Green News

Katherine Quinn is policy lead at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. 

BP has ditched its pledge to curb oil production by 2030 – a plan that was once the most ambitious in the industry – switching instead to developing more fossil fuels in the Middle East.   

The new approach means we’ll see 2 million more barrels of oil per day by the end of this decade, Reuters reported earlier this month.  

You might think the energy giant would be lambasted for the decision, but BP shares jumped following the news. Insiders confirmed the move was designed to “regain investor confidence”.   

Shell also weakened its 2030 carbon reduction target earlier this year, selling renewable assets by divesting its leases for developing floating wind farms off the coast of Scotland, among others.  

Now it is doubling down on natural gas – another fossil fuel which it keeps trying to tell us is ‘clean’, even though burning and extracting it releases carbon dioxide, methane and particulate matter.   

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; }

/* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.

We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

It’s a bit like that classic meme from the Princess Bride, when Inigo Montoya says, ‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.’  

Climate advocates have long urged for humans to care more about the Earth we inhabit – even in the face of sceptics – hoping that common sense would prevail.  

But it’s only recently that market conditions are starting to make fossil fuels less profitable. Last year’s COP28 UN climate conference marked the ‘beginning of the end’ of the fossil fuel era – with a phase-down agreement, although it could have gone a lot further.   

Closer to home, the UK closed its last coal-fired power plant at the start of this month. But there’s no denying that fossil fuels still dominate our planet. In 2023, they accounted for 81.5% of the global energy mix.  

Managing climate change holistically is a marathon – not a sprint – and we need to get in the right headspace for the long run. In fact, we need to run like our lives depend on it, because they do.  

Despite solar surge, world off track for COP28 renewable energy target

We’re already seeing extreme weather that is both more intense and more frequent than many of the predictions of climate science. Just look at recent floods, wildfires and droughts in Austria, Myanmar, Poland, Germany, Australia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Nigeria. We saw the catastrophic impacts of Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton in the US. And that’s just in the last month.   

Things are so dire that meteorologists are crying as they report the weather.  

So how do we shift the wider economy to change at the pace we need it? We need to accept that businesses and investors are primarily driven by financial returns. Many CEOs are prone to saying, “you get what you incentivise”.   

You get what you incentivise – and you also get what you mandate. Introducing strong policies to accelerate the implementation of renewables, coupled with the rapid, legally implemented phase-out of fossil fuels, may be our best hope for ensuring global warming doesn’t rocket off the charts.  

We must get this message across. The new model of ‘competitive sustainability’ is one way.  

Forward-thinking businesses – those that get the reality of climate change – need to support changes in the market, while at the same time they compete to be the greenest. That way they can help prompt the changes needed, get ahead of upcoming regulations and mitigate a set of huge risks they won’t be able to avoid.  

Climate godfather Al Gore was shouting about this as early as 2008, when he told business leaders gathered in Davos that beyond individual actions, “it is far more important to change the laws and to change the treaty obligations that nations have”.   

The Global South is surging ahead in the renewables revolution

We need law reform that is simultaneously widespread and targeted. At the international level, we need strong treaty language on renewables. We need to look at agreements and commitments around investor protection and make sure they can’t be weaponised unreasonably to protect an unsustainable status quo at the cost of a green future.  

At both national and subnational levels, we need to expedite permitting and grid access, phase out fossil fuel subsidies and redirect money towards clean fuels. Across the board, a legal framework is also crucial to ensure that climate, nature and human rights are embedded in environmental impact assessments.  

We need carrots, but we also need sticks.   

Instead of clobbering those lagging behind on climate action, we’re throwing protestors in jail for (often peacefully) raising awareness of the gravity of this crisis. Meanwhile, the majority of nations still financially incentivise oil and gas through record high fossil fuel subsidies.  

Things need to change – and fast. Only by holding fossil fuel companies accountable and demanding urgent climate action can we secure a liveable future for generations to come – because the cost of inaction is far greater than the price of change.   

The post Why we need new laws to end coal, oil and gas – now   appeared first on Climate Home News.

The global target to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and water ecosystems by 2030 faces “huge” challenges, a top facilitator of UN biodiversity talks warned ahead of the COP16 summit starting next week in the Colombian city of Cali.

According to the UN’s biodiversity agency, only 29 countries – out of 196 – have so far submitted key updates to their national biodiversity plans, which are meant to include ways to reach the headline 2030 conservation goal agreed in 2022 in Montreal.

Chirra Achalender Reddy, chair of India’s National Biodiversity Authority and head of work on implementation at the UN biodiversity negotiations, said countries face a “humongous” challenge to meet the 30% by 2030 target – known as “30×30” – and need to formulate strong National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to get there.

UN approves carbon market safeguards to protect environment and human rights

“This is not just a walk in the park. The challenges that parties are facing are huge and complex,” Achalender Reddy told journalists at a briefing on Wednesday ahead of the COP16 summit.

“This is a very ambitious target when you take the 196 parties into consideration. Different countries have different circumstances, different capabilities and different priorities. The differences between parties makes this exercise very challenging,” he added.

A report published on Thursday by a consortium of nature NGOs and foundations estimates that only 8.3% of the world’s ocean has been designated as marine protected areas (MPAs). When accounting for the lack of enforcement and loopholes that still allow for overfishing and fossil fuel extraction, just 2.8% of the planet’s seas are likely to be effectively protected, it added.

The report warned that, at the current rate of progress, no more than 9.7% of the ocean will be protected by 2030.

In a foreword, John Kerry, former US secretary of state, and José María Figueres, former president of Costa Rica, urged governments to “act together with urgency” to meet the 30×30 target.

“Protecting and conserving at least 30% of the world’s ocean is vital to safeguard marine biodiversity and the billions of people who depend on it for their livelihoods and food security,” they wrote. “It is also essential to preserving the ocean’s ability to act as our greatest climate ally by absorbing billions of tonnes of carbon emissions every year.”

At COP15 in December 2022, countries adopted a landmark deal known as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which lays out a set of 23 targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, including the 30×30 goal.

Countries were tasked with setting national targets that are aligned with the global ones, as well as updating their NBSAPs with specific action plans on how to implement the GBF.

The plans are meant to make progress towards a range of GBF goals including restoring 30% of all degraded ecosystems, reducing subsidies that harm nature by at least $500 billion per year, raising $200 billion a year for nature protection, and disclosing biodiversity impacts from businesses.

Most governments missed an October deadline to submit their updated biodiversity plans, including megadiverse countries like COP16 host nation Colombia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia. Colombia’s vice-minister of environment, Mauricio Cabrera, said in a statement that the country will present its updated NBSAP on October 21, the first day of the summit.

More NBSAPs are expected to be announced at COP16, according to Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), who said the involvement of diverse government agencies in the plans was a positive outcome.

“This whole-of-government approach, bringing various ministries together, discussing amongst them and coming to agreement remains the strongest expression of political will and commitment,” Schomaker told reporters. “But it also takes more time.”

Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan

Nina Mikander, director of policy at Birdlife International, urged governments to commit at COP16 to deliver outstanding NBSAPs by the end of 2025. “Having a plan is just the first step to making sure that you’re able to progress on implementation,” she said.

In contrast, more countries have presented national targets, with 91 countries filing submissions, as reported by UN Biodiversity’s Schomaker.

“Parties have been focusing on national targets. Full NBSAPs take longer to prepare,” Achalender Reddy said. “The adoption of the NBSAP, when done right, involves a political process that culminates in the adoption at a high political level.”

Those biodiversity plans that have been presented to date vary in ambition, an analysis by WWF shows. While some countries addressed all of the commitments in the GBF, others did not.

