You are here
Climate Change News
UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security
The British government has notified the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) that it will cut the contribution it pledged for 2024-2027 in half, a GCF spokesperson told Climate Home News.
The reduction, which is part of a wider UK shift from development aid to military spending, will restrict the GCF’s ability to fund projects that help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to climate change.
Harjeet Singh, director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, called the UK’s decision “moral bankruptcy”, noting that Britain has a historical responsibility for climate change “as a nation built on fossil-fuelled industrialisation”.
Liane Schalatek, who observes GCF board meetings for the Heinrich Böll Foundation, said the UK’s move was “an unfortunate signal”, especially as it comes just before the GCF launches its next fundraising round.
She noted that the UK has been the biggest contributor to the GCF, and “with the UK halving – where doubling would be needed – this will give permission to others to do the same”.
There are fears that other countries could follow suit as governments in Europe trim their aid budgets, while the US has refused to deliver any further money under climate change-sceptic President Donald Trump and has also given up its seat on the GCF board.
The GCF was established in 2010, and has since funded over $15 billion of climate projects across the developing world. Its financing comes mainly from developed countries pledging money in regular replenishment rounds.
During the last GCF replenishment round in 2023, the UK’s previous Conservative government promised £1.622 billion ($2.18 billion) for the 2024-27 period, with then development minister Andrew Mitchell saying the pledge “underlines our sustained commitment to tackling climate change”.
But, as of March 2026, the UK had only handed over £655 million ($885 million) of that pledge, which is its third to the fund, and has now informed the GCF it will only deliver £815 million ($1.1 billion). The GCF’s total funding for the 2024-2027 period is $10.149 billion.
The UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office declined to comment.
Approved projects unaffectedA GCF spokesperson told Climate Home News that all current projects under implementation have guaranteed funding while the GCF is assessing what the cuts mean for the projects that are being prepared and are expected to come before the GCF board in 2026 and 2027.
“Our focus will continue to be delivering the greatest impact with the investments we make, working with the largest network of partners in the financial architecture and mobilizing the greatest amount of resources to fulfill GCF’s critical and unique mandate,” the spokesperson said.
Scientists warn El Niño could intensify climate extremes in 2026
In a separate email to GCF board members, seen by Climate Home News, the GCF’s executive director Mafalda Duarte warned that the cuts are “expected to have a material impact” on the fund’s work over the next two years.
Duarte said the cuts were part of the UK wider decision to reduce international development spending “and invest more in addressing growing security threats”.
Development to militaryAnnouncing this decision in March, UK foreign minister Yvette Cooper said the cuts were a “hugely difficult decision” and “not ideological”, but necessary “to deliver the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War”. The US has been pressuring countries in the NATO alliance to boost military budgets as conflict surges around the world, from Ukraine to the Middle East.
Cooper reiterated Labour’s commitment to restore overseas development spending to 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) “when fiscal circumstances allow”, but did not provide a timeline when pressed by an opposition member of parliament. UK aid was reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI by the previous Conservative government in 2021, and is now set to fall further to 0.3%.
While the UK government has claimed it is only cutting international climate finance by around 13% compared to the previous government’s level of spending, analysis by Carbon Brief suggests that the real figure is close to 50% once inflation and accounting changes are considered.
The leadership of the UK is currently in doubt with several ministers from the ruling Labour Party calling on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign, with a challenge to his leadership of the party and country expected after poor local election results for Labour.
The post UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security appeared first on Climate Home News.
Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?
The Santa Marta summit moved beyond the blockages in the UN climate process, building a coalition of around 60 countries that want to tackle a shift away from fossil fuels. The host countries said the outcomes would feed into the voluntary roadmap on the energy transition being put together by COP30 hosts Brazil, which is due to be presented before COP31.
June’s mid-year climate talks in Bonn, followed by London Climate Action Week, will be key moments to reflect on the progress so far and work out ways to bring the strands closer together. How might that happen while fossil fuels remain the elephant in the UNFCCC room and there’s no formal place for a roadmap on the agenda?
Tune in to hear our expert reporters discussing this and other key topics set to headline at the Bonn session, both in the negotiations and on the sidelines! Questions and comments will be welcome from participants and used to inform our future coverage.
SPEAKERS:
- Host: Megan Rowling, editor at Climate Home News
- Guest #1: Sebastian Rodriguez, reporter for Climate Home News
- Guest #2: Joe Lo, news editor at Climate Home News
- Guest #3: Tais Gadea Lara, freelance climate journalist
DAY: Wednesday 27 May
TIME: 3pm UK time | 4pm Central Europe (CEST) | 10am US Eastern (EDT)
Note: This event is exclusively for free essential users and paid subscribers of Climate Home News. If you’re not yet signed up, you can join us by clicking the “Subscribe Now” button.The post Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition? appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP30 roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to draft domestic plans
A Brazil-led initiative that is pulling together a global roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to produce their own voluntary pathways to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, experts managing the process said this week.
At last year’s COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém, a group of around 80 countries led a failed push to start developing two new global roadmaps – one to stop deforestation by 2030 and another to transition away from fossil fuels. All countries signed up to these commitments in a landmark deal at COP28 in Dubai, but little progress has been made to implement them since then.
As a bridging alternative, Brazil’s COP30 presidency agreed to draft two voluntary versions of these roadmaps. COP30 officials said a final version of the deforestation roadmap will be published by September this year, after receiving more than 130 written submissions from countries.
This Monday, Juliano Assunção, executive director of Climate Policy Initiative/PUC-Rio in Brazil and an advisor to the COP30 presidency on deforestation, presented a first outline of the roadmap to countries at the United Nations Forum on Forests in New York (UNFF21).
Assunção said the roadmap “will not prescribe a single model”, but would rather invite countries to translate commitments they have already made to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030 – which is a longstanding global goal – “into forest roadmaps grounded on regional and national diagnosis”.
In 2025, the world lost 4.3 million hectares of tropical primary rainforest, an area roughly the size of Denmark, according to annual data published by Global Forest Watch. While that was 36% lower than in 2024 when climate-fuelled fires pushed forest loss to a record high, deforestation was still 70% higher than it should to be to meet the 2030 international pledge to end it, the report said.
What will be in the roadmap?Assunção said the COP30 team “were positively surprised by the level of depth and how comprehensive” the contributions from countries and experts were in the consultation phase for the global roadmap, noting that these served to inform the current outline.
The plan is for the global roadmap report to be structured in two parts: one on the social, economic and environmental risk of continued forest loss; and a second presenting a menu of options to tackle deforestation by 2030.
“The roadmap will be practical, based on countries’ experiences. It will help identify the key challenges, and understand their drivers, which vary quite differently among different countries. It’s going to be drawing on existing policy tools,” Assunção told countries at the UN forests meeting this week.
The COP30 advisor said that, while countries can draft national plans, there’s also “a lot of room for international co-operation”, which governments themselves requested as part of the consultation.
The roadmap will include a sub-section on international co-operation, which will include how countries can share tools such as satellite platforms to improve monitoring systems, how to improve the finance architecture to channel more resources for forests, and how to align international regulations on trade, crime and due diligence to protect forests.
Indigenous groups warn Amazon oil expansion tests fossil fuel phase-out coalition
Marco Tulio Cabral, a diplomat at Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs who leads the deforestation roadmap process, told governments that, while the document is not a negotiated outcome, the COP30 presidency is “investing a lot of time and effort” in talking with countries to “make as good a text as we can” that represents a range of views.
He noted that, while the COP30 initiative for a fossil-fuel phase-out roadmap led to a coalition of countries that gathered for a first landmark conference in Santa Marta last month, a similar dedicated push is not necessarily expected for a deforestation roadmap.
“The supportive actors and those who oppose it are very different, so there are limits to what we can do together or associate one thing with the other,” Cabral said.
Cattle graze on deforested areas of the Ituxi ranch near Kaxarari Indigenous land, in Porto Velho, Rondonia State, Brazil August 12, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Adriano Machado) Cattle graze on deforested areas of the Ituxi ranch near Kaxarari Indigenous land, in Porto Velho, Rondonia State, Brazil August 12, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Adriano Machado) Forest nations seek focus on local realitiesCountries at the UN event were supportive of the roadmap, but also expressed the need to offer real alternatives to rural communities.
Joseph Malassi, climate advisor at the Ministry of Environment of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), said that in the Congo basin – the planet’s second-largest rainforest – deforestation “is not caused by vast industrial or infrastructure projects, but rather by extreme poverty” as local people cut down trees for firewood, minerals or crops.
“The roadmap will be confronted with these realities,” Malassi said, adding that it should avoid competing with other UN forest initiatives already working at the intersection of conservation and development.
Nicholas Suryobasuindro of Indonesia’s Ministry of Forests, which manages another mega-diverse rainforest basin, welcomed the Brazilian roadmap, adding it will need to address the “complex interaction between land use chains, economic pressure, spatial planning challenges and development needs”.
Finance will be key to dealing with these realities, according to Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Guyana’s permanent ambassador to the UN. She said the roadmap should take into account an existing six-point plan to scale up forest finance launched last year by 34 countries.
Two options in that plan in particular have potential to drive up funding for forest protection and “must immediately receive strong international support”, she added. They are a new rainforest fund called the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) – launched last year by Brazil and supported by several donor governments – and “high-integrity jurisdictional” carbon markets, which refers to government-led sales of carbon credits from large forested areas.
“Both approaches can support countries with different forest and deforestation profiles, including countries with historically low deforestation rates achieved with sustainable forest management,” Rodrigues-Birkett said.
The post COP30 roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to draft domestic plans appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
At least fifty countries have yet to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) climate plan to the United Nations, even though the latest set of plans was due in 2025 – and among them, around half have failed to provide information on why they have not met the deadline.
More than a year past an initial deadline of February 2025, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) met this March and said 55 countries had yet to communicate an NDC to the UN climate body. According to the UN’s registry, two have since submitted their plans.
A key requirement of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement is that governments publish a more ambitious NDC every five years, setting targets to reduce their planet-heating emissions and outlining their policies to adapt to climate change, in order to meet the accord’s goals on limiting global warming and protecting people from its effects.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in 2025.
After India’s recent submission, the countries yet to publish their new NDCs are mostly poorer and smaller nations, with few emissions. The biggest emitters in the group are Egypt, Vietnam, Argentina and the Philippines. The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement, although the US submitted a 2035 NDC under the Biden administration before Donald Trump pulled the US out of the UN climate accords.
Some nations have argued that they cannot put together an NDC – which requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy – because of exceptional circumstances. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC committee, seen by Climate Home News, says that the country’s civil war has led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
No information from some nationsBut others have failed to communicate with the PAICC, which is tasked with encouraging governments to respect their commitments under the Paris Agreement.
In a report on its March 27 meeting, the PAICC board said it “noted with concern” that 28 countries had not provided information about either their NDCs or their biennial transparency reports on the climate action they are taking, or both. This was “despite several reminders”, it said.
Despite a push from some board members, the committee did not agree at this meeting to name these 28 countries. But it may do so at a meeting in September.
One source who has seen the list of countries told Climate Home News it was a “mixed crowd” of developing nations, including least developed countries, small island developing states, emerging economies and at least one government with a representative on the PAICC board.
