to net-zero and cut people’s spiralling energy costs”. In a comment for the Independent, former Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger writes that Badenoch “can’t rubbish net-zero – unless she has a better plan to save the world”. And in the New Statesman, Labour MP Tom Hayes outlines “why Badenoch is wrong on net-zero”. He writes: “For Badenoch, ripping up our net-zero consensus was an obvious way to chase some of the voters the Conservatives had lost at the general election. But every business I speak with despairs at this move.”

In newspaper editorials, the Guardian says that the elections were a “barometer of disillusionment”. It continues: “That disillusionment is expressed as much in support for Liberal Democrats and Greens as it is in Reform’s victories. Allegiances that Labour once took for granted are fragmenting along multiple axes. A trap now lies wide open for Labour. Trying to woo Farage’s supporters with more aggressive rhetoric on immigration, for example, or a retreat from net-zero targets, could fail to sway the target audience, while further demoralising more liberal‑minded voters.” The Sunday Times says that the “breakthrough” of Reform “spells painful lessons for Labour”. It argues that Labour “can also ill afford to carry ideological baggage such as its workers’ rights bill or net-zero zealotry”. Monday’s edition of the Times says that Reform now “faces a new challenge” of actually governing in some local councils and mayoralties. The newspaper notes that Reform’s “mood music on acting tough on illegal migration and a more pragmatic approach to net-zero has struck a chord…but it is far from a coherent or cogent policy platform”. Making a similar point, the Daily Mail says that “on migration, net-zero, the cost of living, free speech, respecting our heritage, defending the realm and protecting our streets [the public] feel they have been failed and failed and failed again”. But, it adds, whether Reform leader Nigel Farage “has the solution to any or all these burning issues remains to be seen”. The Sun on Sunday says that the local elections “were a terrible night for Keir Starmer”. It urges the prime minister to “heed the warning” on many of the same issues mentioned by the Mail – including that “the net-zero dash is raising prices and costing jobs”. [The outlet offers no evidence for this.] 

In other commentary on the election, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee writes that Reform and the Conservatives “imagine that opposing net-zero is their new Brexit, the great new anti-Labour wedge”. But, she continues, “the public is resolutely on the other side”. In the Times, Steve Gray, part of the industry-led “North Sea Transition Taskforce”, accuses the Labour government of “gaslighting” on the Runcorn by-election that it lost to Reform by six votes. The constituency is “full of energy workers”, Gray says, adding: “The ramp-up in renewable energy production, particularly gigawatt-scale offshore wind, is a laudable objective and should be supported. But the [government’s] policies towards domestic oil and gas are economically illiterate, bad for the climate, bad for our tax base, bad for energy security, bad for jobs and bad for the supply chain needed to build those wind farms.” Also reflecting on the Runcorn result, Jason Cowley, former editor of the New Statesman, writes in the Sunday Times: “The row over net-zero is a sign of how damaging to the party is the divide between urban progressives and its traditional voters.” [Concern over climate change is above 50% in every UK constituency.] In the main op-ed slot for Saturday’s Daily Mail, climate-sceptic columnist Andrew Neil writes: “The British people have made it equally clear that they’ve had enough of the political elite’s virtue-signalling obsession with the drive to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. A middle-class, metropolitan mission financed by the fuel bills of working-class households, which are now among the highest on the planet.” [The UK’s energy bills are high as a result of its heavy reliance on gas, which remains several times more costly than before the global energy crisis.]

Following last week’s local elections in the UK, BBC News has published a piece on “how the political consensus on climate change has shattered”. The Guardian has a piece called “How ‘out of touch’ Tony Blair became a serious threat to climate action.” A long read in the Guardian asks: “What will Labour do now?” It says: “For those who have said they will no longer vote Labour, the winter fuel allowance, cost of living and a lack of public service improvement are the top reasons. Immigration is chosen by just 18% of switchers. Only about 1% cite policies on the environment or net-zero, way down the priority list.” The Times has a piece with the headline “Ed Miliband pursues net-zero for King and country but doubts remain.” A frontpage story for the Daily Telegraph says that the newspaper “understands that there will not be a cabinet reshuffle or a reset in net-zero policy in the wake of the local elections, despite pressure on Keir from within Labour this week to change course on its green agenda following criticism by Tony Blair”. Also on Blair, veteran climate-sceptic columnist Peter Hitchens asks in the Mail on Sunday if Blair’s “curious net-zero rebellion prove[s] that he really is a Marxist of great cunning”. 

Meanwhile, right-wing newspapers continue to attack energy secretary Ed Miliband. Camilla Tominey, associate editor of the Daily Telegraph, focuses on Miliband’s advisors, writing that it is “almost as if we have Extinction Rebellion (XR) directing the UK’s energy policy”. And in the Daily Express, television presenter Richard Madeley writes that “mad Ed Miliband’s fantasy land just got blown apart” by the Blair intervention on climate policy last week.

In other comment, Paul McNamee, editor of the Big Issue, explains that “there is no evidence that a net-zero target, or attempt to grow use of renewables, was a contributing factor” to the blackouts in Spain and Portugal last week. However, he says, “that didn’t stop theories online, and some newspaper columns, suggesting it was involved”. Elsewhere, general secretary of the GMB union, Gary Smith, writes in the Times that the North sea is “vital in the rush for net-zero”. Smith points to last week’s blackouts and asks “what if this happens to us”. He says: “It feels like a mistake to move at breakneck speed away from established energy sources that also deliver prosperity for country and communities alike, while putting even more reliance on intermittent and potentially unreliable ones.” George Bridges, chair of the economic affairs committee of the House of Lords in the last parliament, writes in the Financial Times that “while the green agenda remains critical, it must be balanced with the other fundamental imperatives of our age”. He says that “climate change is just one of three existential challenges – the other two being lack of competitiveness and growth, and Vladimir Putin’s threat to peace”. He argues that “growth must come first” and “security must come next”. 

Finally in comment, an editorial in Monday’s edition of the Sun says that “Keir Starmer must be on a kamikaze mission with his relentless pursuit of costly net-zero targets”, citing a poll that it says “reveals six out of 10 voters think he should put cutting living costs ahead of cutting carbon emissions”. The poll, which is also covered by a Sun news story, was commissioned by the campaign group Looking for Growth and finds that 59% of the 3,000 British people surveyed agreed that “action to reduce the cost of living has to come first over sustainability and being eco-friendly”. 

An unprecedented surge in concurrent heatwave-drought events from Eastern Europe to East Asia is being “amplified” by climate change, new research finds. The research investigates the mechanisms behind the “trans-Eurasian heatwave-drought train”, an atmospheric weather pattern driving increasingly intense concurrent heatwaves and droughts across Eurasia. The study finds that the intensification of this weather pattern is “linked to warming sea surface temperatures in the Northwestern Atlantic and enhanced Sahel precipitation, both amplified recently by overlapping effects of anthropogenic warming and natural variability”.