Australia’s NBSAP, for example, has no action plan for implementation and avoids a commitment by developed countries to pledge financial support for conservation in developing countries, according to the WWF analysis.

New biodiversity plans should also recognise the “rights of indigenous peoples and other rights-holders”, said Achalender Reddy – which can often involve a long consultation process.

Biodiversity finance will likely influence the production of updated NBSAPs too, as developing countries face funding barriers in stepping up their efforts to protect nature, experts told Climate Home. Colombia, for example, has announced a $40-billion clean-energy transition investment plan that also aims to mobilise finance for forest restoration and sustainable use of ecosystems.

At the previous COP15, countries agreed to establish a biodiversity fund to support nature conservation, but it has so far received a scarce $200 million, and has faced hurdles to get up and running.

Despite the slow progress on finance and national plans, the UN’s biodiversity agency believes the GBF goals can be met.

“We really believe that through decisive action and by working together in solidarity, parties will be able to achieve the targets of the GBF by 2030,” Schomaker said. “Because they must achieve the targets of the GBF by 2030.”

(Reporting by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post COP16 confronts “huge” challenge of protecting 30% of world’s land and sea appeared first on Climate Home News.

Vikram Singh is senior principal for the Global South with energy think-tank RMI.

If you’d asked me a month ago who was deploying renewables faster – the Global South or the Global North – I would have thought it safe to say the Global North. But, in a new RMI report published this week, we dive into the data and find a different and surprising reality: the Global South is scaling solar and wind faster than the Global North – and Latin America, for example, is adopting these technologies faster than even China. 

Before going further, it’s helpful to set the scene. The Global South – which we define as Latin America, Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia – needs lots more energy, and it needs it fast. Per-capita energy demand in the Global South is only one-fifth of that in the Global North. Yet, on aggregate, the region has already become a net importer of fossil fuels.  

Australian renewables pioneer Adelaide bids to host COP31 climate summit

Given that it has very low fossil fuel reserves per capita, under a business-as-usual scenario, the economic burden and security risks of importing expensive and volatile fossil fuels would only rise. In stark contrast, these countries are rich in renewable resources, possessing 70% of the world’s renewable potential. 

Combine this energy need and political economy with the plummeting costs of clean technologies and rapid build-out of cheap, high-performing Chinese cleantech, and the motivation to move to new energy becomes clear. As we know, when incentives align, markets move. And cleantech is moving.  

The progress merits highlighting: In 2024, 87% of capital expenditure on electricity generation in the Global South is set to flow into clean energy projects, up from around a half a decade ago. The International Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates new solar and wind capacity in these regions to surge by 60% this year, reaching over 70 gigawatts. Over the past five years, solar and wind power generation has been growing at an average annual rate of 23%, now supplying 9% of electricity generation. 

In this new energy game, many Global South countries are showing their wealthy counterparts how it’s done. One-fifth of the Global South – from Brazil to Morocco, Bangladesh to Egypt, and Namibia to Vietnam – has already overtaken the Global North in terms of solar and wind adoption or electrification rates. 

Amid the constant push to break through the immediate barriers to change, it’s all too easy to overlook the historical significance of this shift. Clean technology offers the cheapest and fastest route to industrialization in history.  

The rapid growth of solar and wind energy will accelerate the growth in electricity supply, laying a foundation for faster economic development. Renewable energy frees up 40% of the Global South from spending over 4% of their annual GDP on fossil fuel imports.  

Affordable and clean energy can act as a magnet for global manufacturing, as industries gravitate toward cheap energy. And for the first time, countries can develop without imposing the enormous health and economic costs associated with air pollution. 

While the proof points of rapid change have never been greater, neither has the urgency. Change is happening fast, but it is not happening everywhere, nor is it happening fast enough to meet ambitious development or climate goals. 

As we approach COP29 in Baku, we must change three things to accelerate progress. First, the narrative: the cleantech revolution is not a burden to share; it is an extraordinary opportunity to boost energy access and economic growth. We are shifting from an expensive, inefficient, volatile, scarce, commodity-based fossil system to cheaper, cleaner, leaner technologies that offer continuously falling costs and are available everywhere. 

To capture renewable energy gains, Africa must invest in battery storage

Second, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and domestic policy more broadly need to reflect this new economic reality. They can serve as credible investment plans that signal ambition and clarify financial needs. As we highlight in the report, more policy ambition brings more inward capital. In 2024, climate policy is industrial competitiveness policy.   

Third, we must lower the cost and boost the volume of investments in the Global South. Strong policy is critical but insufficient – especially for lower-income nations. The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2024, estimates that around two-fifths of emerging market investments needed for net zero are commercial, half need strong public and private partnerships, and 6% need to be financed publicly, requiring a tripling of energy-related concessional finance by 2030.  

That is why Mission 2025 – the global coalition of real economy leaders – formally asks development banks and developed country governments to help power up emerging economies at COP29 by massively scaling finance to achieve the global goal to triple renewables by 2030, particularly in lower-income countries.  

The time is now to bring forward the advent of a richer, cleaner and more equal world.  

The post The Global South is surging ahead in the renewables revolution  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Olivia Carballo is managing director in the emerging market alternative credit team at Ninety One. 

In rural locations across Africa, renewable energy infrastructure such as hydroelectric dams, wind turbines and solar panels have been developed at impressive speed over the last ten years.  

However, despite an increase in renewables production, the energy is unable to benefit communities and businesses plugged into national grids due to the lack of battery storage systems.  

Powering Nigerian developers’ laptops, fuelling Ugandan taxi drivers’ electric boda bodas, or refrigerating Senegalese researchers’ vaccines will require tremendous amounts of power supply. But the benefits of renewables will only be realised if the right infrastructure is in place.  

The financing of utility-scale battery storage systems, which remains a nascent technology in Africa, is key to ensuring that African countries secure reliable access to electricity, enabling communities to benefit from new infrastructure projects coming online.  

Historically, funding for Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) has been a challenge due to the high cost of the technology. But recent advancements in battery technology efficiency signal a shift towards more affordable solutions. 

The price of lithium-ion batteries, which reached a record low of $139/kWh in 2023, is set to drop further to $80/kWh by 2030, according to research firm BloombergNEF. This offers a cost-effective solution for sparsely populated areas such as rural West Africa. 

Simultaneously, pumped hydro storage – which consists of two water reservoirs at different elevations that generate power as water moves between them – presents a unique opportunity in regions like Central Africa. 

Despite solar surge, world off track for COP28 renewable energy target

Countries such as Cameroon, whose pumped-storage potential is estimated at 34 GWh, can leverage hydropower for base generation while retaining the flexibility to integrate wind and solar energy into the mix. 

Another emerging innovation to increase BESS uptake is the development of battery-as-a-service (BaaS) business models, which aim to motivate residential, commercial and industrial consumers to invest in battery storage technology through a leasing model, reducing upfront costs.  

This creates opportunities for electricity transmission and distribution companies to upgrade dilapidated infrastructure with BESS technology, ensuring that energy is evenly distributed to the grid while minimising capital expenditure.  

Beyond meeting local and regional energy needs, battery storage has the potential to stimulate the growth of a strategic new industrial sector in Africa. The continent holds at least one-fifth of the world’s reserves in a dozen minerals that are critical for the energy transition, including the lithium used for electric vehicle batteries and grid-scale storage.  

Strengthening local supply chains and manufacturing could position Africa as a global leader in battery technology, adding value to its raw materials through battery component production for global markets.  