The PAICC decided to send individual letters to these governments requesting that they engage with the committee and “reminding them that it shall take appropriate measures with a view to facilitating implementation and promoting compliance” with the Paris Agreement.
Non-punitive systemThe PAICC’s rules of procedure state that it should be “non-adversarial and non-punitive” and the strongest measure it can take is to issue a formal public finding naming a government that has breached the Paris Agreement rules – something it has yet to do. In 2023, it opted for a softer response in a report, noting that the Vatican had not filed an NDC and that Iceland had not told the UN how much climate finance it planned to provide.
Joanna Depledge, a historian of the UN climate process and research fellow at the University of Cambridge, said that “any measures stronger than naming and shaming would have been unacceptable” to some governments when they were negotiating the Paris Agreement.
She added that “naming and shaming in the international arena is not trivial” because governments do not like to be exposed as non-compliant. “But if the PAICC cannot even name, then that is a serious problem,” she warned.
Avoiding Kyoto’s mistakes?Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge, said the architects of the Paris Agreement made it less enforceable so as to try and prevent countries leaving or staying out of the agreement as happened with its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.
While the Paris Agreement asks all governments to set their own emissions-reduction targets, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set specific targets for developed countries.
When in 2011 it became clear that Canada was not going to meet those targets, it quit the agreement rather than face formal non-compliance proceedings and a multibillion-dollar obligation to buy carbon credits to cover the shortfall, Rao said.
Japan and Russia also declined to endorse some of their emissions reduction targets and the US never ratified the Kyoto agreement. “Enforcement proceedings became politically toxic,” exposing “the limits of punitive compliance regimes”, Rao said.
The idea of the Paris Agreement’s less stringent compliance system is to engage with governments and keep them within the system rather than threaten them with sanctions and potentially push them out, he added.
Rao said this was “the right trade-off” because governments comply when they feel they have chosen to sign up to the rules rather than having them imposed. He noted that back in April 2025, 171 governments had yet to submit their NDCs and this figure is now down to just over 50.
“We’ve got countries that are at least reporting NDCs,” he said, adding that PAICC is “working as it was designed to”. “It is issuing findings of fact and non-compliance, it’s initiating discussions with parties and, as a result of those discussions, the non-compliance figures are coming down every time.”
This article was amended after publication, on May 13, to clarify that the PAICC has yet to issue a formal public finding naming countries that do not comply with the Paris Agreement.
The post Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans appeared first on Climate Home News.
Scientists warn El Niño could intensify climate extremes in 2026
The emergence of a strong El Niño weather pattern this year in a world that is warming as a result of human-caused climate change could fuel “unprecedented” weather extremes, climate scientists have warned.
Meteorologists expect El Niño – the natural climate phenomenon characterised by unusually warm sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean – to develop as early as this month. Some forecasters say that this time around the event could become particularly powerful.
Scientists say the combination of El Niño and rising global temperatures could push 2026 to either the warmest or second-warmest year on record. A previous El Niño helped drive average global temperatures in 2024 to a record 1.55C above preindustrial levels.
Researchers warn that a strong El Niño risks supercharging extreme weather conditions, contributing to more severe fires and droughts in some regions and storms and floods in others.
El Niño meets global warmingFriederike Otto, professor in climate science at Imperial College London, said El Niño itself is “not the reason to freak out” but rather the fact that it is now happening on an increasingly warmer baseline.
“El Niño is a natural phenomenon that comes and goes,” she told journalists this week. “What makes it so dramatic is not the event itself and whether it’s a ‘Super El Niño’ or not, but that it is happening in a dramatically changing climate.”
“The records will still be broken because of human-induced climate change and the continued burning of fossil fuels,” Otto added.
The World Meteorological Organization will issue its next update on the prospects for an El Niño in late May, which it says will provide more robust guidance for decision-making on how to protect people and nature from associated impacts.
Even before the likely arrival of the El Niño pattern, 2026 has already been an “extraordinary” year for weather extremes, scientists at the World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group said.
Sea surface temperatures neared all-time highs in April, while Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level for a second-year running. In March, the United States saw a record-breaking heatwave that would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change, according to WWA analysis.
Dramatic wildfire riskAcross the globe, the wildfire season got off to a dramatic start. Record-breaking fires in Western Africa and the Sahel, as well as big outbreaks in India, Southeast Asia and parts of China, contributed to the world recording its largest burned area ever for the January-April period, according to Theodore Keeping, a WWA researcher.
He noted that the emergence of a powerful El Niño event could have a major effect on supercharging wildfires by increasing the likelihood of seeing “severe” hot and dry conditions in Australia, the US and Canada, as well as the Amazon rainforest.
“The likelihood of harmful extreme fires potentially could be the highest we have seen in recent history, if a strong El Niño does develop,” Keeping added.
The post Scientists warn El Niño could intensify climate extremes in 2026 appeared first on Climate Home News.
Santa Marta was a learning moment for how to shape inclusive just transitions
Hina West is managing director of Climate Strategies.
The first Global Conference on Transitioning away from Fossil Fuels, organised by Colombia and the Netherlands, in Santa Marta late last month convened nearly 60 countries, as well as activists, Indigenous peoples, the private sector and academia. The aim of this historic event was to build a “coalition of the willing” driving action for fossil fuel phase-out beyond the UN climate process.
The stakes could not have been higher. As the planet grapples with catastrophic warming, economic instability and geopolitical conflicts fuelled by fossil fuel dependence, this conference represented a rare opportunity to reshape global energy governance, putting science and justice at the core.
For decades, fossil fuel phase-out has been the elephant in the room at climate COPs. Now is finally the time to have this conversation, with Santa Marta as the starting point.
So, what’s needed for this process to succeed? In the days preceding the political conference, all the different social group chapters – including academia, labour, private sector, civil society and Peoples (including Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant Peoples, peasants, frontline collectives and youth, among others) – developed ambitious recommendations to inform this new multilateral process.
As one of the co-hosts of the academic dialogue, I have learned a clear lesson on what is needed for Santa Marta to create actual breakthroughs for the global energy transition.
Looking where it mattersAs someone working at the climate science-policy interface, I believe that science-based evidence is a crucial pathway towards implementing just, orderly and equitable transitions away from fossil fuels.
Yet, as Santa Marta convened colleagues from all over the world, we heard a clear call from representatives of regions directly impacted by the fossil fuel economy: We are over-diagnosed. The evidence is all here, and what we need now is action.
This is a humbling call for the research community: while we remain committed to the creation of knowledge, how can we ensure that these efforts lead to practical outcomes?
As we explored within the academic dialogue ahead of and at Santa Marta, international support for Just Transitions does not often strengthen the capacity of local actors (who are at the frontline) to develop and deliver just transition strategies. If the Santa Marta process wants to translate high-level commitments into credible and effective transition strategies, it must address this gap.
Our discussion created a series of recommendations to address the challenge. Among them, we see the need for stronger collaborative governance across all scales and regions – from the global to the local and including South-to-South partnerships – that explicitly supports the local delivery of transition pathways. This is a gigantic task, made harder by the limited resources available.
Today, climate finance remains systematically skewed towards technical and infrastructural investment, at the expense of social and justice programmes. Current regulatory frameworks and investment criteria must be redesigned so that following Just Transition goals brings financial returns, to ensure that resources are directed where they are most needed. Grant-based mechanisms and highly concessional finance must also be strengthened.
Social dialogue and public participationLocal communities and livelihoods must be placed at the centre of this process, to ensure that interventions are inclusive, aligned with territorial development strategies, and comprehensively address transition impacts (including informal and gendered work).
This requires strong mechanisms for social dialogue and public participation, to be established early on and maintained throughout the implementation of Just Transition strategies. These can take different forms, such as legally binding participation frameworks, public interest committees and community-led advisory bodies.
Grassroots communities must be recognised as co-producers of knowledge, not as consultees or receivers of information. This is also applicable to the Santa Marta process.
Climate scientists call for fossil fuel transition roadmaps
An expected highlight of this conference was the inclusion of underrepresented groups, including subnational governments, frontline communities, and Indigenous Peoples. Their active participation is crucial to ensure that the transition strategies discussed are not just technically sound, but socially just and locally relevant. These voices must be at the heart of the conference’s final outcomes.
Nevertheless, Santa Marta was only the starting point of this ambitious multilateral process, and also in itself, not free from controversies. The transition away from fossil fuels will bring many uncertainties which require continuous learning and adaptation.
What next?Taking a ‘build the ship as we sail it’ approach to this new layer of cooperation did not come without friction – be it from balancing Global South and North representation and short input deadlines, to knowing who had charge of the pen before, during and after the creation of our chapter’s output report, intended to feed into the subsequent high-level segment.
I believe that robust, inclusive and context-specific analysis is essential for Just Transition planning and implementation. But as the expert community, we must provide this with solidarity, humility, and willingness to learn from those at the frontline of the transition.
Many learnings surfaced regarding methodology and decision-making, and enhancing overall transparency and inclusivity for the next pre-science convening (and the broader event), currently mooted to be happening in Ireland, with the diplomatic gathering in Tuvalu, at some point next year.
Türkiye’s COP31 presidency and IEA join forces on clean energy push
As we look towards the multilateral milestones ahead – Bonn, Tuvalu, Antalya – the message from Santa Marta is clear. This international momentum must be laser-focused on ensuring practical outcomes on the ground.
What we need now is not another layer of dialogue or more diagnosis, but concrete action: binding and consistent commitments, robust and accountable governance, and finance that prioritises people and the planet. The future we want is within reach, and we have more than enough evidence to demonstrate it, but we need our resources and efforts to be aligned where it matters.
The post Santa Marta was a learning moment for how to shape inclusive just transitions appeared first on Climate Home News.
Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now”
In a Q&A with Climate Home News, the head of sustainability at global lighting company Signify explains how the firm is doubling down on its efforts to protect the climate and strengthen resilience.
In March, Signify launched its latest corporate sustainability programme, “Brighter Lives, Better World 2030”.
The programme is the third iteration of a project that started in 2016, aimed at shifting how the company – and its customers – can reduce their environmental impact.
It centres on enhanced targets to improve energy efficiency, cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote the circular economy. In addition, Signify has set itself a challenging goal to source 41% of its revenue from solutions “that support benefits beyond illumination” by the end of 2030, up from 31% in 2024. Those benefits include efficient food production and increased access to solar lighting.
Signify is aiming to save 60 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity for its customers; achieve a 35% reduction in the CO2 emissions intensity of its portfolio; and grow its circular product business from 10% to 27.5% of revenue.
Climate Home News spoke with the company’s global head of sustainability, Maurice Loosschilder, to find out how the Netherlands-based multinational plans to reach its targets despite a tough political landscape for green action.
Q: How does Signify’s new sustainability programme build on lessons learned from previous versions?
A: If we look back a little bit, it is a natural next step. Signify [formerly Philips Lighting] became a standalone company roughly 10 years ago and in 2016 we launched our first “Brighter Lives, Better World 2020” programme at the same time.
The first programme mirrored developments in the lighting industry and was very much based on our own operations: reaching 100% renewable electricity, zero waste to landfill in our manufacturing facilities, increasing the energy efficiency in our own portfolio.
