Last week, the climate science and policy community was saddened by the passing of Rafe Pomerance, a longtime leader and advocate in the fight against climate change.
Pomerance was one of the first people to sound the alarm over climate change on Capitol Hill. He played a pivotal role in the climate movement, connecting scientists with policymakers and the media.
One of those scientists was Dr. George Woodwell—Pomerance and Woodwell shared a partnership rooted in the belief that science needed a strong voice in Washington. Together, they helped bridge the gap between scientific understanding and public action, advancing some of the first congressional conversations on climate, and helping lay the foundation for today’s climate movement.
At the Woodwell Climate Research Center, Pomerance served as Distinguished Senior Arctic Policy Fellow, as well as Chairman of Arctic 21—a network of organizations that focused on communicating the consequences of climate change on the Arctic to policy makers and the public.
Author Nathaniel Rich wrote a 2018 article and 2019 book both titled “Losing Earth,” which tells the story of a handful of scientists, politicians, and strategists who were among the first to try to convince the world to act on climate change and the fossil fuel industry’s fight to stop them. Woodwell Climate interviewed Pomerance about the article, which featured both him and George Woodwell as leaders in raising awareness of the climate threat.
When asked how he felt about his work on climate progress, Pomerance responded, “I knew very early that this would become a dominating issue on the planet. We started out and nobody knew anything about it and now everyone does. Was it worth it? Absolutely.”
Pomerance’s legacy lives on not only through the policies and progress he influenced, but through the generations of scientists, advocates, and leaders he inspired along the way. Dr. Max Holmes, Woodwell Climate President and CEO, counted Rafe as a “colleague, an inspiration, and a friend — someone who will be dearly missed but always remembered,” a sentiment echoed by Woodwell staff and people around the world.
Rest in peace, dear Rafe.
When I started at Woodwell this time last year, preparations for November’s COP30 in Brazil were in full swing. The prospect of international climate negotiations hosted in the Amazonian city of Belém provided a rare opportunity to focus attention on the under-appreciated roles of tropical forests in meeting climate mitigation and adaptation objectives. Woodwell’s presence at COP30—making presentations, speaking on panels, and meeting with national delegations—helped to deliver on that promise. Now our challenge is to maintain momentum on the many forest-related initiatives featured there.
My own focus at COP30 was promoting ways to mobilize new sources of funding to meet the needs for tropical forest protection, estimated by the United Nations Environment Programme to total $68 billion annually. In the preceding months, I supported the Forest & Climate Leaders Partnership (FCLP)—a coalition of countries working to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030—to construct a “roadmap” on forest finance. The roadmap, launched in September during New York Climate Week, consists of six solutions ranging from carbon markets to sovereign debt management. The solutions are interlocking puzzle pieces that together could go a long way towards closing the finance gap.
One puzzle piece is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), an innovative forest finance mechanism (described in the Fall 2025 edition of this magazine) launched by the Brazilian COP30 Presidency and endorsed by 66 countries. The Facility will make annual payments to tropical forest countries per hectare of forest conserved, providing an important complement to other sources of forest finance. Funding for the payments will be generated by the Tropical Forest Investment Fund (TFIF), which relies on long-term loans and guarantees from sponsor countries to leverage commercial debt finance, which will in turn be invested in higher risk, higher return bonds. An impressive $6.7 billion in pledges were garnered toward the Fund by the end of the COP.
Having been a champion of the TFFF, contributing to its design during my service in the office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden Administration, I was pleased with this outcome. At the same time, I am also well aware of the hurdles still ahead. Most immediately, the pressure is on to raise additional sponsor capital quickly: the Norwegian contribution of $3 billion to the TFIF is contingent on reaching at least $10 billion by the end of 2026. The ultimate target for sponsor capital is $25 billion, no easy task in the current geopolitical environment.
There’s also a lot of work to do on the spending side of the TFFF. An initial TFFF secretariat hosted at the World Bank will need to finalize the technical criteria for country eligibility and payments. Many tropical forest countries will need assistance in meeting specifications for satellite-based forest monitoring systems and financial management systems to ensure that at least 20% of the payments are channeled to frontline Indigenous peoples and local communities. These groups are often the most effective forest stewards. Woodwell scientists are engaging directly with the TFFF secretariat and key stakeholders in the design process, as well as providing analysis to build investor confidence that payments will result in their intended impacts.
Fortunately, those countries will be able to build on the extensive capacity and institutional infrastructure that has been developed through jurisdictional REDD+ (JREDD+) programs over the last two decades. Such programs serve as the basis for forest carbon crediting at the scale of entire countries or large subnational states, provinces, or Indigenous territories. Crediting over such large areas reduces the risks to social and environmental integrity that have troubled project-scale crediting.