Golomoti’s 10MWh BESS facility – the first of its kind in sub-Saharan Africa outside South Africa – being delivered in Dedza, Malawi. (Photo: PIDG/ InfraCo)

Several African countries have shown recent interest in addressing the lack of storage capacity by joining the BESS Consortium at COP28, led by the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (GEAPP), in partnership with development banks including the AfDB, Africa50 and the World Bank.  

Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria and Togo are among a group of first-mover countries committed to deploying 5GW of energy storage technology globally by 2027. 

But governments cannot act alone and will be unable to achieve these ambitious targets without tapping into international pools of capital.  

Last year, the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund (EAIF), a Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG) company managed by Ninety One, a global investment manager, invested $19 million in a 19MW solar PV and 7 MWh energy storage plant in Mozambique.   

Parts of the country experience frequent and prolonged electricity outages, which constrains economic productivity and limits people’s ability to earn a living. Our funding commitments are strengthening energy storage capacity in the country’s remote Niassa region, improving access to stable power supply and catalysing more investment in local renewable energy projects.  

InfraCo Africa, a PIDG company, also partnered with JCM Power to co-develop the 20MWAC Golomoti Solar plant in Malawi. The $8-million project includes a 10MWh battery storage system – the first of its kind in sub-Saharan Africa outside South Africa. By stabilising the grid, Golomoti Solar reduces the country’s reliance on costly diesel generators and hydro power, which has been disrupted by rainfall fluctuations.  

Progress on structure for new global climate finance goal but trickier divides persist

These projects provide critical battery storage facilities in countries that are often overlooked by international investors, addressing challenges raised by the intermittency of renewable power generation to enhance the resilience and stability of electrical grids in frontier markets.  

BESS is essential to unlock Africa’s renewable energy potential. With its wealth of raw materials and growing interest in manufacturing capacity, the continent is primed to become a global leader in the battery storage value chain.  

However, despite this potential, the sector remains underdeveloped. Investors, governments and development partners must urgently come together to ensure Africa captures the full benefits of its renewable resources, both for domestic development and as a crucial player in the global energy transition. 

Ninety One is a large third-party investor in private and public credit, equities and sovereign debt across emerging markets. The Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund (EAIF) is managed by and fully integrated into Ninety One’s African private credit investment platform. Ninety One manages the entire process on behalf of the EAIF. It markets the fund, seeks projects, evaluates loan applications, including due diligence, manages transaction administration and monitors the loan portfolio. 

The post To capture renewable energy gains, Africa must invest in battery storage appeared first on Climate Home News.

The state government of South Australia has launched a bid for the city of Adelaide to host the COP31 climate summit in late 2026, showcasing the region’s prowess in clean energy.

The government set out its case on Monday, saying the state is a pioneer in renewables, hydrogen and battery storage, and also has sufficient accommodation for more than 30,000 visitors. Welcoming delegates to the Adelaide Convention Centre would deliver local economic benefits of more than A$500 million (US$336m), it added.

State premier Peter Malinauskas said in a statement: “South Australia is already a world leader in renewable energy and decarbonisation and hosting COP31 would firmly put our state on the global map.”

The Australian government wants to co-host COP31 – expected to be held in November 2026 – with at least one Pacific Island nation. Turkiye also wants to host the summit and both will compete to convince members of their United Nations regional group – which includes Western Europe, North America and New Zealand – to back their bid at COP29 next month.

The Guardian reported that South Australia’s interest was welcomed by the Australian government, which also said it was working with Turkiye “to find a mutually beneficial resolution” on hosting the COP.

If the Australia and Pacific bid is successful, the co-hosts will then decide where to hold the annual UN climate talks. Malinauskas said, in comments reported by the Guardian, that major conferences are usually held in Australia’s two biggest cities – Sydney and Melbourne.

“Because of what we’ve been doing here in South Australia we now have an opportunity to say no to Sydney and Melbourne, and instead allow the federal government to choose Adelaide to host what will be one of the largest international conferences this nation has ever seen,” he said.

South Australia currently gets 75% of its energy from renewable sources, according to the state government – and is aiming for net 100% renewables by 2027, one of the most ambitious targets in the world.

The “net” aspect of the target means that some non-renewable energy may be used at certain times but the state will generate or purchase enough renewable electricity to cover all its consumption. South Australia exports a lot of renewable electricity to neighbouring Victoria.

With such a high proportion of variable renewable electricity, the state government is investing in innovative ways to balance the grid – matching demand and supply of electricity.

UN approves carbon market safeguards to protect environment and human rights

For example, US company Tesla has built a battery there called the Hornsdale Power Reserve, which the state government says is the world’s largest battery. It will take in and store renewable electricity when there is an over-supply and release it when needed.

The state government, meanwhile, is investing nearly A$600m (US$400m) in a facility combining one of the world’s biggest hydrogen electrolysers and one of the only hydrogen-fired power plants.

When there is excess renewable electricity supply, the surplus power will be used to turn water into hydrogen using an electrolyser, and when electricity generation falls short of demand, the hydrogen will be burned in a power plant.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling; video by Fanis Kollias)

The post Australian renewables pioneer Adelaide bids to host COP31 climate summit appeared first on Climate Home News.

The world is not yet doing enough to meet a goal to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 despite “record” growth last year, the first official review of the global commitment made at the COP28 climate summit has warned.

Current national plans and targets would deliver only half of the required growth in renewable power by the end of the decade, according to an assessment by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released on Friday.

Except for solar power, planned capacity additions for all other renewable technologies are below the level required to meet the target of tripling renewables to 11.2 terawatts by the end of this decade. Without improvement, they would fall 34% short of that goal.

The world needs onshore wind to triple and offshore wind and geothermal to rise by six and almost 35 times respectively compared to their 2023 capacity, IRENA said.

“The grave reality is that the energy transition on current ambition is not on track and we are risking missing our goals,” said IRENA Director-General Francesco La Camera, launching the report on the sidelines of the Pre-COP meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan.

At COP28 in Dubai last year, nearly 200 countries committed to tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency by 2030 – in addition to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” in energy systems – in an effort to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

A “record” 473 gigawatts of renewable power capacity was added globally in 2023, but the growth rate remains insufficient and needs to climb to 16.4% a year to meet the 2030 target, IRENA’s report said.

Progress on structure for new global climate finance goal but trickier divides persist

The agency added that annual investments in renewables are just over a third of the $1.5 trillion needed each year until 2030, despite reaching a record high of $570 billion in 2023. It also highlighted that money is not flowing into all regions equally, with 84% of renewable capacity investments last year concentrated in China, the EU and the US alone.

“While the opportunity for smarter, greener growth has never been greater, unfortunately some parts of the world are missing out,” wrote COP28 President Sultan Al-Jaber in a foreword to the report. “Finance needs to be more available, accessible and affordable,” he added.

Countries are expected to agree at COP29 in November on a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) for finance to help fund climate action in developing countries, but deep divisions persist on key issues with only one month to go until the start of the summit in Baku.

The outcome of the climate finance negotiations will likely impact the level of ambition on things like rolling out renewables which developing countries will commit to in their updated climate action plans (NDCs) due to be submitted by February 2025.

IRENA said in its report that the new NDCs must more than double existing renewable energy targets and better align with national energy plans to attract more investment from the private sector.

The agency also urged countries to fix barriers and bottlenecks slowing down progress, including overcoming inadequate infrastructure, fiscal policies and permitting delays.

UN approves carbon market safeguards to protect environment and human rights

Countries have also made little progress in boosting energy efficiency, which remained largely unchanged at an improvement rate of 2% last year. The rate needs to double to at least 4% annually through 2030 in order to meet the COP28 target, IRENA said.