Since then, we’ve moved on to think about our entire value chain and the wider social contributions we want our work to be making. But we still want to be thinking about how to improve our own business. Our continued target to double the amount of women in leadership positions is an example of that.
Does the future of green manufacturing lie in 3D printing?
Q: Looking at the political climate, both in the US and Europe, there isn’t the same concern for environmental issues as there was a few years ago. Many corporates are perceived to be rolling back on their environmental commitments. How are you as a company navigating some of these challenges?
A: This is not something new. If we look back on the last five to 10 years, we’ve seen a lot of disruption and change in the market. We’ve had a global pandemic, supply chain disruptions, energy insecurity. At the same time we’ve seen the increased impacts of climate change and all of that is changing the dynamics of doing business right now.
I think these changes have really tested resilience – the resilience of companies, the resilience of people, the resilience of societies. We really believe that resilience is becoming more and more important to businesses right now. And if you look at what a resilient company is, it is one that decarbonises faster, invests in people, invests in circular solutions and makes its business model more circular. And that’s exactly what we have focused on. It’s about making sure we can cope, and help our customers cope, with changing market circumstances and the geopolitical tensions we see in the world.
Q: Turning to your own commitments, do you feel you have set the right balance between ambitious and achievable?
A: Yes, we strongly believe this programme is the right one for us and our customers, and has been informed by a thorough double-materiality assessment. It is built on three pillars: benefits beyond illumination, energy efficiency and resource efficiency. These are supported by new initiatives, such as Signify Circle, which will support professional customers with their circular economy ambitions.
If we just look at the first pillar, it’s about the positive impact that lighting brings, in terms of productivity, in terms of safety, in terms of food availability, health and well-being, and now we have added solar in there. This is what we mean by “benefits beyond illumination”.
A nurse is pictured in a private health clinic lit by solar power from a micro-grid in a rural village in Nigeria’s Nasarawa state, September 2022 (Photo: Megan Rowling) A nurse is pictured in a private health clinic lit by solar power from a micro-grid in a rural village in Nigeria’s Nasarawa state, September 2022 (Photo: Megan Rowling)Q: If we take one of your targets to save 60 TWh of electricity for your customers, that seems quite hard to work out. Do you find data availability to be an issue?
A: Data is a challenge in sustainability, but we have been measuring our avoided emissions for years, so we know the data requirements behind it. We’ve done all our homework and with that we have set this target.
The 60 TWh figure is about the annual electricity usage of Switzerland so it is a substantial amount. But it also reflects the role that lighting plays in general. If you look at a typical city, street lighting alone accounts for about 40% of electricity use. So the potential is enormous.
The International Energy Agency reports that about 8% of global electricity use comes from lighting, and this translates into 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s really significant and why the opportunity here is so big.
Is electrification a no-brainer in the race to net-zero?
Q: How has the new programme been informed by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
A: Our strategic compass is the Sustainable Development Goals. We committed to six SDGs in the previous programme. The new one has been expanded to cover eight and we conducted a mapping exercise for each of the commitments. I’m hoping that, by the end of this programme, we will see a new version of the SDGs to replace the current goals when they expire in 2030. We remain committed to making our contribution to the SDGs.
Q: Are you seeing higher demand for circular products? What is it that attracts businesses to that option?
A: Yes, we do see an increased demand. For example, we see greater interest in “remanufacturing”, which is a circular business model where we take down the lighting, send it back to our manufacturing site, and upgrade it to the latest technology, but keep the majority of the hardware intact.
I think customers are becoming more and more aware of the fact that regulation is pushing resource efficiency on businesses. And in some countries we see incentives to use circular products, and penalties around sending certain material to landfill. More businesses are becoming aware of this and we strongly believe there is a market for circular products.
How off-grid solar is beating the odds to transform lives in rural Africa
Q: Do you have customers that are facing real resource pressures, in terms of scarcity, increased costs or supply chain constraints that are making them think more about circular issues?
A: The whole market is currently impacted by geopolitical tensions and the disruptions that come as a result. Light as a Service, for example, could be a way for businesses to de-risk because there is no capital expenditure involved. Customers see real value in only having to pay to keep it running.
If we look longer term, then resource and material efficiency is something the whole world should be thinking more about. How can we decouple economic growth from the increased use of natural resources? We believe the circular economy is the answer.
This interview has been shortened and edited for clarity.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance writer based in Brighton, UK.
The post Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now” appeared first on Climate Home News.
Indigenous groups warn Amazon oil expansion tests fossil fuel phase-out coalition
Indigenous leaders from across the Amazon have warned that stopping the expansion of oil drilling into their territories will be a crucial test for a growing international coalition committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels.
As 60 countries discussed at a landmark conference in Santa Marta, Colombia, pathways to end the world’s reliance on fossil fuels, Indigenous groups said the process risks losing credibility if governments continue opening new oil frontiers in the Amazon.
Their central demand was the establishment of fossil fuel “exclusion zones” across Indigenous territories and biodiverse areas of the rainforest, permanently barring new oil and gas expansion in one of the world’s most critical ecosystems. Indigenous representatives proposed establishing protected “Life Zones”, which they said would provide legal safeguards against governments and companies seeking to expand extraction into their lands.
But Indigenous delegates left the conference frustrated as the final synthesis report drafted by co-chairs Colombia and the Netherlands failed to include the proposal.
In a statement at the end of the conference, Patricia Suárez, from the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC), said formally declaring Indigenous territories – especially those inhabited by peoples in voluntary isolation – as exclusion zones for extractive industries was “an urgent measure”.
“If the heart of the conference does not begin there, it risks remaining a set of good intentions that fails to respond to either science or our Indigenous knowledge systems,” she added.
Pushing for a new oil frontierCampaigners say the pressure on the Amazon is intensifying just as scientists warn the rainforest is nearing irreversible collapse. Around 20% of all newly identified global oil reserves between 2022 and 2024 were discovered in the Amazon basin, fuelling renewed interest from governments and companies seeking to develop the region as the world’s next major oil frontier.
Ecuador has moved ahead with the auction of new oil blocks in the rainforest, while the country’s right-wing president Daniel Noboa has promoted the region as a “new oil-producing horizon” and backed efforts to expand fracking with support from Chinese companies.
In Santa Marta, a coalition of seven Indigenous nations from Ecuador issued a declaration condemning the government, which did not participate in the conference.
“While the world talks about energy transition, our government is pushing for more oil in the Amazon,” said Marcelo Mayancha, president of the Shiwiar nation. “Throughout history, we have always defended our land. That is our home. We will forever defend our territory.”
Indigenous groups also warned that Peru – another South American nation absent from the conference – plans to auction new oil blocks in the Yavarí-Tapiche Territorial Corridor, a highly sensitive region along the Brazilian border that contains the world’s largest known concentration of Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.
COP30 host under scrutinyIndigenous leaders also criticised Brazil, arguing that despite its international climate leadership, the country is simultaneously advancing major new oil projects in the Amazon region.
Luene Karipuna, delegate from Brazil’s coalition of Amazon peoples (COIAB), said the oil push threatens the stability of the rainforest. Not far from her home, in the northern state of Amapá, state-run oil giant Petrobras is currently exploring for new offshore oil reserves off the mouth of the Amazon river.
Brazil participated in the Santa Marta conference and was among the countries that first pushed for discussions on transitioning away from fossil fuels at COP negotiations. Yet the country is also planning one of the largest expansions in oil production in the world, according to last year’s Production Gap report.
Veteran Brazilian climate scientist Carlos Nobre told Climate Home that the country’s participation at the Santa Marta conference contrasted with its oil and gas production targets. “It does not make any sense for Brazil to continue with any new oil exploration,” he said, and noted that science is clear that no new fossil fuels should be developed to avoid crossing dangerous climate tipping points.
He added that the Brazilian government faces pressures from economic sectors, since Petrobras is one of the countries top exporting companies. “They look only at the economic value of exporting fossil fuels. Brazil has to change.”
The COP30 host also promised to draft a voluntary proposal for a global roadmap away from fossil fuels, which is expected to be published before this year’s COP31 summit.
“In Brazil, that advance has caused so many problems because it overlaps with Indigenous territories. Companies tell us there won’t be an impact, but we see an impact,” Karipuna said. “We feel the Brazilian government has auctioned our land without dialogue.”
For Karipuna and other Indigenous leaders, establishing exclusion zones across the Amazon is no longer just a regional demand, but a prerequisite to prevent the collapse of the rainforest.
“That’s the first step for an energy transition that places Indigenous peoples at the centre,” she added.
The post Indigenous groups warn Amazon oil expansion tests fossil fuel phase-out coalition appeared first on Climate Home News.
Developing countries must hold the pen to script the fossil fuel transition
Harjeet Singh is a climate activist and strategic advisor to the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, as well as founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.
For thirty years, global climate talks perfected policy paralysis around the primary cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. Within the UNFCCC negotiations, the “consensus card” was played with surgical precision by the fossil fuel industry and wealthy producer nations to block meaningful action.
For decades, talks were restricted to the “demand side” – reducing emissions – while the “supply side” – the extraction of oil, gas, and coal – was treated as a forbidden subject. This so-called progress was a treadmill, leading nowhere despite plenty of sweat.
The breaking point: from Belém to Santa MartaThe failure peaked at COP30 in Belém, where, despite widespread support, the final outcome contained no fossil fuel phase-out mandate. Instead, the world watched as the COP30 Presidency announced a “roadmap” initiative at the very end of the talks – a face-saving measure that lacked formal standing in the process.
The halls of Belém were once again crawling with lobbyists, ensuring that “consensus” remained a tool for delay. Recognising the UNFCCC logjam, Global South countries in the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative demanded a series of dedicated conferences.
Colombia, the biggest producer among them, broke the status quo by pioneering this new path: the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, joined by the Netherlands as co-host.
The pioneering conference in Santa Marta in late April moved us from the “if” to the “how”, signalling a shift from airy pledges to the reality of implementation. But as the dust settles, a more ancient struggle is resurfacing: the struggle for the “pen”.
The invisible hand of controlHistory shows that when developed nations can no longer block a process, they attempt to colonise it. In Santa Marta, we witnessed the opening gambit of a familiar play – exclusion followed by takeover. Critics signalled this early on in an open letter, calling out the systemic disregard for African lives and environments in global policy and the persistent marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples’ voices and concerns.
Under the guise of “technical support”, wealthy nations fought to steer the outcome of workstreams towards Global North-dominated institutions. Despite the expertise they may bring, why are the recognised bodies for this process exclusively based in an area representing only 20% of the world’s population?
The hastily assembled report containing the “Chairs’ Takeaways” from Santa Marta requires scrutiny and raises the following concerns:
- The Roadmap Trap: Connecting national transition plans to the Science Panel on the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) and the NDC Partnership. These bodies, largely dominated by Western experts, risk imposing frameworks that treat sovereign developing nations as markets for the private sector. Will “science” be used to legitimise a Global North-centric status quo while ignoring debt, trade and finance rules, and other forces that shape national policy?
- The Financial Architecture: Pushing the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to lead the work on macroeconomic dependencies on fossil fuels. Expertise matters, but whose stability is going to be prioritised? Is it the communities losing their livelihoods, or the global financial systems that grew fat on fossil fuel rents?