At COP30, I had the pleasure of facilitating the first meeting of a newly launched Scaling JREDD+ Coalition incubated by the FCLP. The Coalition brings together governments, non-governmental organizations, and private sector actors to collaborate to address barriers to increasing both supply and demand for JREDD+ credits. Participants in the meeting identified nine issue areas needing collaborative action. They volunteered to work on task forces to address obstacles on both the supply and demand sides of forest carbon markets, ranging from how to nest projects into jurisdictional-scale programs to how to communicate more effectively to prospective buyers. Woodwell is well-placed to contribute to this work, and for me, it aligns with my service on the board of a JREDD+ certification body.
One of the most promising approaches for aligning finance with forest conservation goals is to raise awareness of the risks posed by deforestation to agricultural productivity and national economies. A key puzzle piece in the FCLP forest finance roadmap is to redirect private investment in traditional agricultural supply chains toward production systems that conserve forest resilience and the climate-stabilizing services forests provide.
In support of this approach, Woodwell scientists are leading contributors to the growing body of evidence showing how forest loss compounds the destabilizing effects of global warming by increasing local temperature extremes and disrupting rainfall patterns. We featured these findings at several events in Belém, including closing the TED Countdown House program with an entertaining game-show format, in which teams in the audience competed to guess the answers to questions about the implications of these findings for agriculture, water, and health.
Over the course of 2026, Woodwell staff—in coordination with our colleagues at our Brazil-based partner organization, the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM)—will be engaging with the Government of Brazil as it develops another forest-related “roadmap”. Promised at the close of COP30, this roadmap will be more broadly focused on achieving the globally agreed-upon goal of halting and reversing forest loss and degradation by 2030. We’ll be working to ensure that the roadmap’s recommendations are informed by science. We’ll also be advocating for a process inclusive of the diverse countries, companies, and communities whose actions will determine whether or not the map leads to its desired destination.
The decision to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding is a dangerous attack on the United States’ ability to reduce air pollution harmful to human health. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule rejects decades of rigorous science and inhibits urgently-needed action to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Now is the time to double down on science-based solutions that will protect the health and wellbeing of our communities and our environment–the intended mission of the EPA–not roll them back.
As we experience increasingly violent storms, destructive flooding, catastrophic wildfires, and record-breaking temperatures, it is clear that climate change is already creating dangerous conditions across the country. Deregulating greenhouse gas emissions will exacerbate these impacts and lead to increased costs for resilience and public health.
The Endangerment Finding is the foundation of U.S. efforts to fight climate change, and, as a Woodwell-led scientific review in 2018 found, ‘the case for endangerment, which was already overwhelming in 2009, is even more strongly justified.’ Woodwell remains deeply committed to advancing rigorous science and conducting the highest quality research to enable solutions at the nexus of climate, people, and nature, across the United States as well as globally.
A message from President & CEO Dr. Max Holmes
As the calendar flips from one year to the next, I find myself reflecting not only on the many challenges faced in 2025, but also on lessons learned during difficult moments further in the past. One such time was more than a decade ago, deep in the Siberian Arctic, when weather threatened to delay the conclusion of a weeks-long research expedition. As I wrote on July 23, 2012:
“I’m sitting on the barge, drinking a cup of coffee, watching snow whip across the Panteleikha River. More than 24 hours of rain and snow have turned the dirt runway in Cherskiy to mud, threatening to delay our trip home (which is supposed to begin later today as we fly from Cherskiy to Yakutsk, and then to Moscow). A delayed flight out of Cherskiy would have many ripple effects (lots of rebooking of flights, hotels, buses, etc.; lots of disappointment as our reunions with family and friends are postponed; and lots of additional expenses).
There are many easier things to do in life than to lead a group of 33 people to the Siberian Arctic, so why do I do this? I’ve been asking myself that question this morning, intertwined with thoughts about missing my 6-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter, and facing the prospect of missing my wife’s 40th birthday.
Fortunately, there is an easy answer: This is the most important thing I can imagine doing. I’ll keep hoping that our flight departs as scheduled this afternoon, but if not, I–and the larger group–will rally and use our extra time here to pry a few more secrets from this remarkable, challenging, critical, and beautiful environment.”
As it turned out, our flight out of Cherskiy was canceled, we had to spend an additional $30,000 on plane tickets, and I missed my wife’s 40th birthday. Experiences like this are not unusual when working in challenging environments such as the Arctic, and Woodwell scientists have long been tested by such obstacles.