Meeting that goal requires urgent actions and increasing electrification across all sectors, including personal and freight transport, buildings and industry, the report added.

“The next NDCs must mark a turning point and bring the world back on track,” said La Camera.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Despite solar surge, world off track for COP28 renewable energy target appeared first on Climate Home News.

The UN’s new carbon market will have a compulsory mechanism that aims to prevent developers of carbon credit projects from breaching human rights or causing environmental damage with their activities – a first for the UN climate process.

Developers of projects under the UN’s new Article 6.4 carbon crediting system will be required to identify and address potential negative environmental and social impacts as part of a detailed risk assessment under new rules adopted by technical experts in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Thursday.

Developers will also be asked to set out how their activities contribute to sustainable development goals like ending poverty or improving health, alongside their primary objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Maria AlJishi, chair of the Supervisory Body in charge of setting the rules, said in a statement that “these new mandatory safeguards are a significant step towards ensuring that the UN carbon market we are building contributes to sustainable development without harming people or the environment”.

The risk reduction measures introduced by the so-called “Sustainable Development Tool” represent an attempt to grapple with widespread concerns over the harm caused by some carbon credit projects around the world.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – the previous UN carbon market set up to help richer countries meet their emissions-cutting pledges – was dogged by accusations of social and environmental abuses linked to its registered projects. They included, for example, toxic pollution from a waste-to-energy facility in India, forced relocations due to infrastructure like a hydropower dam in Panama, and villagers in Uganda being denied access to land they used to grow food as a result of a tree-planting project.

Junk offset sellers push to enter new UN carbon market

The CDM had only a less-rigorous voluntary safeguarding mechanism that was heavily criticised by civil society.

The approval of the new Sustainable Development Tool this week marks the end of a two-year process to agree on the rules, which will work alongside an appeals and grievance procedure rubber-stamped earlier this year.

Kristin Qui, a Supervisory Body member closely involved in developing the tool, told Climate Home it had been “very challenging” to get it right. “Everyone wanted to find the right balance between making sure the tool can be used while at the same time being as stringent as possible,” she added.

Under the new rules, project developers will have to fill out an extensive questionnaire designed to assess the risk their activities could pose in 11 areas, including land and water, human rights, health, gender equality and Indigenous Peoples.

They will have to describe how they are planning to avoid any negative impacts or, if that is not possible, the measures they are taking to reduce them, as well as procedures to monitor their implementation.

External auditors will review the risk assessment, check that local communities have been properly consulted and evaluate the appropriateness of the actions proposed by the developers. The rules will apply to both new projects developed under Article 6.4 and to over a thousand more that are seeking to transfer into the new market from the CDM.

Chinese wind farms are among the most prevalent CDM projects seeking transition. Photo: Asian Development Bank

Isa Mulder, a policy expert at Carbon Market Watch (CMW) and a close observer of Article 6 negotiations, said the tool “should go a long way in upholding rights and protecting people and the environment”.

She added there is still room for improvement on certain provisions and said the mechanism will need to be used as intended for it to be effective, but called it “a really good start”.

The Supervisory Body will review and update the safeguarding tool every 18 months, striving to improve it based on feedback from those involved.

Japan backs fossil fuels in Southeast Asian “zero emission” initiative

In addition to the risk assessment, the mechanism will require project developers to assess the potential impacts of their activities on country efforts to meet the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the UN in 2015 and due to be met this decade.

Qui said the tool will make project developers reflect more closely on how they can share benefits with local communities.

“It poses the question of how the project is actually going to contribute to sustainable development in addition to simply avoiding harm and encourages a high level of engagement with Indigenous populations from the get-go,” she added.

The approval of the Sustainable Development Tool is seen as an important stepping stone towards achieving the full operationalisation of the Article 6 carbon market at COP29 in November – one of the main priorities for the incoming Azerbaijani presidency of the talks.

CMW’s Mulder said the tool’s adoption was “very significant”, as having a human rights protection package in place was “probably a prerequisite” for many countries to even consider approving other carbon market measures at COP.

After extended and heated discussions stretching into the early morning on Thursday, the Supervisory Body also agreed on guidance for the development of carbon-credit methodologies and carbon removal activities aimed at ensuring that emission reductions claimed by projects are credible.

These key building blocks for the establishment of the Article 6.4 carbon crediting mechanism proved an insurmountable hurdle at the last two annual climate summits where government negotiators rejected previous iterations of the documents.

That prompted the Supervisory Body to take a different route in Baku this week by directly approving those documents as “standards” instead of simply presenting its recommendations for diplomats to fight over at COP.

Jonathan Crook, a policy expert at CMW, interpreted the move as “a risky take-it-or-leave it strategy” to avoid intensive negotiations. “I think this approach aims to ensure the texts won’t be reopened at COP29 for line-by-line edits,” he said.

Progress on structure for new global climate finance goal but trickier divides persist

Climate Home understands that governments will still have the option of rejecting the body’s “standards” wholesale or directing it to make further changes.

Supervisory Body chair AlJishi said in written comments that “the adoption of these standards marks a major step forward in enabling a robust, agile carbon market that can continue to evolve”.

But a fellow member of the body, Olga Gassan-zade, voiced concerns over the process. “Personally I have huge reservations against creating a UN mechanism that can effectively evade the UN governance,” she wrote in a LinkedIn post, “but it didn’t feel like the SBM [Supervisory Body Mechanism] as a whole was willing to risk not adopting the CMA recommendations for a third year in a row.”

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post UN approves carbon market safeguards to protect environment and human rights appeared first on Climate Home News.

Mukhtar Babayev is the COP29 President-Designate and Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources.

This week, the COP29 Presidency of Azerbaijan is hosting a series of crunch climate negotiations in Baku across both technical and political tracks of the UN talks. These discussions represent a pivotal moment in the lead-up to the COP29 summit – which is itself a litmus test for the global fight against climate change.  

The urgency of the moment is clear. In the first six months after COP28, extreme weather caused $41 billion of damage. Property and economic losses from Hurricane Helene in the US alone may now reach as high as $250 billion. The cost of inaction is rising rapidly, underscoring the need for decisive action. 

Accelerating the interplay between the technical and political tracks of the UN climate negotiations is critical because technical progress informs political decisions, while political will enables technical breakthroughs. 

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; }

/* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.

We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

The “Pre-COP” week began with progress on the technical work needed to agree on and establish Article 6 at COP29, the basis for implementing effective carbon markets, which could provide up to $250 billion of annual efficiency savings by 2030 in the identification and rollout of climate mitigation projects.  

On the political front, the COP29 Presidency has appointed ministerial and high-level pairs across key areas including the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance, Article 6, adaptation, mitigation, and transparency. The High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on the NCQG and political engagements around this week’s meeting serve as crucial junctures where technical expertise and political will converge. 

The NCQG remains the top negotiating priority for the COP29 Presidency. It is essential for enabling climate action, particularly for developing nations, and must address both the urgency and scale of the problem. Transparency is equally crucial, aligning with the commitments made in the Paris Agreement.

There are encouraging signs of growing convergence on several critical issues. These glimmers of hope must be nurtured and expanded upon. The pursuit of an ideal climate finance goal should not prevent agreement on a goal that everyone can own and implement.

Progress on structure for new global climate finance goal but trickier divides persist

As we approach COP29, it is essential to elevate political engagement to the highest levels. Climate change touches every aspect of governance and society. Therefore, all relevant government ministries must be involved, from finance and energy to agriculture and health.  

Moreover, heads of state and government must be fully engaged and committed to this process. This is essential for climate ministers to secure the mandates they need for the breakthroughs they must deliver. 