- The Trade Filter: Bringing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – a club of wealthy nations – into “producer–consumer alignment”. This is a coup to ensure the international trade system keeps serving the West and its elites under the guise of “coordination”.
For decades, the responsibility of rich nations to provide public finance for climate action in vulnerable countries has been replaced by private sector “leverage”. Developed nations must stop using “climate finance” as a tool to open new markets for their multinational corporations and put actual, grant-based finance on the table to support the transition in the Global South.
They should also refrain from forcing every initiative back into the UNFCCC gridlock, where meaningful progress on a fossil fuel phase-out has been systematically blocked.
Finally, it is critical that the Santa Marta process is recognised as a sovereign space for historically silenced nations to hold polluters accountable, rather than being treated as a showroom for Western exports.
This requires addressing the hypocrisy of so-called “front runners”. Canada, France, Ireland, Australia and Norway attend these conferences as “leaders” while greenlighting oil and gas expansion. You cannot lead a transition while pouring fuel on the fire. Leadership requires immediately ending expansion; anything else is an expensive photo-op.
Unity as the ultimate toolFor developing nations, the path forward is radical unity. Global North diplomacy often seeks to divide and conquer through bilateral deals that bypass collective power. Developing nations must refuse to be cowed.
This is a chance to move beyond tools that prioritise debt and trade over development. Collectively, the Global South can build technical and financial frameworks that advance energy sovereignty and justice. South-South cooperation must be the primary engine of a fair transition that holds historical polluters accountable.
The road to Tuvalu 2027 – reclaiming the agendaThe announcement that Tuvalu will co-host the second conference in 2027 is a political necessity. Tuvalu, a least developed country, is a living symbol of the climate crisis and a vanguard of justice.
Tuvalu must have the power to set the agenda from day one. This cannot be another “safe space” for dialogue without commitment, as seen at the first conference. The road to Tuvalu must advance a mechanism that gained wider support in Santa Marta but was ignored in the Chairs’ Takeaways: a Fossil Fuel Treaty.
We need a framework to manage the decline of fossil fuel extraction based on fair shares and equity, turning international cooperation into support for resilient, renewable economies.
The process has only just begun. Santa Marta was the spark, but Tuvalu must be the engine room of implementation. The Global South must take the pen to script the transition rooted in equity and justice.
The post Developing countries must hold the pen to script the fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
EU warns on solar geoengineering but research debate grinds on
Campaigners working to limit the use of controversial sun-dimming technology have praised the Europe’s foreign ministers for warning of the risks such technology poses, but opinions remain split over whether it merits more research, with the European Union keeping its position open for now.
At a joint council meeting in Luxembourg, ministers representing the EU’s 27 member states signed off on a statement agreeing for the first time that they were “concerned that large-scale climate interventions, in particular solar radiation modification (SRM), pose significant risks for the climate, the environment, security and geopolitics”.
Their statement, issued in late April, called for a moratorium on deployment of SRM technologies, as well as “the full application of the precautionary principle to geoengineering” and for the EU to engage in international talks on international governance arrangements, including those related to research.
SRM refers to any deliberate attempt to reduce the amount of heat which reaches the Earth from the sun. This could be carried out by artificially brightening clouds or injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, which could reduce or reverse global warming but risk severe and unpredictable side-effects.
The risks of carrying out SRM are widely acknowledged but climate campaigners and scientists remain divided on to what extent and how its effects should be researched, with some arguing that such work normalises it and encourages its deployment.
Experts on both sides of the debate welcomed the EU’s statement but made contrasting calls on what should happen next. A more pro-research group said the EU should encourage responsible research into SRM’s effects while more anti-research campaigners said the EU should prevent research that could lead to SRM’s deployment and agree not to use it.
Responsible researchGiulia Neri, the interim director of climate interventions at the Brussels-based think-tank Centre for Future Generations (CFG), which supports research into SRM, told Climate Home News that the EU’s statement sends “an important and timely signal on the need for rules governing SRM”.
She added that the fact it was issued by foreign – not climate – ministers shows “a growing recognition that SRM is a geopolitically relevant technology and not merely a climate-related issue”.
Her colleague, CFG adviser on climate interventions, Matthias Honneger added that the EU nations’ ministers in charge of research “might also consider how responsible public research under European oversight can help maintain Europe’s influence”.
This is especially important, Honneger said, as “private and global actors increasingly dominate what we know about this technology and its risks and benefits”.
A well-funded US-Israeli company Stardust claims to be developing the ability to carry out SRM and is seeking customers – including the US government – to pay for them to do so.
Impossible to testMary Chuch, who campaigns against geoengineering for the Center for International Environmental Law, also welcomed the foreign ministers’ statement.
She said it was right to emphasise “the risks of highly speculative geoengineering technologies, centre the precautionary principle and reinforce the longstanding moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity”.
How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets
But, rather than calling for more research, she and political scientist Frank Biermann called for the EU to join governments in Africa and the Pacific in calling for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering.
“As an immediate first step, the European Union must prevent research that could lead to the development and use of solar geoengineering technologies,” Biermann said.
Church said that solar geoengineering is “inherently unpredictable” and that it was “impossible to fully test for intended and unintended impacts without prolonged large-scale implementation”.
De facto moratoriumThe council’s conclusion did not weigh in on the research debate, only resolving to engage in talks on the governance of research.
But European Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zaharieva said in 2024 that research should continue although it should be “rigorous and ethical, and it must take full account of the possible range of direct and indirect effects”.
Also in 2024, the Swiss government attempted to get countries at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to set up an expert group on SRM. But this failed due to opposition from the African Group, Colombia, Mexico and others, and Switzerland did not try again at the last UNEA in December 2025.
SRM is currently legal in most nations. But there has been a de facto global moratorium in place on geoengineering – which includes SRM – since 2010, when it was agreed by governments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, with exceptions for small-scale scientific research studies.
The post EU warns on solar geoengineering but research debate grinds on appeared first on Climate Home News.
Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry
As global oil prices rocket due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, traditional jet fuel has become hard to come by and has nearly doubled in price, leading airlines across much of the world to raise ticket prices or cancel flights.
While greener fuels produced from plants or green hydrogen remain more expensive, the cost gap has narrowed and experts told Climate Home News that this could boost demand in the struggling sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) industry.
Matt Ridley, sustainability and innovation director at the OneWorld airline alliance told Climate Home News that “higher jet fuel prices narrow the green premium, reinforcing the role of SAF in cutting lifecycle emissions while reducing exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.”
Marie Owens Thomsen, chief economist and sustainability lead at the International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade group for airlines, said the world is currently seeing “the highest jet fuel prices that we’ve ever had in the history of jet travel”.
The problem predates the war but has been worsened by it, she said, adding that as demand for oil-based products like diesel has declined because of the electrification of road transport, many of the oil refineries that produce jet fuel were struggling to make a profit.
The crisis could “wake people up” to the problem of depending on “oil monopolies in the Middle East”, she said, adding that ramping up SAF production is critical for energy security.
“Khaki is the new green”Some in the military sector seem to be taking note. Rheinmetall, a long-term supplier of the German air force, has partnered with a company called Ineratec which is developing technology to produce e-SAF based on hydrogen. And during the Biden administration, the US Department of Defense invested $65 million in an American e-SAF startup called Air Company.
Summing up the changing reasons for interest in SAF, Marcella Franchi from SAF producer Haffner Energy told the SAF Investor Summit in February that “khaki is the new green”. Speaking before the US bombed Iran, she gave the example of Canada, which she said is pursuing SAF production to avoid reliance on oil-based jet fuel from its “very unsettling neighbours”.
Since conflict has flared in the Middle East, Susan van Dyk, a former academic turned SAF consultant, told Climate Home News that a temporary narrowing of the cost gap is not, by itself, enough to make SAF take off. But the energy crisis may push governments to support SAF, she said.
The European Union and the UK have both mandated that, from January 2025, fuel suppliers at their airports must blend at least 2% SAF with oil-based kerosene. The blending requirement will gradually increase to reach 32% in the EU and 22% in the UK by 2040.
But, at least before the latest oil crisis, the EU and UK faced pressure from some airline and fossil fuel executives to water down these rules. The uncertainty these calls have created is damaging investment in production, SAF producers have said.
Book and claimSpeaking at the SAF Investor Conference in February, African airline executives and SAF producers said the design of the EU and UK mandates hinders non-European producers from contributing.
Under current rules, the SAF has to be physically delivered to planes at EU and UK airports to count towards the mandate, which favours SAF produced in or close to European airports – even though the raw materials to make it, such as waste oil, are often imported from regions like Southeast Asia.
Wakina Mutembei, Kenya Airways’ sustainability and innovations lead, told the conference that the EU and UK should adopt what is known as a book-and-claim system, where SAF supplied to planes outside of Europe can count towards a fuel supplier’s compliance with the EU and UK’s mandates.
Wakina Mutembei speaks at the SAF Investor conference in London (Photo: SAF Investor)This would be a “business opportunity”, she told the London audience, to use abundant Kenyan crops and used cooking oil and lower production costs “to produce SAF that is cheaper for the European market and the UK market”.
“If we are all complaining that the cost of SAF is higher, why not go to a market where it’s cheaper to produce it?” she asked, noting that this would create jobs in Africa and earn foreign currency.
Francis Mwangi, senior engineer at Kenya’s Civil Aviation Authority, told Climate Home News in an interview that if SAF is produced in Africa “you might find that, even relatively, the price might not be as far from the normal Jet A1 [oil-based jet fuel]”.
IATA’s Thomsen also called for a book-and-claim system, saying it “is definitely a way of making this teeny-tiny, bespoke, private-deal kind of market grow into a global market” by removing geographical constraints.
Shipping SAF long distances to be pumped into planes is inefficient, she said, adding that “without book and claim, this market will not scale”.
The post Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry appeared first on Climate Home News.
ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN
Joie Chowdhury is senior attorney and climate justice and accountability manager at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Jule Schnakenberg is director of World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ).
A resolution that will come before the UN General Assembly (UNGA) later this month brings a reckoning for multilateralism: will governments stand behind international law or not?
On May 20, UN member states will consider a resolution to welcome and operationalise the International Court of Justice’s historic Advisory Opinion (ICJ AO) on states’ obligations in respect of climate change, which clarified that they have binding legal duties to prevent and repair climate harm.
Translating that clarity into action should be straightforward. That the resolution is instead contested exposes efforts to evade responsibility. Those most responsible for the crisis will often be the first to resist accountability – that’s predictable, but it’s not acceptable.
At a time when multilateral cooperation is under strain, the resolution’s backing by a strong majority of countries, or its passing by consensus, holds power. It would send a clear signal: governments remain committed to the rule of law and to collective action to protect the climate, a shared foundation on which all life depends.
State of playLed by Vanuatu, with support from a core group of diverse countries including the Netherlands, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Barbados, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Jamaica, the Philippines and Burkina Faso, the resolution, now open for co-sponsorship, has already secured broad cross-regional backing – especially from countries at the sharp edge of climate change.
The final text of the draft resolution faithfully reflects the full breadth of legal obligations articulated in the advisory opinion. It affirms the imperative of a just transition away from fossil fuels, the stability of legal entitlements for countries facing sea-level rise, and the duty to provide full reparation for climate-related harm under international law. It also underscores the centrality of equity and provides for structured follow-up for implementation, including a report on ways to do that from the UN Secretary-General.