Fast forward to 2025 and all of the challenges it brought. And yes, as in 2012, there have been moments when I’ve asked myself that same question:
“Why do I do this?”
My answer remains exactly what it was then:
“This is the most important thing I can imagine doing.”
I know that most Woodwell staff feel the same way. This is hard work, and at times, there are more losses than wins. But it is essential work, and we will continue to forge ahead.
I’m certain that 2026 will bring new challenges, but I am confident that Woodwell Climate Research Center will continue to stand tall, doing our science, using our voice, and staying focused on charting a course toward a positive future, no matter the obstacles in our way.
In fact, we are doing much more than simply holding our own; we are forging ahead. In the coming months, you’ll hear about Woodwell’s new office in Washington, DC; our new scientific impact strategy; and how we are continuing to pursue our highest priorities without being beholden to federal government agendas.
Thank you to all our friends, supporters, collaborators, and partners. This is a true team effort. We wouldn’t be able to continue to stand tall without you.
Onward.
November 2025 marked the 30th convening of the United Nations climate conference (COP). Woodwell Climate has been a pivotal player in the annual COP since our founder, Dr. George Woodwell and early staff members, played an instrumental role in the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which enacts the annual conferences. This year was an important milestone for Woodwell due to its focus on tropical forests and nature-based solutions. Woodwell Climate sent 17 staff and scientists to Belem, Brazil, where they spoke at 52 events, and continued the Center’s legacy of advancing science-informed climate policy. Here are 4 takeaways from this year’s conference.
What is COP? Learn more about what goes on at climate’s biggest event of the year in this explainer.
1. COP30 was Brazil’s time to shine
As host country, Brazil used COP 30 to vault themselves into global leadership, to press the importance of international cooperation, and to build bridges between the global north and south. COP30 served as the launchpad for several forest-centered initiatives spearheaded by Brazil, including the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, a new financial solution that would pay tropical countries to keep their forests standing. Woodwell Senior Policy Advisor Frances Seymour and Associate Scientist Dr. Glenn Bush provided input and technical assistance to help launch the TFFF. In addition, Brazil launched a global initiative on wildfire resilience and a global coalition to harmonize carbon markets. Brazil also announced that they will publish two roadmaps in 2026: one to chart the course towards ending halting and reversing deforestation, and another for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
2. NDCs were one of the trickiest issues at COP30
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are the promises each party country to the UNFCCC makes every five years, to reduce their emissions. Ahead of COP30, countries were supposed to submit their third round of NDCs to raise their ambition. However, many NDCs were missing by the start of the conference, and those presented would reduce emissions only by 10-12% from 2019 levels by 2035, a far cry from the 60% the IPCC says is needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The European Union, Latin America, and small island nations attempted to advance this conversation but this was opposed by major emerging economies, who view the NDCs as a commitment to be worked out at the national level.
During several speaking events, Woodwell Senior Research Scientist Dr. Christina Schaedel emphasized the importance of including growing emissions from Arctic permafrost thaw in NDCs and estimates of the global carbon budget. Schaedel’s research has focused on modeling the contributions of permafrost-thaw emissions to sea level rise, temperature increases, and damage costs.
Given strong opposing interests, the issue of NDCs was not resolved by the end of the conference. The UNFCCC instead set up two workstreams to discuss NDC ambition: the Global Implementation Accelerator and the Belem Mission to 1.5. Details about what shape these discussions will take is still forthcoming.
3. Climate finance took center stage
During COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, countries agreed to mobilize $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 for climate adaptation and mitigation. Many hoped COP30 negotiations would identify funding sources to reach that goal: developing countries wanted public finance from industrialized countries, while industrialized countries insisted that finance must also come from major emerging economies and non-governmental sources. Again, the official outcome was to launch work programs to address the issue outside of conference. The programs created will tackle questions of finance obligations and climate-friendly investments.
Woodwell experts provided important contributions to the complex climate finance debate: Seymour played a lead role in the Forest Finance Roadmap for Action highlighted by a coalition of 34 countries, and Vice President of Science, Dr. Wayne Walker introduced a roadmap for carbon and biodiversity credits that takes a community-based and Indigenous-led approach for generating climate finance.
4. Measurements of progress towards resilience
Countries did reach an agreement on indicators to help measure progress on adaptation and resilience goals in sectors like water, agriculture, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, poverty eradication, and cultural heritage, as well as on resilience efforts, including risk assessments, adaptation planning, and early warning systems. 59 indicators were identified for countries to use in their future progress reports. Woodwell Climate has been supporting adaptation efforts through the Just Access program, which provides cost-free risk assessments to local, state, and national governments around the world.