Central to all discussions is how to take further the outcome of the First Global Stocktake of climate action agreed upon at COP28. This includes making swift progress across all pillars of climate action.

We need to work together to deliver fair and ambitious climate finance first and foremost. We also need to build resilience swiftly and reduce emissions at pace to keep the 1.5C global warming goal within reach. This includes contributing to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, as governments agreed to do at COP28 last year.

Though we have varying starting points, national circumstances and approaches, real change starts locally and with us, by devoting to climate action as a common commitment. Every contribution counts.  

The COP29 Presidency is leading the way and actively working on Azerbaijan’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) in line with the 1.5C goal, and we are grateful to be joined in this commitment by our Troika partners from the UAE and Brazil. 

The COP29 Presidency is also focusing on turning pledges into concrete actions. There is an urgent need for signed contributor agreements for the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage, as well as significantly greater contributions to all funds, including the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund. 

The timely submission of NDCs, National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) will be essential to enhancing ambition across all pillars of the Paris Agreement. 

Why we need to keep climate COPs inclusive

In the coming days, the COP29 Presidency will publish the program for Presidency-led and hosted events at COP29, as well as the final versions of the COP29 declarations. These will provide further opportunities for engagement and action outside the formal negotiations. 

The world is watching, and history will judge us on the outcomes. Azerbaijan will do everything in its power to play its role as a bridge between nations. But governments are the ones who must walk across that bridge.  

Success or failure at COP29 will be collective – and we must all offer the best of ourselves to meet this monumental challenge. 

As we engage in these crucial talks, all parties must consider how they can move closer together. Because together, we can pave the way for a successful COP29 where we enhance ambition and enable action. We can invest today to save tomorrow. 

The post How the world can set itself up for success at COP29  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Governments have made progress on how a new global climate finance goal should be structured – but big gaps remain on who should pay out and how large the goal should be, negotiators chairing United Nations talks said on Wednesday.

Ministers gathered in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku to discuss a new post-2025 goal for finance to help developing countries tackle climate change. A deal is due to be reached by the end of the COP29 climate summit in Baku in late November.

At the start of Wednesday’s talks, Azerbaijan’s COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev said he had seen “positive signs that there may be growing convergence on the structure of the goal”.

Zaheer Fakir, a negotiator co-chairing the UN talks on the goal, added that “parties remain apart on some of the core issues” but “substantial progress has been made” on how the goal is structured.

The other co-chair, Australian Fiona Gilbert, said “many agree” that the goal should include both the provision of public climate finance to developing countries and the mobilisation of private finance – either as a single number or as two separate numbers.

Some governments, Gilbert said, want the smaller public finance – or “core” – goal to be complemented by an additional broader goal consisting of either total investment flows to developing countries or global investment flows for climate action in all countries.

Some countries, she said, want more specific sub-goals – for example, that a certain amount of money should go towards helping developing countries adapt to more extreme weather and rising seas.

The structure of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will not be conclusively agreed until all aspects of the goal are settled at COP29 – and some resistance remains to this proposed structure. China’s negotiator today called it “overly complex”, and criticised its reliance on the private sector.

Developed and developing countries also remain split on the size of the goal and which countries should contribute.

Developing countries said on Wednesday the goal should be large enough to help meet their climate action needs and have proposed figures of between one and two trillion dollars a year.

But wealthy nations have not proposed any figures, other than saying – as already specified in the Paris Agreement – that it should be at least as large as the previous goal of $100 billion a year, which they only met two years after the target year of 2020.

Why we need to keep climate COPs inclusive

US climate envoy John Podesta said in Baku that the “inner layer” of the target, meaning the public finance element, should be “ambitious and stretch parties as the $100 billion goal did- but it also has to be realistically achievable”.

He said the overall amount of finance required would be “well above $1 trillion”, adding that this should include “the outer layer” of the goal, which would consist of private, philanthropic and domestic finance provided in all countries, as well as international public finance.

Switzerland’s negotiator said “ambition does not only refer to a number – ambition also means that a goal is achievable if we collectively try our best to get there and to that end, we have to take political and economic realities into account.”

He added that an “unrealistic” goal “makes it much harder to convince finance ministries, development agencies and other actors to make all the efforts to contribute a maximum to achieve it” and warned that a failure to achieve the goal would risk breaking trust in the UN climate system.

New study blows hole in “transition fuel” claim of fossil gas backers

On the other hand, the Philippines’ negotiator said the NCQG should be at least $1.3 trillion and “must be significantly supported by public finance”. “Only in this manner can we fill in the glaring financing gaps in climate action and address the challenges that disproportionately affect us,” she added.

China’s negotiator said that developed countries “must state the quantum they are willing to put on the table”.

The United Nations climate convention (UNFCCC) currently groups countries into two broad camps: developed countries that are obliged to provide climate finance and developing countries that are entitled to receive it.

Developed nations like the US, UK, Japan and EU member states argue that this classification – drawn up in 1992 – is out of date as the global economy has shifted. Some developing countries like Saudi Arabia and China have become much wealthier and emit far more greenhouse gases than back then, they note.

Japan’s negotiator said an ambitious NCQG “is not achievable by the official financial resources of developed countries only”.

Switzerland’s negotiator said it would help developed countries’ environment and climate ministers to convince their finance ministries and parliaments to contribute more if they could say “we have all hands on deck – everyone’s contributing”.

Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance

But no developing countries expressed support for efforts to expand the official pool of climate finance contributors and several, particularly those targeted, expressed strong opposition to it.

China’s negotiator said: “We need to stick to what we have already agreed”, adding that “any attempts to change the rules or increase the obligations on developing countries is not in line with” the Paris Agreement or the UNFCCC.

Statements by the Arab Group and Singapore agreed with China that the list of government contributors should not be expanded.

Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan tried to reassure those nations, saying that “this is not about changing the status of any country” under the UN climate system and “one can be contributing and receiving at the same time”.

Brazil’s National Secretary for Climate Change Ana Toni noted that Article 9 of the Paris Agreement already states that developed countries “shall” provide climate finance, encourages developing countries to do the same “voluntarily”, and obliges developed countries to “take the lead in mobilising climate finance”. “There we have three layers already set up for us,” she said.

Commenting on the ministerial meeting in Baku, Teresa Anderson, ActionAid International’s global lead on climate justice, said talk by developed countries of a “multilayered approach” to climate finance “is code for their efforts to count loans and private investments towards the new climate finance goal”.

“If they could, rich countries would probably like to count the sun, the moon, and grandpa’s old socks as climate finance too,” she added in a statement, calling on them instead to provide “trillions of dollars in much-needed grants”.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Progress on structure for new global climate finance goal but trickier divides persist appeared first on Climate Home News.

Manuel Pulgar-Vidal is WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Lead, former Minister of Environment for Peru and COP20 President.

As we approach the latest UN climate summit, COP29, we find ourselves once more demanding faster progress, greater ambition and redoubled commitments from governments to meet the urgency of the climate crisis. We also, once more, face calls for the COP process to be reformed and participation curtailed.  

These calls are partly a response to COP28, held in Dubai last year, which was attended by 83,884 people – indeed an exception. More delegates means, for example, that negotiating rooms are fuller, compromising participation for some who are deeply engaged in the process. The growing pressure to reform COPs is also partly an expression of frustration with the process and with slow advances over many years on solving the world’s most pressing environmental crisis. 

But suggestions that COPs should become more exclusive, or less frequent, or that negotiations should be separated from civil society participation, are misguided. It is essential that the COPs continue to be transparent and inclusive, especially for Global South governments and civil society, if they are to build the broad-based support we need to transition to a net-zero world. 