While the final resolution text could have gone further on critical justice dimensions, it reflects a carefully balanced outcome, integrating diverse perspectives emerging from the genuine engagement of over a hundred states.
Vanuatu pushes new UN resolution demanding full climate compensation
In negotiations, resistance tracked a familiar set of arguments to protect fossil fuel interests and evade accountability. Many of the usual suspects – polluters with disproportionately high historical and current responsibility for the climate crisis, including major oil producers – have engaged actively, but with the aim of weakening the authority of the Court’s opinion, or references to fossil fuels in the resolution.
There is still time for things to shift. For the incoming COP presidencies of Australia, Türkiye and Ethiopia, and European states that profess their climate leadership, positioning on this resolution is a litmus test of their commitment to ensuring that climate action accords with the law.
Closing the accountability gapClaims from countries with a disproportionate share of emissions that the resolution duplicates existing processes, particularly under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), miss the point. The climate treaty regime has yet to deliver accountability. It has not delivered on ambition, nor on the imperative to phase out fossil fuels, and certainly not on tackling loss and damage. The draft resolution text explicitly seeks to ensure coordination, coherence and complementarity with existing processes, while closing the accountability gap.
Assertions that the resolution “reinterprets” or “goes beyond” the advisory opinion similarly ring hollow. This is standard UN practice: General Assembly resolutions give effect to legal norms clarified by the Court. The text does not create new law; it reflects existing obligations in the Court’s own terms.
ICJ ruling expected to shape US climate lawsuits in defiance of Trump
It is also important to be clear: the advisory opinion itself stands as the most authoritative clarification of international law on climate change. Its weight or persuasiveness does not depend on this resolution. Since its delivery, it has been taken up by courts and policymakers worldwide. What is at stake is not whether states will act, but whether they will do so in good faith or under mounting pressure.
Consensus carries weightThe advisory opinion carries exceptional legitimacy: requested through a resolution adopted by consensus, following legal proceedings with record participation, and delivered unanimously. Against this backdrop, there is no credible basis for opposing a resolution that seeks to welcome and advance the AO.
Consensus would send a powerful message of states’ commitment to climate action and the rule of law, but the resolution does not require unanimity to pass. As precedents show, including the Ghana-led General Assembly resolution recognising the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity, global majority support can carry decisive weight, even in the face of resistance from powerful states.
From the outset, the ICJ advisory opinion process has been driven and deeply shaped by youth leadership, and responding to their call now requires completing the task the General Assembly set for itself in 2023 by requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ.
A vote for climate justiceIn a powerful poem, Pacific environmental advocate Dylan Kava writes:
“….They call it negotiation.
We know it as survival.
While they draft options
our coastlines disappear…”
The survival and dignity of people facing escalating climate harm is not a matter of political convenience. It is a matter of existing law; a matter of political responsibility, moral courage and actual leadership.
We urge all member states to support the resolution as presented on May 20, with a view to adoption by consensus. History will not judge those in power by how forcefully they defended the status quo, but by whether they rose to meet a crisis that threatens us all.
The post ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN appeared first on Climate Home News.
How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets
When Shell sold its onshore oil operations in Nigeria to the Renaissance Africa Energy Company last year, the divestment transformed the fossil fuel giant’s climate performance – helping it become the first energy major to report zero routine flaring.
One year on, gas flaring at some of these assets has increased significantly, while Shell has continued to benefit commercially from them, according to a new investigation by nonprofit group Data Desk, shared exclusively with Climate Home News.
Since March 2025, Shell has traded 8 million barrels of oil from the Niger Delta’s Forcados terminal, which was included in the Renaissance deal, Data Desk’s analysis of information supplied by commodities data firm Kpler found.
It is a similar picture at the Bonny terminal, where Shell’s operations were also transferred as part of its onshore exit. Shell is recorded as having traded 3 million barrels of oil from this facility, south of the city of Port Harcourt, since the deal went through.
Multimillion-dollar oil shipmentsUsing an average 2025 global Brent crude price of $69 per barrel, 11 million barrels of oil shipped from the two terminals since the completion of Shell’s divestment would be worth $759 million.
Shell chartered the tankers carrying the oil to buyers around the world – from Ivory Coast and South Africa, to Canada and Italy, the Kpler data shows.
“Whoever is running Shell’s old oilfields in Nigeria needs to get that oil to market,” said Neil Atkinson, former head of the Oil Industry and Markets Division at the International Energy Agency (IEA).
“So it may well be that while Shell no longer runs a facility, the firm that took it over may have an arrangement to continue selling oil through Shell, thereby making use of their connections and trade networks,” Atkinson said.
Shell’s shipping and chartering arm made a profit of £24.8 million (about $33 million) in 2024, the most recent date available, up from £17 million the year before.
Asked about Shell’s continuing ties to the two terminals, a Shell spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on trading activities or specific customer relationships.”
Renaissance did not address a question from Climate Home News about its ongoing commercial ties with Shell.
Environmental legacyThe new reporting raises fresh questions about how energy majors present their climate performance to investors and consumers, and the environmental legacy they are leaving behind after selling fossil fuel assets in countries such as Nigeria, where Shell has operated for nearly a century.
Many of Shell’s onshore oil fields had been in production for decades by the time the company sold its Nigerian onshore subsidiary over a year ago for $2.4 billion to Renaissance, a consortium of Nigerian companies and an international firm that aims to double oil production by 2030.
Six months after finalising the deal, Renaissance CEO Tony Attah said the company had already boosted output at Shell’s former fields by 100,000 barrels per day.
A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso) A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso)At the same time, gas flaring increased at most of the fields where the activity was detected, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data, despite Renaissance’s pledges to foster sustainable energy development and protect local communities.
Gas is a by-product of oil drilling. In places that lack infrastructure to process this gas, like the Niger Delta, it gets burned off instead.
Earlier this year, Climate Home News reported on the impact on local communities of increased gas flaring at several other fields in the Niger Delta since they were sold by Shell to different Nigerian companies in recent years.
Besides billowing out toxic chemicals that cause air pollution and wasting a potential energy source, global gas flaring is estimated by the World Bank to release the equivalent of 400 million tonnes of CO2 annually – higher than France’s greenhouse gas emissions each year.
Gas flaring renaissance?Comparing the year before the sale’s completion to the year after, satellite data shows daily flaring rose at 10 of the 13 Renaissance blocks where it was detected. Flaring fell at two blocks and was unchanged at one other, while five had no detectable flaring in the dataset.
The OML 32 block, located in the heart of the Niger Delta, was one of the assets that Renaissance took over last year. Here, average daily flaring was more than 20 times higher in the year ending March 2026 compared to the year before, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data from the Colorado School of Mines’ Earth Observation Group.
The Renaissance-operated OML 21 and OML 28 onshore blocks saw increases of 390% and 93%, respectively, in average daily flaring in the year after the sale’s completion.
A spokesperson for Renaissance said the company’s environmental management framework included a plan to reduce flaring.
“Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited has a multi-year gas flaring reduction strategy through its Flare Elimination and Monetisation Plan, developed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” the spokesperson said.
Shell’s spokesperson said it “cannot comment on operational matters relating to assets under new owners/operators”, adding that both the company and the Nigerian government had conducted “extensive due diligence” with regard to its divestments in Nigeria.
“Dodging accountability”Before the deal, Shell said three years ago that its remaining Nigerian assets accounted for about half of the total routine and non-routine flaring in its integrated gas and upstream facilities. Shortly after selling these assets, the company announced it had achieved zero routine flaring – five years ahead of a global 2030 target set by the World Bank.
Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun Sanni Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun SanniShell’s exit from onshore operations in Nigeria followed years of accusations of environmental harm, including oil spills. Residents of two Nigerian communities are currently taking legal action against the oil major in the UK and a trial at the High Court is due to begin next year.
Shell says the majority of spills in the Niger Delta were caused by theft and sabotage and it is therefore not liable.
According to Atkinson, Shell pivoted away from onshore oil fields that “might have become more trouble than they were worth” while remaining a major player in Nigeria’s oil industry.
Top green jet fuel producer linked to suspect waste-oil supply chain
The London-based company has invested billions in offshore gas development in the country. It has also retained a 25.6% stake in Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG), a liquefied natural gas producer based on Bonny Island.
As the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies seek to meet their climate targets, a strategic shift “to dodge accountability” by selling more problematic assets is under way, said Sophie Marjanac, director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project, an organisation that campaigns for the oil industry to cover the cost of its environmental damage.
“By dumping ageing, polluting infrastructure onto smaller operators, they leave behind contamination, and communities facing ongoing harm with little chance of justice,” Marjanac said.
The post How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets appeared first on Climate Home News.
The energy transition has a rare earth problem: These startups are solving it
The gleaming electric motors rolling off the production line at a factory in northeastern England offer an answer to one of the energy transition’s thorniest challenges.
The Advanced Electric Machines (AEM) plant outside Newcastle is at the forefront of building a new generation of motors made without rare earths, a group of 17 nearly indistinguishable metals used to manufacture most of the high-performance permanent magnets that power electric vehicles.
CEO James Widmer, a former aerospace engineer who founded the company in 2017, compares heavy reliance on rare earths in EV motors to the ill-fated decision to add lead to gasoline to resolve a technical issue.
“Putting rare earths in motors is the same thing,” Widmer told Climate Home News in a video call from his office. “You don’t need it, but somebody did it because it was easy.”
Widmer’s firm is among a handful of startup companies working with researchers to eliminate the need for rare earths in magnets and motors – offering a pathway to ease pressure on new mining and refining for one of the world’s most concentrated value chains.
Unease over China’s grip on suppliesAs countries strive to reduce their climate-warming emissions by switching to electric transportation, demand for rare earths is soaring. That is increasing pressure for mining new resources and raising concerns about China’s supply chain domination.
China controls more than 90% of global rare earth separation and refining capacity and makes nearly all of the world’s permanent magnets – one of the building blocks of advanced technologies from EV motors and wind turbines vital to the energy transition to microchips, AI data centres and fighter jets.
An employee assembling a motor at AEM’s factory outside Newcastle (Photo: Advanced Electric Machines)Beijing spooked Western governments last year when it announced new export restrictions on supplies of rare earths and technological know-how in response to US tariffs on imports of Chinese goods. Automakers were left facing shortages.
While some of Beijing’s retaliatory curbs were suspended within months, China’s willingness to use its industrial clout over technological chokepoints to advance its geopolitical objectives has injected momentum into the efforts of companies such as AEM to find alternatives to rare earths.
“The best way to avoid the problems with these materials…isn’t to drill, baby, drill. The best way is just not to use them in the first place,” said Widmer.
Cutting that dependency would help shrink the environmental footprint of EV motors by keeping costly-to-extract rare earths in the ground, Widmer said.
Rare earth-free motors?The auto industry had already been manufacturing electric motors using rare earth magnets for 20 years when Widmer set up AEM after conducting PhD research at the University of Newcastle.
Toyota’s Prius model, which is widely recognised as the first mass-produced hybrid passenger car, was launched in 1997 and used rare earth magnets in its motor.