Next year’s COP will be hosted jointly by Türkiye and Australia in Antalya, Türkiye, and while the agendas are not fixed, the outcomes of this year’s conference have indicated that NDCs and climate finance will continue to be high priority issues. In addition, a new global stocktake, a required moment under the Paris Agreement to re-evaluate the state of the planet and progress towards goals, is on the horizon.
A message from President & CEO Dr. R. Max Holmes
I am writing from Belém, Brazil, a city at the edge of both the Amazon forest and the Atlantic Ocean and host of COP30—the thirtieth annual meeting of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty, what is often referred to as the UN climate conference.
The location of this year’s meeting is significant in multiple ways. The treaty was adopted in Rio de Janeiro, so returning to Brazil is something of a homecoming. And Belém’s location puts particular emphasis on the importance of tropical forests and nature-based climate solutions more broadly.
Woodwell Climate has more than a dozen science and policy experts at COP30 sharing our science, informing negotiations, deepening relationships, and exploring new possibilities. We are advocating for more ambitious climate goals that take into account emissions from permafrost thaw, wildfires, and other ecosystem changes; for equitable, effective finance mechanisms that can get money flowing to the people best positioned to protect tropical forests; for science-based national adaptation plans and indicators that will enable us to track our progress toward global resilience.
It is exciting, even exhilarating, work. And yet, the “30” in COP30 raises uneasy questions. This is the thirtieth time the nations of the world have come together to chart a path toward a just, livable climate future. Why is progress so slow? What can possibly be left to negotiate? Is it all worth the effort?
As these questions were bouncing around in my head, I started to wonder what the originators of the process think of where we are. One of those originators, Kilaparti Ramakrishna (known to many as Rama), was among Woodwell Climate’s first employees and is currently a member of our Board of Directors. So I reached out and asked him. In response, he shared an essay he was working on which began this way:
“When we were drafting the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1991–1992, few of us could have imagined that the negotiations we began would still be unfolding three decades later. But we did know that we were creating something designed to last. The Convention was never meant to be a one-off agreement that “solved” climate change; it was conceived as a living framework, a foundation for continuous, evolving cooperation guided by science, equity, and common purpose.”
That is, in itself, a lofty goal. And by that measure, the UNFCCC has been a resounding success. It has weathered numerous, dramatic, often rapid, geopolitical shifts over the past three decades. Particularly now, in an era of rising nationalism around the world, it is remarkable that any multilateral process should persist for so long. It is an enormous testament to the many negotiators and advocates who have held to that vision and worked tirelessly to advance, however incrementally, a truly global framework for addressing climate change.
Obviously, it has not been without setbacks. One front of mind for many right now is the fact that the U.S. has withdrawn—not just once, but twice. And on that note, Rama had another frameshift to offer. Each time the U.S. has stepped back, progress has slowed. There is no denying that. But the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement have continued nonetheless. That is because others have stepped into greater leadership and responsibility, and that makes the process, as a whole, stronger in the long run.
And this is a long run. Climate change is a challenge of unprecedented scope and import. It has been decades in the making, and the consequences will span every aspect of society for decades, if not centuries, to come. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change is a correspondingly unprecedented response that cannot be expected to yield results overnight. It remains the only forum for truly global discourse and collaboration on climate issues, and that is invaluable.
So let’s celebrate that this is the thirtieth COP, acknowledging that progress has been slower than any of us would want but recognizing that we are in a much better place than we would be without the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Let’s also look ahead to COP40, COP50, and even COP60, imagining the world we want in the future and resolving to do everything we possibly can to realize that vision.
That is what keeps me going. That is what keeps Woodwell going. On behalf of all of us, thank you for the privilege of doing this work.
Onward,
Every five years, all 195 signatories of the 2015 Paris Agreement must submit updated plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming. These plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), are key components of the agreement and represent countries’ highest ambitions for emissions reductions over the next decade.
“The NDC is a pledge,” Director of International Government Relations at Woodwell Climate Dr. Matti Goldberg says. “It’s a pledge by a government to reduce their emissions by a certain amount, by a certain time frame. It can also be a pledge of taking certain types of actions. Each NDC also contains plans and measures to put it into action.”
This year, countries must submit their third NDC ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
How do NDCs fit into the Paris Agreement?
The Paris Agreement is a legally-binding international treaty under the UNFCCC. The treaty states that signatories should work together to limit global temperature increase to “well under 2°C” above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to keep the increase below 1.5°C. Nationally Determined Contributions outline how countries plan to achieve this goal and take other measures as part of the global climate effort.