Each COP – or Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to give the full title – is, as the name suggests, an intergovernmental negotiation. However, the COPs have evolved over time to become much more than that, reflecting the perspectives and needs of a much wider range of stakeholders. 

As COP Troika dithers on 1.5C-aligned climate plans, experts set the bar high

An important development in that direction took place almost 10 years ago, at COP20 in Lima, where I served as COP president. There, we launched the Lima-Paris Action Agenda, to bring non-state actors – cities, business, NGOs, Indigenous communities – into the COP process. It allowed them to organise, define targets and actions, and create campaigns within the formal machinery of the COP. 

This Action Agenda has given non-state actors a role – alongside the UNFCCC Secretariat and the Climate Champions appointed by COP host countries – in supporting the climate ambition of governments. It has spawned initiatives such as the Race to Zero, Race to Resilience and the Sharm-El-Sheikh Adaptation Agenda. 

I see the COPs as operating in five ‘rings’ – which are concentric, influence each other, but allow different constituencies to operate and make their voices heard. 

The innermost ring is the most important: the negotiations themselves. This is the forum in which decisions are made, in the context of mandates set by preceding COPs. For COP29, these include the New Collective Quantified Goal for finance, the Global Goal for Adaptation, implementation of the UAE Consensus, and the new cycle of national climate plans (or Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs). These processes must be transparent and accountable to the global public. 

The second ring is formed of the high-level thematic events, organised by the presidency of each COP. These events – such as those on health, fresh water, and climate and nature held in Dubai – take place outside the negotiations, but can help initiate processes that inform future negotiations and create political momentum.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; }

/* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.

We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

The third ring comprises the Action Agenda, as discussed above. The fourth ring is often dismissed as a mere trade fair, but the pavilions at COP provide a place for business, NGOs, Indigenous Peoples, academia and other stakeholders to meet, share ideas and create new partnerships. New ideas and concepts are launched, contested, and sink or swim – which can have a profound impact on global debates throughout the year and all over the world.   

Finally, the fifth ring is that of bilateral and plurilateral relations between key state actors, which is a vital connective point to advance decision-making on key climate issues. 

These five rings depend on the participation of many thousands of people. Making the process more efficient by reducing participation of key actors will undermine the collective nature of the climate negotiations.  

This is a multilateral process in which every voice, not just those of governments, must be heard, through a bottom-up, democratic set of interlinked discussions at many levels. We recognize the need for balanced and equitable participation – especially from the Global South – and the need to limit the influence of fossil fuel and other corporate lobbies aimed at inhibiting rapid progress towards climate goals. But neither of these necessarily means less people overall participating in COPs – although there can be logistical difficulties in managing large conferences. 

Peak COP? UN looks to shrink Baku and Belém climate summits

The annual climate summits must also be as accessible as possible, including to participants from least-developed countries and marginalised communities, who may not have the resources to readily travel to the talks. Host governments have a role to play, whether by financially supporting participation from those who can least afford it, or by capping the costs that hotels and service providers charge delegates. Some recent COPs have been characterised by rampant profiteering and price–gouging, with hotels dramatically increasing their rates to take advantage of delegates. 

Some critics of the COP process have blamed the high numbers of attendees for slow progress in the process. That blame is misdirected. The real culprits are governments around the world that have not set ambitious targets or are not doing enough to reach the targets they have committed to – and the entrenched polluting interests that undermine political will and commitments to strong climate action.  

Proposals for reducing participation at COPs are a distraction from the main task at hand: finding mechanisms that make NDCs more ambitious, and targets within them more enforceable. Without that, we will not have a multilateral process that is equal to the climate emergency that we face, no matter how many people are in the room. 

The post Why we need to keep climate COPs inclusive  appeared first on Climate Home News.

For Europe and China, importing fossil gas from the United States to burn for power is worse for the climate than using local coal, because it produces about a third more emissions, a new study in Energy Science and Engineering has found.

While previous studies have relied on gas companies’ claims about how polluting their facilities are, the study by Cornell University’s Robert Howarth used independent measurements. His research concluded that planet-heating emissions from producing US gas are far higher than previously thought.

The findings undermine claims made by the gas industry, and some analysts and politicians in the US and elsewhere, that American exports of gas – in a liquid form known as LNG – can help decarbonise the rest of the world, serving as a “transition fuel” while countries shift to clean energy.

Howarth wrote in the study that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority”. “I see no need for LNG as an interim energy source, and note that switching from coal to LNG requires massive infrastructure expenditures, for ships and liquefaction plants and the pipelines that supply them,” he said.

“A far better approach is to use financial resources to build a fossil-fuel-free future as rapidly as possible,” he added.

Some politicians and fossil gas producers have argued that gas can serve as a “transitional” or “bridge fuel” between coal and renewables. This approach rests on the fact that burning coal is more polluting for the climate than burning gas.

While Howarth confirmed this, he found that the carbon dioxide and methane emissions generated by extracting gas from shale, turning it into a liquid, shipping it across the world and turning it back into gas more than cancel out this benefit over coal.

The emissions from producing and transporting gas – not from burning it – are about three times as high as those for producing coal. This is because, whereas gravity keeps solids like coal on the ground, gas leaks into the atmosphere unless contained. What the industry has labelled “natural gas” is methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the short term.

Images from satellites and special cameras show that gas regularly leaks from all steps of its journey from the ground to the power plant – from facilities like oil and gas wells, pipelines, ships, compressor stations and underground storage.

On top of this, for gas to be transported by ship, it has to be turned into liquid. This process is known as liquefaction and requires a lot of energy, which is usually produced by burning gas, worsening climate warming. The ships that transport the LNG around the world burn polluting fuel and also leak some of the gas they carry into the atmosphere.

In the US, shale gas has become a political hot topic over the last few years. US gas production has nearly doubled since 2010 and US gas producers want to build a series of LNG terminals to export it to Europe and Asia.

But in January 2024, influenced by Howarth’s earlier research, President Joe Biden announced a “temporary pause” on approvals of LNG exports to some countries. The administration’s announcement cited “an evolving understanding” of LNG and the “perilous impacts of methane on our planet”.

While climate campaigners celebrated, the gas industry and Republican politicians pushed back, with some making a climate case for gas as less polluting than other fossil fuels.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Shaylyn Hynes, spokeswoman for the project owner of the Calcasieu Pass 2 LNG terminal – which was affected by the pause – told the Washington Post that “well-funded environmental activists” are “completely out of touch with reality” and “are actually advocating for restricting access to a cleaner form of energy”.

Emily McClain, from the consultancy Rystad Energy, made a similar argument, claiming that “gas can absolutely displace coal in the medium term and long term, bringing carbon emissions down”. Hynes and Rystad did not respond to requests for comments for this article.

Sixteen Republican-controlled US states challenged the export pause and a federal judge, who was appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump, blocked it in July.

While Biden has made some moves to put the brakes on gas development, the administrations of both Trump and former Democratic President Barack Obama promoted gas. In 2014, while in the White House, Obama said that “if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.”

In Europe, some politicians have promoted LNG import terminals in an effort to diversify gas supplies away from Russia. In January, the Eurogas trade association claimed that US LNG would help with the energy transition as well as energy security.

In February 2022, the European Commission endorsed gas as a “transition” fuel under its sustainable finance taxonomy, in a move climate campaigners called “the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time”.

Elsewhere, Japan has promoted LNG in Southeast Asia as part of a green “zero emission” initiative and, at last year’s COP28 climate summit in Dubai, Russia persuaded governments to endorse “transitional fuels”, a move one Caribbean negotiator called a “dangerous loophole”.