About 80% of modern EV drivetrains now rely on high-performance rare earth permanent magnets to convert electricity into torque, according to a 2024 study, fuelling demand for the metals as EV adoption gains traction across the world, from Europe to South Asia.
Rapid electrification has doubled demand for magnet rare earths since 2015 and it is projected to increase by another 30% by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). It recently put the cost of adequately diversifying the supply chain at $60 billion over the next decade.
Demand for EVs and concerns over oil dependence have rocketed back onto the political agenda after the Iran war sparked unprecedented disruptions to global oil markets, reigniting simmering debates about supply chain sovereignty for energy.
James Widmer CEO of AEM, at the company’s factory outside Newcastle (Photo: Advanced Electric Machines)Contrary to their name, rare earths are found nearly everywhere on the planet in small quantities. However, larger, economically viable deposits are difficult to find and costly to extract.
On top of the expense, getting rare earths out of the ground is energy-intensive and generates toxic waste and sometimes radioactive by-products. This has led to large-scale environmental damage in China and Myanmar, where unregulated mines have become a major source of rare earth elements and are driving environmental destruction and violence, according to NGOs.
Lighter, greener, less riskyInstead of rare earth magnets, AEM’s motors rely on electrical steel laminations – thin stacked sheets of specialised metal – that create a magnetic field when powered.
The company says its electric motors are more energy-efficient and, in some configurations, more power-dense than traditional rare earth motors and reduce the emissions and polluting waste associated with permanent magnet motor manufacturing processes.
“And we’ve gotten rid of this enormous liability in the supply chain at the same time,” Widmer said.
The company, which manufactures electric motors for passenger cars and trucks as well as for the agricultural and aerospace sectors, expects demand for its technology to grow as buyers become increasingly aware of the risks of supply chain disruption and the environmental harm caused by rare earth mining.
AEM’s motors are already being used in commercial vehicles, for example in truck axles in the Netherlands, and the company aims to expand into new regions through a joint venture with Indian manufacturing firm Sterling Tools, a company spokesperson said.
An employee working on a AEM rare earth-free motor in the company’s factory outside Newcastle (Photo: Advanced Electric Machines) ‘Reinventing the wheel’Some 8,000 kilometres from AEM’s factory floor, a group of Silicon Valley engineers has been inundated with enquiries since Beijing announced its export restrictions on technologies to mine and smelt rare earths, magnet production and recycling.
As manufacturers worried about shortages, the rare earths supply chain bottleneck became a board-level conversation and executives started scouting for alternatives, said Ankit Somani, a former Google engineer and the co-founder of Conifer.
“Every startup needs an unfair advantage – and that was ours,” he told Climate Home News, adding that the challenge is now to keep up with demand.
The San Francisco-based startup’s technology removes rare earths from electric scooters and small delivery vehicles by placing the motor directly inside the wheel hub, an innovation it describes as “literally reinventing the wheel”.
Co-founders Ankit Somani and Yateendra Deshpande speaking at Conifer’s research and development facility in Sunnyvale, California (Photo: Conifer)To transfer power inside vehicles, the company uses a refined form of iron oxide – the same basic compound as rust – known as a ferrite magnet.
Somani said the technology reduces the costs of manufacturing electric vehicles by eliminating the need for expensive rare earth supplies.
Conifer’s first production line already produces 75,000 motor components a year in the city of Pune in western India, the hub of its manufacturing operations, where electric two- and three-wheelers are booming.
To keep up with demand, the company is planning to open a 250,000-unit capacity facility, Somani said.
The next generation of magnetsAt Minnesota-based Niron Magnetics, which produces permanent magnets using iron nitride instead of rare earths, vice president Tom Grainger said last year’s supply chain disruption had been a wake-up call.
“What was always possible but never quite material – the risk of geopolitical interference in magnet supply chains – became real in 2025,” he told Climate Home News.
In contrast to magnets that depend on Chinese rare earth supplies, the company’s iron nitride magnets are made from the abundant and inexpensive elements, iron and nitrogen.
Niron estimates that iron nitride magnets could replace roughly two-thirds of the global permanent magnet market.
Niron Magnetics’ first consumer-facing magnet, used in a professional loudspeaker, was rolled out earlier this year and the firm has already received investment from automotive giants General Motors, Stellantis and parts provider Magna International.
The company is developing its first full-scale manufacturing plant in Sartell, Minnesota, which aims to produce up to 1,500 tonnes of magnets annually when it opens in 2027, targeting consumer electronics, as well as the automobile sector, data-centre cooling pumps, robotics and drones.
By Chinese standards, that is a modest start: a typical factory in China can produce between 5,000 and 20,000 tonnes of rare earth magnets, said Grainger. But Niron’s model is designed to be replicated anywhere with basic industrial infrastructure. Unlike rare earth processing, it requires no proximity to a mine or complex chemical permitting.
“The goal…is a factory that has the scale to deliver in sufficient quantities for large programmes – with the economics that come with scale,” Grainger said.
The firm is already looking for a second site in the US to build a 10,000-tonne per year facility, equivalent to approximately 1-2% of the global permanent magnet market share, according to the company.
Governments ramp up supportAnxious to protect their industries from potential supply gaps, Western countries are supporting research into innovative rare earth alternatives.
Jean-Michel Lamarre, a team leader at Canada’s National Research Council, said the government’s science agency, which has been developing rare earth-free motor technologies, is working on using 3D printing to produce magnets.
Lamarre said that while removing rare earths from electric motors significantly reduces the costs of materials, making new designs commercially viable remains a challenge.
Difficulties include scaling up manufacturing capability and responding to rapidly changing market conditions, a spokesperson for Canada’s Department of Natural Resources said.
Conifer’s motor assembly plant in Pune, India (Photo: Conifer)The US, Canada and the European Union have announced billions in subsidies and financial support to mine and produce more of the materials themselves, as well as funding research on rare earths substitutes. The US government is also investing heavily in American rare earths and magnet producers.
Recycling rare earth elements from discarded computers, motors and wind turbines also has a role to play in boosting domestic production, said Nicola Morley, a professor of materials physics at the University of Sheffield in the UK, who advises major manufacturers including Siemens and Volkswagen.
Recycling alone has the potential to reduce the need for primary rare earths supplies by up to 35% by 2050, according to the IEA.
Today, around 1% of the rare earths used in end-products is recycled because of technical and economic challenges. But startups are seizing on interest in creating circular supply chains that reduce reliance on China.
Better than rare earthsWhile recycling may be a relatively quick way for major markets to bolster their supplies of magnet metals, some researchers expect scientists to come up with groundbreaking alternatives to rival rare earths within a matter of years.
At Georgetown University in Washington DC, physicist Kai Liu and his team are working to create new materials for magnet production using a machine that bombards atoms of up to six different metals onto a surface simultaneously – like six games of pool played at once. As they land, the atoms bond into new crystal structures, which Liu’s team tests for magnetic properties.
Their research has already led to a discovery of magnet materials, Liu said, adding that he is hopeful for further breakthroughs by the scientific community.
“I am cautiously optimistic that within the next five to 10 years, the community might find something comparable or better than rare earths,” he said.
Main image: An employee working on an AEM motor at the company’s factory outside Newcastle (Photo: Advanced Electric Machines)
The post The energy transition has a rare earth problem: These startups are solving it appeared first on Climate Home News.
Key green shipping talks to be held in late 2026
The future of the global shipping industry – and its 3% share of global emissions – will be decided in three weeks of talks in the third quarter of this year, after a decision taken in London on Friday.
At the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) headquarters this week, governments largely failed to substantively negotiate a controversial set of measures to penalise polluting ships and reward vessels running on clean fuels known as the Net-Zero Framework. The green shipping plan has been aggressively opposed by fossil fuel-producing nations, in particular by the US and Saudi Arabia.
This week, countries delivered statements outlining their views on the measures in a session that ran from Wednesday into Thursday. Then, late on Friday afternoon, they discussed when to negotiate these measures and what proposals they should discuss.
After a lengthy debate, which the talks’ chair Harry Conway joked was confusing, governments agreed to hold a week of behind-closed-door talks from 1 September to 4 September and from 23 November to 27 November.
Following these meetings, which are intended to negotiate disagreements on the NZF and rival watered-down measures proposed by the US and its allies, there will be public talks from November 30 to December 4.
Last October, talks intended to adopt the NZF provisionally agreed in April 2025 were derailed by the US and Saudi Arabia, who successfully persuaded a majority of countries to vote to postpone the talks by a year.
Those talks, known as an extraordinary session, are now scheduled to resume on Friday December 4 unless governments decide otherwise in the preceding weeks. While this Friday session will be in the same building with the same participants as the rest of the week’s talks, calling it the extraordinary session is significant as it means the NZF can be voted on.
Em Fenton, senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green said that the NZF “has survived but survival is not a victory” and called for it to be adopted later this year “in a way that maintains urgency and ambition, and delivers justice and equity for countries on the frontlines of climate impacts”.
NZF’s supportersThe NZF would penalise the owners of particularly polluting ships and use the revenues to fund cleaner fuels, support affected workers and help developing countries manage the transition.
Many governments – particularly in Europe, the Pacific and some Latin American and African nations – spoke in favour of it this week.
South Africa said the fund it would create is “the key enabler of a just transition” and its removal would take away predictable revenues from African countries. Vanuatu said that “we are not here to sink the ship but to man it”.
Australia’s representative called it a “carefully balanced compromise”, as it was provisionally agreed by a large majority after years of negotiations, and warned that failing to adopt it would harm the shipping industry by failing to provide certainty.
Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition
Canada’s negotiator said that if it was weakened to appease its critics like the US and Saudi Arabia, this would disappoint those who think it is too weak already like the Pacific islands.
A large group of mainly big developing countries like Nigeria and Indonesia did not rule out supporting the framework but called for adjustments to help developing countries deal with the changes. Nigeria called for developing countries to be given more time to implement the measures, a minimum share of the fund’s revenues and discounts for ships bringing them food and energy.
According to analysis from the University of College London’s Energy Institute, the countries speaking in support of the NZF include five countries which voted with the US to postpone talks in October and a further ten countries which did not take a clear position at that time. Most governments support the NZF as the basis for further talks, the institute said.
Opposition remainsBut a small group of mainly oil-producing nations said they are opposed to any financial penalties for particularly polluting ships.
They support a proposal submitted by Liberia, Argentina and Panama which has proposed weakening emission targets and ditching any funding mechanism for the framework involving “direct revenue collection and disbursement”.
Argentina argued that the NZF would harm countries which are far from their export markets and said concerns over that cannot be solved “by magic with guidelines”. They added that, as a result, the NZF itself needs to be fundamentally re-negotiated.
The UCL Energy Institute said that just 24 countries – less than a quarter of those who spoke – said they supported Argentina’s proposal.
Despite this, the US State Department issued a statement saying that the decision to hold more talks incorporating alternative proposals signalled “a total collapse in support for the original NZF proposal”.
While this week’s talks did not see the kind of US threats reported in October, their delegation did leave personalised flyers on every delegate’s desk which were described by academics, negotiators and climate campaigners as misleading.
One witness told Climate Home News that junior US delegates arrived early on Wednesday and placed flyers behind governments’ name plates warning each country of the costs they would incur if the NZF is adopted.