Each NDC must build upon a country’s previous submission and reflect the party’s “highest possible ambition,” according to the Paris Agreement. While parties are legally required to submit an NDC and pursue actions to reach the target, they are “not legally bound to reach the target,” Goldberg says. “It’s a gigantic loophole in a way…although such flexibility is obviously necessary for countries to agree to this, and it does create a structure of pressure.”
After NDCs are submitted, the UNFCCC assesses the combined impact of countries’ NDCs on projected global emissions in a synthesis report. Parties in the Paris agreement also submit a Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) every two years, which outlines each country’s progress made towards accomplishing their NDCs.
“It’s the country’s own assessment,” Goldberg says. “But if a country announces a metric, then others can, of course, also look at whether that metric is being followed. This information creates the basis for civil society and other governments to put pressure on those governments.” Further transparency is created by a process where international experts review each country’s biennial reports.
Despite the ambitious intent of NDCs, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Simon Stiell determined last November that previous pledges fell “miles short of what’s needed to stop global heating from crippling every economy and wrecking billions of lives and livelihoods across every country.”
What is in the 2025 NDCs?
NDCs were initially due in February 2025, but with only 13 Parties submitting on time, the UNFCCC Secretariat announced a cut-off date in September to have enough time to prepare its synthesis before the start of COP30 in November. China, the United States, India, the European Union, Russia and Brazil were the world’s top emitters in 2023. Together, these six parties accounted for 62.7% of all global emissions. Of the top greenhouse gas emitters, only the U.S. and Brazil sent in their NDCs as of early September 2025.
The United States submitted its NDC in 2024 under the Biden Administration and set a target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 61 to 66% below 2005 levels in 2035. After taking office, President Trump issued an executive order announcing the U.S.’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which will go into effect in 2026. After January 2026, the U.S. will no longer be required to submit new NDCs or Biennial Transparency Reports.
Despite the country’s withdrawal, Goldberg says the U.S. may see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of its continuing transition from coal to natural gas, renewables and nuclear power — which, according to Goldberg, is driven more by economics and less by policy. Still, Dr. Christopher Schwalm, Vice President of Science at Woodwell Climate, predicts there is “no way” the United States will hit the targets set out in the NDC given the current global political climate. Even if the U.S. does reach its goals, the NDC still does not align with the global 1.5°C limit, according to the Climate Action Tracker. Schwalm calls the 1.5°C target “dead as a doornail.” To reach this goal, we would have needed global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2025.
Brazil’s most recent NDC states a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 59% to 67% compared to its 2005 emissions. Goldberg calls it a “pretty ambitious” absolute target for a country classified as a developing country under the UNFCCC. However, the Brazilian climate organization Observatório do Clima states the NDC goals do not align with the global 1.5°C limit.
How could reaching targets in NDCs impact warming trajectories?
Woodwell Climate research scientist Dr. Abigail Lute wanted to see how much of a difference just two of the top-emitting countries’ NDCs could make.
“Are we moving the needle here or not?” she says. “How much are we moving the needle? Are we moving it enough to avoid 2°C? That’s the big picture, to see how ambitious these new pledges are.”
Lute modeled how both the U.S. and Brazil’s promises together could change the global warming trajectory using a “middle-of-the-road” scenario for future greenhouse gas emissions — though, at the moment, that scenario might be more optimistic than our current trajectory, she says.
For the first ten to 20 years after implementing the NDCs, temperatures will temporarily increase. This is due to the reduction in polluting gases such as sulfates that actually have a cooling effect in the atmosphere. After about a decade or two, the reduction in warming gases such as methane and carbon dioxide will cause temperatures to fall.
According to Lute’s calculations, under moderate emissions scenarios, the probability of exceeding 2°C is 25% by 2050 and 78% by 2100. If both the U.S. and Brazil reach their NDC targets, the probability of exceeding 2°C stays about the same for 2050 but drops down to 73% for 2100.
Global warming is expected to reach 1.8°C by 2050 and 2.3°C by 2100 under the medium emissions scenario. With the U.S. and Brazil’s combined NDCs, Lute expects warming to be reduced by about 0.01°C in 2050 and 0.06°C by 2100.
While these contributions may seem small, Brazil and the U.S. only represent two of the 195 parties in the Paris Agreement.
“It’s two of the larger ones for sure, but it’s only two,” Lute says. “If we extrapolate it to everybody, then it can make a meaningful difference…the story here is that everybody needs to contribute. This is a collective problem, and even one large country can’t solve it.”