(Reporting by Joe Lo, editing by Megan Rowling and Matteo Civillini)

The post New study blows hole in “transition fuel” claim of fossil gas backers appeared first on Climate Home News.

Fernanda Ballesteros leads the Natural Resource Governance Institute’s work in Mexico and is part of the organization’s energy transition coordination group. 

Last week, Claudia Sheinbaum started her six-year term as Mexico’s president. Among great expectations for change, many are puzzling over how she might honour her background as a climate scientist while also upholding the legacy of her predecessor and ally Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

His administration doubled down on fossil fuel production and unconditionally picked up the tab for Pemex – Mexico’s national oil company – despite its debts exceeding $100 billion dollars, about 6% of Mexico’s Gross Domestic Product.

 In her inauguration speech to Congress on Tuesday, Sheinbaum said: “National consumption will continue to be the fundamental objective of Pemex’s oil production, limited to production of 1.8 million barrels per day. We will promote energy efficiency and the transition to renewable energy sources to meet the growth in energy demand.” Can she and Mexico have their cake and eat it too?   

Sheinbaum has pledged to make Mexico a global leader in the fight against climate change and a champion of the energy transition. But her green ambitions are possibly at odds with some of her election promises.

Japan backs fossil fuels in Southeast Asian “zero emission” initiative

One of them was making Mexico self-sufficient in gasoline, which would require major investments in Pemex’s refining capacity. To date, this has not been a fruitful pursuit: Pemex’s Deer Park and Olmeca refineries represent over 90% of Pemex infrastructure spending from 2019 to 2024, and it is uncertain when Olmeca will begin to operate at full capacity.

Considering that Pemex is the world’s most indebted national oil company and that its financial woes are well known among investors and the Mexican public, Sheinbaum and her officials must explain as soon as possible their plans and demonstrate that they are viable. Justified scepticism abounds.   

In her favour, Sheinbaum has appointed an energy team including experts with a strong track-record of public service and good knowledge of the sector, such as the new energy minister and the CEOs of Pemex and the electricity commission.  Here are three steps she and her team should take now to ensure that Mexico improves its fiscal health and embarks on a meaningful energy transition.   

 According to our analysis, Pemex ranks 11th among the 58 national oil companies in terms of financial risk from oil and gas assets that will lose value as the world transitions away from fossil fuels.

We found that approximately $10 billion in Pemex’s production assets would not break even under the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario.  Pemex must recognise this risk, come up with a solid plan to mitigate it, and publish it widely.  

 Production has been dropping progressively since 2010 while also becoming more and more costly. Pemex has not been meeting its emission reduction targets and this is costing the company dearly in terms of access to finance and investor confidence.   

 Diversifying Pemex’s business can be a solution. But how and where to diversify must be technically and financially viable. For example, if Pemex eyes petrochemicals as an option, it must consider that only 12% of current hydrocarbons demand goes to this sector and many companies are already pursuing it.   

 Despite a decline in overall production, emissions continue to rise significantly: 58% from 2012 to 2016 and 51% from 2018 to 2022. These spikes correlate with sharp rises in direct methane emissions, which tripled from 2012 to 2016 and nearly doubled from 2018 to 2022. 

 Recent analysis from the Natural Resources Governance Institute (NRGI) suggests that accountability and governance are critical to achieve methane reductions. But the agencies that regulate Pemex have not had enough power to rein in the company. The new Government must empower the energy regulators to stand up to Pemex, have sufficient autonomy, capacity and budget to enforce the rules.  

While her non-specific aspirations for a greener future seemed to resonate with voters, now that she is in office Sheinbaum must take a much more tactical and detailed position.

To achieve her climate and energy objectives, Sheinbaum will have to devise a credible and actionable strategy that phases out fossil fuels in Mexico, in a way that responds to the climate agenda and prioritizes the public purse.

Her plan must have Pemex at its core and address the company’s dire financial situation. She must also assign clear roles and responsibilities for Pemex and for the electricity commission, so their actions advance the energy transition based on a coordinated, integrated vision.   

Civil society organizations have been working on proposals to achieve a just energy transition that addresses national challenges. Through the México Resiliente coalition, of which NRGI is part, more than 30 organizations have developed the National Plan for Decarbonization and Climate Resilience 2024-2030, with specific recommendations for the new government. We hope Sheinbaum will take these on board and release Mexico from its dependency on its sputtering state oil company and fossil fuels.   

Pemex extracts 95% of the oil and gas in the country and 64% of Mexico’s emissions are tied to the energy sector. The bottom line for Sheinbaum’s climate ambitions is what happens at Pemex.  

The post Mexico’s new president must reform national oil company Pemex appeared first on Climate Home News.

During his three-year tenure as Japan’s prime minister, Fumio Kishida created the Asia Zero Emission Community (AZEC) to, in his words, “help Asia decarbonise together”.

But a year and a half after AZEC was formally launched, a new report by the international research organization Zero Carbon Analytics shows that one-third of agreements between Japan and AZEC member countries promote or prolong fossil fuels.

Of the 158 projects financed by Japan under this initiative, 56 include fossil fuel technologies such as natural gas, co-firing ammonia with fossil fuel in power plants, hydrogen produced with fossil fuels, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and e-fuels.

A report by Zero Carbon Analytics shows the projects signed under the AZEC initiative leave renewable energy on the sidelines and favour technologies that promote or prolong fossil fuels. (Photo: Zero Carbon Analytics)

The alleged climate benefits of these technologies are hotly disputed. While some studies have claimed gas is a less polluting fossil fuel than the coal used for electricity in much of Southeast Asia, a study published last week suggested that it can actually be more polluting, especially when it is imported across the sea in a liquid form called LNG.

Ammonia co-firing involves burning ammonia alongside coal in coal-fired power plants. While this reduces the amount of coal burned, critics note that the plants still burn mostly coal and that the co-firing can encourage governments to allow the coal-fired power plant to keep operating longer. Similarly, carbon capture and storage technology traps just some of a power plant’s emissions and can encourage the authorities to keep the plant open longer.

Ammonia, hydrogen and e-fuels are all fuels that can be made in more polluting ways using fossil fuels or cleaner ways with renewable electricity.

Louisiana communities are suffering from Japan-funded LNG exports

AZEC was launched in 2023 to advance climate co-operation in Asia, with Japan playing a central role. Kishida likened it to an Asian version of the European Coal and Steel Community – a predecessor to the European Union. Members include most countries in Southeast Asia and Australia.

But Japan’s fossil fuel investments – particularly gas projects – through AZEC are inconsistent with its pledge to stop overseas financing for unabated fossil fuels, experts told Climate Home News.

At their 2022 meeting in Berlin, G7 leaders all agreed to “end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil-fuel energy sector by the end of 2022, except in limited circumstances clearly defined by each country that are consistent with a 1.5 °C warming limit and the goals of the Paris Agreement”.

Amy Kong, author of the report on AZEC, said: “Relying on these technologies is a slower and more expensive path to decarbonisation for the region, and risks derailing national power-sector emissions targets set out in the International Energy Agency’s 2050 net zero scenario.”

Shigeru Ishiba, Japan’s recently appointed prime minister, has suggested the country will prioritise regional cooperation and has argued in favour of renewable energy. However, there is still little information on the future of AZEC under his new government.

Japan’s goal with the AZEC initiative was to invest public funds from its climate transition bonds to “create a huge new decarbonisation market in Asia”, former PM Kishida said during the community’s launch.

Through AZEC, member countries could apply for Japanese funding for energy projects. More than 150 projects have been approved between the Japanese government or government-backed institutions and their AZEC counterparts, the Zero Carbon Analytics report shows.