The figures on a selection of leaflets seen by Climate Home News ranged from $100 million for Panama to $3.5 billion for the Netherlands. “They are trying to scare countries away from supporting climate action with one-sided information”, one negotiator told Climate Home News.
A flyer left on Pakistan’s desk, shared by a witness with Climate Home NewsThey added that the calculations, by the US State Department’s Office of the Chief Economist, ignore the fact that the money raised would be shared to help poorer countries’ transition as well as ignoring the economic costs of failing to address climate change.
Tristan Smith, an academic representing the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, told the meeting that the calculations were “opaque” and flawed as they overstate the contribution of fuel cost to trade costs.
A US State Department Spokesperson said in a statement that they “firmly stand behind our estimates” which were shared “in good faith” and to “provide an additional tool to policymakers as they contemplate the true economic burden over the NZF”.
This article was updated on 5/5/2026 to include the US State Department’s statement
The post Key green shipping talks to be held in late 2026 appeared first on Climate Home News.
Kenya seeks regional coordination to build African mineral value chains
African leaders have intensified calls for governments to stop exporting raw minerals and step up efforts to align their policies, share infrastructure and coordinate investment to add value to their resources and bring economic prosperity to the continent.
In a speech to the inaugural Kenya Mining Investment Conference & Expo in Nairobi this week, Kenyan President William Ruto became the latest African leader to confirm the country will end exports of raw mineral ore. The East African nation has deposits of gold, iron ore and copper and recently launched a tender for global investors to develop a deposit of rare earths, which are used in EV motors and wind turbines, valued at $62 billion.
Kenya is among more than a dozen African nations that have either banned or imposed export curbs on their mineral resources as they seek to process minerals domestically to boost revenues, create jobs and capture a slice of the industries that are producing high-value clean tech for the energy transition.
“For too long we have extracted and exported raw materials at the bottom of the value chain, while others have processed, refined, manufactured and captured the greater share of economic value,” Ruto told African ministers and stakeholders gathered at the mining investment conference in Nairobi.
As a result, Africa currently captures less than 1% of the value generated from global clean energy technologies, he said. To address this, Kenya, in collaboration with other African nations, “will process our minerals here in the continent, we will refine them here and we will manufacture them here”, he added.
Mineral export restrictions on the riseAfrica is a major supplier of minerals needed for the global energy transition. The continent holds an estimated 30% of the world’s critical mineral reserves, including lithium, cobalt and copper. The Democratic Republic of Congo produces roughly 70% of global cobalt, a key ingredient in lithium-ion batteries, while countries such as Guinea dominate bauxite production, and Mozambique and Tanzania hold significant graphite deposits.
But African governments have struggled to attract the investment needed to turn their vast mineral wealth into a green industrial powerhouse. Recently Burundi, Malawi, Nigeria and Zimbabwe are among those that have resorted to banning the export of unrefined minerals to incentivise foreign companies to invest in value addition locally.
Outdated geological data limits Africa’s push to benefit from its mineral wealth
This week, Zimbabwe exported its first shipments of lithium sulphate, an intermediate form of processed lithium that can be further refined into battery-grade material, from a mine and processing plant operated by Chinese company Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt.
After freezing all exports of lithium concentrate – the first stage of processing – earlier this year, the government introduced export quotas and will ban all exports from January 2027.
Export restrictions on critical raw materials have grown more than five-fold since 2009, found a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published this week. In 2024, a more diverse group of countries, including many resource-rich developing economies in Africa and Asia, introduced restrictions, including Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Angola.
Artisanal miners look for copper in mining waste Artisanal miners look for copper in mining wasteThis is “a structural shift in the wrong direction,” Mathias Cormann, the OECD’s secretary-general, told the organisation’s Critical Minerals Forum in Istanbul, Turkey, this week.
“We understand the motivations: building local industries, managing environmental impacts, capturing greater value domestically. But our research is quite clear. Export restrictions distort investment, reduce volumes and undermine supply security often while delivering limited gains in value added,” he said.
In-country barriers to successThomas Scurfield, Africa senior economic analyst at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, told Climate Home News that export restrictions “can look like a promising route to local value addition” for cash-strapped African mineral producers but have “rarely worked” unless countries already have reliable energy, infrastructure and competitive costs for processing.
“Without those conditions, bans may simply push companies to scale back mining rather than scale up processing,” he said.
Alaka Lugonzo, partnerships lead for Africa at Global Witness, said plentiful and stable energy supplies are vital, adding that while Kenya has relatively robust road networks, they are insufficient for industrial-scale operations.
“Meaningful value addition and real industrialisation requires heavy machinery… and you will need better infrastructure,” she said, highlighting persistent last-mile challenges in mining regions where “there’s no railway, there’s no electricity, there’s no water”.
Export capacity is another concern, she noted, particularly whether existing port systems could handle increased volumes of processed minerals.
Regional approach recommendedScurfield said that through regional cooperation – including pooling supplies, specialising across different stages of refining and manufacturing, and building larger regional markets – “African countries could overcome many domestic constraints that make going alone difficult”.
That’s what close to 20 African governments are working to deliver as part of the Africa Minerals Strategy Group, which was set up by African ministers and is dedicated to foster cooperation among African nations to build mineral value chains and better benefit from the energy transition.
Africa urged to unite on minerals as US strikes bilateral deals
Nigerian Minister of Solid Minerals Dele Alake, who chairs the group, said “true collaboration” between countries, including aligning mining policies, sharing infrastructure, coordinating investment strategies and promoting trade across the continent, will create the conditions for long-term investments that could turn Africa into “a formidable and competitive force within the global mineral supply chain”.
“The time has come for Africa to redefine its place within the global mineral economy and that transformation must begin with regional integration and regional cooperation,” he told the mining investment conference in Nairobi.
Lugonzo of Global Witness agreed, saying that value-addition would benefit from adopting a continental perspective. “Why should Kenya build another smelter when we can export our gold to Tanzania for smelting, and then we use the pipeline through Uganda to take it to the port and we export it?” she asked.
To facilitate that, there is a need to operationalise the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), she added. “That agreement is the only way Africa is going to move from point A to point B.”
The post Kenya seeks regional coordination to build African mineral value chains appeared first on Climate Home News.
Türkiye’s COP31 presidency and IEA join forces on clean energy push
Türkiye’s COP31 presidency has struck a “strategic” partnership with the International Energy Agency (IEA), aiming to speed up the global clean energy transition amid “the biggest energy crisis in history” triggered by the Iran war.
The Paris-based watchdog will work with the host nation of this year’s UN climate summit on areas including energy supply and security, electrification and green industrialisation, Murat Kurum, Türkiye’s climate minister, said at a high-level summit hosted by the IEA on Thursday.
“We all have to act together and make sure that we transform the crisis into an opportunity,” the COP31 president said, adding that the “most critical step” is to accelerate the transition to clean energy.
The IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol, said the agency is closely watching how governments are reacting to what he described as “the biggest energy crisis in history” and whether those national responses will push climate-heating emissions up or down.
The Paris gathering came hot on the heels of the first global conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Colombia, where many governments pointed to fossil fuel volatility as a risk for energy security and economic growth, and used it as an argument to move away from oil and gas towards renewables.
Clean cooking and waste emissions in focusThough details of how the partnership will operate in practice remain limited, Kurum said one of its most important pillars will be finding solutions to expand clean cooking in developing countries, which the COP31 president promised to bring “to the centre of the global agenda”.
The IEA has been leading global discussions on helping the 2.3 billion people across the world – mainly in the Global South – using highly-polluting fuels like charcoal, firewood and waste switch to cleaner and more efficient cooking solutions to reduce emissions and damaging health impacts.
The agency is organising a summit to improve clean cooking access for Africans this July, alongside the Kenyan, US and Norwegian governments. Clean cooking solutions set to be promoted include fossil gas, alongside electric and solar-powered stoves.
Kurum also added that the IEA will carry out special research on the impact of waste recycling on climate change, which will inform the COP31 presidency’s agenda on cutting emissions from garbage, one of Türkiye’s priorities which is spearheaded by the president’s wife.
COP28 chief missingThe IEA convened representatives from over 50 governments, together with business leaders, on Thursday for the first in a series of dialogues aimed at advancing energy discussions ahead of the UN climate summit in November, where Australia will lead the negotiations.
They were joined by previous COP presidents, including veteran French diplomat Laurent Fabius, one of the key architects of the Paris Agreement, and Britain’s COP26 chief, Alok Sharma.
Sultan Al Jaber, the UAE’s COP28 president, was “very sorry” for not being able to join the meeting, Birol said. As the UAE announced its exit from the OPEC oil cartel this week, Al Jaber, who heads up the Emirati oil company Adnoc, said the firm’s ambition was “to deliver more…across oil, gas, chemicals, and low carbon and renewable energy”.
‘Bleaker’ outlookSharma said the current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is “much bleaker” than what it looked like when he presided over negotiations in Glasgow in 2021.
At that time, the IEA calculated that if all new commitments made at the summit were met, global warming could be limited to 1.8C above pre-industrialised levels, offering an optimistic outlook. Today, the UN says the world has already failed to hold warming to 1.5C and is on course for a rise of 2.6-3.1C.
Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy
Sharma said he didn’t “want to be the skunk at the party”, but pointed out that little money is yet flowing to decarbonise hard-to-abate industries and to support clean energy development anywhere outside China, Europe and the US. “If you want to transition away from fossil fuels, you need to provide the finance,” he added.
New finance mechanism promisedEchoing his remarks, COP21 president Fabius said “not easy” subjects like finance will need to be tackled at this year’s climate summit if countries want to make progress on putting into practice what’s been agreed at previous talks.
“Without financial, concrete steps there’s no implementation and it’s all talk,” he added.
COP31’s Kurum promised the presidency would “follow up” on the UN climate finance goal negotiated at COP29, when rich countries agreed to provide at least $300 billion annually by 2035 to developing nations to help them lower emissions and adapt to a warming world.
“We are working on a new mechanism to match the right projects with the right financing and make access to financing as easy as possible,” Kurum said.
The post Türkiye’s COP31 presidency and IEA join forces on clean energy push appeared first on Climate Home News.
Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition
As oil prices spike due to the Iran war, a new diplomatic process launched in Colombia will support a group of around 60 countries – among them large fossil-fuel producers – interested in designing national roadmaps and a new financial architecture to wean their economies off coal, oil and gas, as well as building a trade system that favours clean energy.
The first global conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels wrapped up on Wednesday in the coal-port city of Santa Marta after several days of discussions bringing together ministers, academics, Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, green groups, trade unions and business representatives.
It offered a space for governments frustrated by last year’s failed attempt at COP30 to develop a global roadmap away from fossil fuels to make progress on how to reduce their reliance on hydrocarbons in a fair and carefully planned way, in line with a commitment made at COP28 in Dubai. Large fossil fuel-producing countries have since blocked concrete advances at the UN talks on putting that into practice.
The Santa Marta outcomes will feed into a voluntary roadmap being crafted by COP30 hosts Brazil based on inputs from countries and civil society.
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
At Wednesday’s closing plenary, Colombian environment minister Irene Vélez Torres announced that a second conference will be held early next year in the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, co-chaired by Ireland, marking the start of a new policy-making process to run alongside the slower-paced climate COPs.
“For the first time, it demonstrates that it is possible to make a different type of environmental democracy,” Vélez Torres said, adding that improvements can be made to the methodology.
Colombia and the Netherlands, which jointly hosted the Santa Marta conference, said three workstreams had been set up to identify concrete ways to reduce fossil fuel dependence and strengthen co-operation between the 59 countries that attended, along with the European Union.
These workstreams are focused on designing national and regional roadmaps away from fossil fuels including coordinating support for implementation; reforming economic and financial architecture by reducing fossil fuel subsidies, unlocking investment and managing debt constraints; and connecting fossil fuel-producing and consuming nations to reshape the international trade system towards decarbonisation and green commerce.
A summary report of the conference said governments would receive policy support from a new panel of top scientists specialised in the energy transition, which will help countries develop roadmaps and align them with their national climate action plans (NDCs).
During two days of ministerial meetings, France was the first country to announce its own roadmap, which includes targets to end the consumption of coal by 2030, oil by 2045 and fossil gas by 2050 for energy purposes.
Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said that, while “nobody is gonna force” governments to implement the anticipated roadmaps, “these countries came together because they want to transition to a different economy”, adding that the conference provides “safe space for dialogue”.
“The fact that we don’t have negotiations here gave us such different dynamics, so the psychology of the Santa Marta conference is something that we will definitely make sure to carry forward,” she told the plenary. Later she said at a press conference that the key was not to negotiate but to “collaborate”.
Call for a fossil fuel treatyCountries gave mostly positive reactions to the conference proceedings and said the general mood had been uplifting. One government delegate from the Dominican Republic even had to fight back tears in the plenary as she thanked the hosts for inspiring the group of assembled countries.
While supportive of the Santa Marta discussions, oil-rich Nigeria advocated strongly for a “managed, just, orderly and equitable” transition away from fossil fuels, warning against any “sudden closures”. This stance was reflected in the summary report which notes that fossil fuels should “decline in a managed, fair, and politically viable way”.
Ghana, another fossil fuel-producing country, said oil and gas remain deeply tied to government revenues which fund public services. Nonetheless, the West African country urged others to join an initiative to negotiate a global “Fossil Fuel Treaty”, which a group of 18 nations called on the conference to endorse. The effort was not included in the Santa Marta workstreams.
Felix Wertli, Switzerland’s ambassador for the environment, said countries had found potential areas for collaboration around improving electricity grids, energy storage and green investments ahead of this year’s COP31 UN climate summit in Türkiye. “We are confident that this COP could support such a call,” he added.
“Groundbreaking” talksDelegates said Santa Marta had offered a “more relaxed” and inclusive process than UN negotiations. Government officials met face-to-face in hours-long conversations and interacted with representatives of different social sectors, including Indigenous peoples, cities and academics in closed-door breakout sessions.
Panama’s climate envoy, Juan Carlos Monterrey, told Climate Home News that, while he had been sceptical of the process at first, it allowed for discussions to “flow” in a way that COPs do not. “That is groundbreaking – it is a massive change in how we deal with environmental diplomacy,” he said.
EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra told journalists that the fact that the conference had happened at all just a few months after a tense COP30 was an achievement in itself. UK climate envoy Rachel Kyte also noted that the Santa Marta dialogue “is a proof of point that we can talk maturely about a really difficult issue”.
Comment: Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy
Observers also largely praised the conference. Catherine Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub, called it a “productive space” for discussing the “stickiest issues” in the energy transition. WWF’s Manuel Pulgar Vidal, also a former COP president for Peru, said Santa Marta made “hope swell into momentum”, adding that its urgency must be sustained beyond this one summit.
Patricia Suárez, from the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC), said Indigenous peoples were optimistic that the conference had placed “the urgency of moving away from fossil fuels on the table”. But more concrete measures must follow, she noted, including declaring key rainforest ecosystems as “fossil fuel exclusion zones”.
One area the conference was criticised for overlooking was the health harms caused by fossil fuels through air pollution, extreme heat and other impacts. Jeni Miller, executive director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, which unites 250 health organisations, said leaders in Santa Marta “did not address the importance of protecting people’s health”, which should be put at the centre of the conversation.
Influencing UN negotiationsMost government officials at the conference recognised the need to grow the “coalition of the willing” cemented in Santa Marta into a larger network that can influence other spaces such as UN climate negotiations – and its organisers reiterated that the door is open for others countries to join.
Dutch minister van Veldhoven told the final plenary that while “we are here with an immense group in Santa Marta, it is still too small” to fully disentangle the world from fossil fuels. Colombia and the Netherlands did not invite some powerful fossil fuel-producing countries like Russia and the US to the gathering because of their “openly extractivist” views, and major players in the clean energy sector like China were also left off the list.
Comment: Six nations at Santa Marta could shape fossil fuel futures
Tuvalu’s climate minister, Maina Vakafua Talia, told Climate Home News that big actors like China should be at the table, saying the criteria for invitations could change for the second fossil fuel phase-out conference his country will organise in April 2027.
“If we are missing out the main players in the discussion, then we are moving in a loop,” he said. “We need to find somehow how we can engage with [them] because there is no point in talking to ourselves.”
Claudio Angelo, head of international politics at Brazilian NGO Observatório do Clima, said countries could decide to keep the ball rolling within the UN climate negotiations by presenting formal agenda items on roadmaps away from fossil fuels at the annual Bonn talks in June which set the scene for COPs.
Tina Stege, climate envoy from the Marshall Islands, argued “there is a strong recognition that what we’re doing here can complement the COP process and needs to inform that process” – a view backed by other Pacific islands.
This story was updated after publication to clarify the final number of countries that attended the Santa Marta conference.
The post Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war
Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economiesIn India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industryAdding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energyThe solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all.
Logo of 350.org campaign on “The Great Power Shift” Logo of 350.org campaign on “The Great Power Shift”The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Six nations at Santa Marta could shape fossil fuel futures
Christopher Wright is the principal analyst at CarbonBridge, a decarbonisation consulting firm.
The Santa Marta Conference has rightly been hailed as a pivotal opportunity to re-imagine the world’s relationship with fossil fuels. However, the sixty-odd countries gathered this week represent only 15% of the world’s total fossil fuel production, and a small but critical handful of nations in attendance remain deeply committed to expanding their fossil fuel output.
While the discussions at Santa Marta have focused on overcoming economic dependency on fossil fuels, the reality on the ground for many of these countries is that fossil fuel production continues to rise. Despite the rapid global growth of renewable electrification, fossil fuel output has similarly increased.
This trend is evident even among the countries gathered at Santa Marta, where according to a CarbonBridge analysis, net fossil fuel production has grown over the last five years, particularly driven by expansions in oil and gas output.
Across all countries gathered in Santa Marta, approximately 14 countries are responsible for the lion’s share of oil production, which has increased by 4% since 2020. Similarly, just eight countries account for 96% of the conference’s natural gas production, which has collectively grown by 5% over the past decade.
While coal production has seen a slight decline since 2020, recent production increases in Turkey and Pakistan, with renewed growth in Australia, could similarly see increased production in the near future.
However, most surprisingly, only six countries present at Santa Marta account for over 80% of fossil fuel production among all nations in attendance: Canada, Australia, Brasil, Mexico, Norway and Nigeria.
For these nations, the transition journey ahead is complex. All six countries are aiming to significantly expand renewable energy capacities, and Norway stands as a global leader in electric vehicle adoption.
However, fossil fuel production is not merely a domestic concern for these countries; it plays a central role in their international exports, and remains a foundational pillar of their economic utures. In fact, a deeper look into trends and regulatory frameworks across this suite of countries indicates that their current trajectories are geared toward continued fossil fuel expansion.
Canada
In Canada, oil and gas production continues to climb, with 2025 marking a year of record highs. Oil production rose by 4% to reach 5.34 million barrels per day (MMb/d), while natural gas production surged by 3.4%, reaching 8.2 billion gigajoules. And only yesterday, Shell made a $13.5 bln bet on Canada’s oil and gas future.
Led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada is set to implement an industrial carbon pricing scheme and could double Canada’s clean energy capacity over the next two years. However, he has also been vocal about his support for new oil and gas expansions, new pipeline developments, and has even set a goal to transform Canada’s largely non-existent liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry over the next 15 years, with aspirations to rival the production capacity of the US by 2040.
Brazil
Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras has committed to a massive USD $109 billion expansion of their production to 2030. This hefty investment follows a record 11% production increase in 2025, with Petrobras pumping out 3.77 million barrels per day. Despite hosting the UN climate negotiations last year and generating 89% of the country’s electricity from low-carbon sources in 2025, Brazil’s drive for fossil fuel expansion highlights the gap between national climate transitions and critical export opportunities.
Australia
Australia, the world’s second-largest coal exporter, faces a similar dislocation between its domestic electricity transition and its export economy, as it prepares to assume a leadership role at COP31. Australia is home to the world’s highest solar power per capita and leads the world in home battery rollouts. However, it remains critically dependent on fossil fuel exports, even as questions arise over long-term demand. Currently, gas export volumes, which dipped in 2025, are projected to reach record levels by 2027; pending legal action against the Barossa, Scarborough, and Browse expansions. While thermal coal production is projected to decline slightly through 2030, increases in metallurgical coal are expected to offset these declines, in part due to recent pro-mining regulatory shifts in Queensland.
Mexico
Mexico is one of three major oil producers that make up over 60% of the conference’s annual oil production. However, its oil industry recorded the largest output declines of any major producer in Santa Marta over the last decade. The state-owned oil company Pemex, currently carries close to $100 billion in debt, and was granted $12bn in debt support from the government last year. When combined with import shifts from the US, and potential competition from Venezuela, there is a real chance that Mexico’s oil production could decline further going forward. However, the goal right now from Pemex and the Mexican government, is to increase current production by close to 10% by 2030.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s national oil company, NNPCL, has similarly seen declines over the last decade, but is now pursuing a $60 billion partnership to expand its oil and gas output and solidify its role as one of Africa’s largest fossil fuel producers. This comes even as the federal government was granted $800,000 to explore opportunities to transition away from oil expansion last year.
Norway
In contrast to these countries, Norway stands as one of the few major oil producers at the conference projected to decrease its fossil fuel output. With a forecasted 15% reduction in oil and gas production by 2030, Norway appears to be taking early steps toward a transition. However, the decline in production is more a reflection of the age of its existing oil fields than a proactive shift in government policy. Despite acknowledging the need to diversify its economy, the Norwegian government continues to explore new oil and gas fields, plans to launch new licensing rounds, and hopes to spur on further oil and gas investments, which have almost doubled since 2017.
For these nations, the road ahead is fraught with complexities. While the Santa Marta conference offers an opportunity for dialogue, and renewable energies will undoubtedly continue to expand, the largest fossil fuel producers gathered in Colombia remain structurally focused on growth, rather than phase-downs.
Dollars and cents continue to drive economic decisions, especially in the midst of a global energy crisis. Despite growing calls to utilise this opportunity to reshape development pathways, countries most economically embedded in existing energy markets will need far more convincing, before turning their backs on billions in fossil fuel revenues.
The post Six nations at Santa Marta could shape fossil fuel futures appeared first on Climate Home News.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.