Initial investments were administered via a host of Japanese government-backed institutions, including the environment and the trade ministries. Many of Japan’s private-sector firms have also partnered with these public entities. 

But according to Zero Carbon Analytics’ analysis, over one-third of those MOUs will promote fossil fuels or technologies that prolong the use of fossil fuels. This threatens to lock in coal and gas investments that may be difficult to reverse, the report says.

On the other hand, 54 MOUs signed under AZEC include renewables and electrification technologies, about a third of the total. These include solar PV power, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, battery storage, electric vehicles, green hydrogen and ammonia, and waste management. But of these 54 agreements, only 11 include wind and solar.

UAE’s ALTÉRRA invests in fund backing fossil gas despite “climate solutions” pledge

Non-governmental organizations across Asia have raised concerns that AZEC primarily promotes fossil-based technologies. 

Ayumi Fukakusa, deputy executive director of Friends of the Earth Japan, told Climate Home that technologies like CCS, ammonia and biomass co-firing, and LNG  “only delay climate actions and prolong the life of fossil fuel infrastructure”. She added that “AZEC will further lock in Asian partners in massive emissions and doesn’t support real decarbonization”.

Hanna Hakko, a senior associate with the E3G think-tank who specializes in Japanese policy, argued that Japan’s AZEC initiative would “serve the region far better by enabling the growth of renewable energy”, which would make countries more energy independent and contribute to long-term emissions reductions.

Wicaksono Gitawan, an energy transition associate and project manager at Indonesian nonprofit CERAH, called AZEC a form of “green colonialism.”

Japan’s push for ammonia co-firing has also been criticized by other governments, most prominently by Canadian, UK, and German ministers during the 2023 G7 meeting. 

Japan has signed by far the most deals with the region’s most populous nation Indonesia, followed by Thailand and Malaysia. Historically, Japan has been the top source of infrastructure investment in Southeast Asia and spearheaded the creation of an Asian LNG market in the 1960s.

Japan’s government-backed financial institutions, such as the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, invested $93 billion in overseas oil and gas projects between 2013 and 2023. About $42 billion of that was in fossil fuel projects in Asia, while just $9 billion was spent on clean energy over the same period.

Campaigners say the long-term financial benefits of AZEC are questionable. Fukakusa from Friends of the Earth Japan said “most of the support made by the Japanese government in the past, especially for energy projects, is through loans,” which risk adding pressure on already debt-burdened economies in Southeast Asia.

According to a Wood Mackenzie analysis, the cost of electricity from utility-scale solar PV in Asia declined significantly over the last few years, while the costs of coal and gas generation increased. In 2023, renewables were 13% cheaper than conventional coal in Asia and are expected to be 32% cheaper by 2030.

(Reporting by Walter James, editing by Sebastian Rodriguez and Joe Lo)

The post Japan backs fossil fuels in Southeast Asian “zero emission” initiative appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nicole Polsterer is sustainable production and consumption campaigner at forests and rights NGO Fern. 

The rumours were swirling for months, but when the news broke on October 2, it came abruptly and without warning. 

Just a week earlier, the European Commission insisted that it had no plans to delay implementing the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the so-called ‘jewel’ in its flagship Green Deal, which aims to transform the EU into a low-carbon economy.  

But at lunchtime on Tuesday, it made a sharp volte face, proposing a one-year delay to the application of the law, which was supposed to happen at the end of December, claiming the need to support companies and countries to better prepare for it.  

The announcement prompted justified outrage, as well as fears that this marks a weakening of the EU’s resolve to confront the supreme challenge of our age: protecting nature and the climate. 

The first law of its kind in the world, the EUDR was approved to great fanfare and on the back of a huge democratic mandate in June 2023.  

It aims to address the biggest driver of deforestation on the planet: clearing land for agricultural production. Under the law, companies wanting access to the EU market must prove that products made from cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee and rubber are deforestation-free. 

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; }

/* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.

We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

But the praise that greeted the law was replaced in recent months by a sometimes-ferocious backlash, strongly countered by the companies and countries that have already invested time and money to be ready for the December 30 deadline.  

Those standing up for the EUDR include many of those who would be deeply affected, including the world’s biggest cocoa producers Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, major chocolate companies (Ferrero, Mars Wrigley, Mondelēz International and Nestlé), as well as Indigenous groups and NGOs from around the globe, who see the law’s potential not just to end destructive forest-clearing, but to help safeguard Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ territorial rights. 

In the end, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen caved in to industry and political pressure and opted to delay the law’s implementation. Some of the ramifications of her decision are strikingly obvious. Others will become clearer over time. 

One obvious consequence is for the world’s forests. 

 As the investigative NGO Earthsight points out, a 12-month delay will mean, based on the EU’s own studies, that an estimated 2,300 km2 of forest will be destroyed – an area nearly the size of Luxembourg. For every minute the law is delayed, another football pitch-sized amount of forest will be cleared, producing in a year emissions equivalent to those from 18 million cars. 

Guyana’s carbon-credit deal to protect forests undermines its forest protectors 

It’s also clear that many of those who pushed for this delay want to water down or abandon the EUDR altogether. They will be determined to use the Commission’s proposal as an opportunity to achieve this. They must not be allowed to succeed.  

But the EU must accept that it is also to blame for the delay. 

First, the Commission failed to release needed guidelines in due time. Companies’ answers to their questions on how to comply were late and unclear, creating anxiety and offering an opportunity for opponents to double-down on their criticisms. 

Secondly, as the Commission implicitly recognised in its statement announcing the delay, the EU has also failed to seriously work with those countries that will be most deeply affected by the law. 

Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan 

For the EUDR to succeed, the EU must fundamentally change its approach, acknowledge the regulation’s impact on its trading partners and intensify efforts to support them to comply with it. 

Working hand in glove with these countries must also mean working with local forest communities and civil society groups, as well as addressing the specific needs of small-scale farmers to ensure that companies don’t squeeze them out of their supply chains because of the law’s requirements. 

EU member states and the European Parliament must vote against delaying this pioneering and desperately needed law – and stand firm against those hellbent on exploiting the uncertainty which now surrounds it. With wildfires raging in the drought-stricken Amazon, and in other South American countries, the stakes could not be higher. 

The post Delay to EU deforestation law must not lead to dilution appeared first on Climate Home News.

Civil servants from New Zealand’s foreign and trade ministry have advised politicians that reversing a ban on offshore oil and gas exploration could harm the country’s international reputation and relationships, anger Pacific nations and risk lawsuits over climate change.

In 2018, the country’s then centre-left prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, effectively banned fresh efforts to look for fossil fuels offshore. But the new right-wing government led by Christopher Luxon – a former CEO of Air New Zealand – introduced legislation to reverse the ban last week, allowing just four working days for consultation and aiming to pass it by the end of this year.

In official advice, which the government accidentally published despite attempting to keep secret, the ministry warned that the move “risks being seen as running counter to the Pacific regional and global consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels”.

It goes on to cite the global agreement made at the COP28 UN climate summit last December calling on governments “to contribute” to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”.

Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance

Saudi Arabia’s energy minister has downplayed the significance of this COP28 decision by calling it an “à la carte menu” of “choices”. But New Zealand-based Oil Change International campaigner David Tong said the advice from New Zealand’s civil servants shows the importance of the deal struck in Dubai.

“It provides an unambiguous example of experienced climate diplomats warning political decision-makers that domestic decisions to backslide on moves away from fossil fuels will lead to diplomatic backlash,” he told Climate Home.

The document, called a “regulatory impact statement”, was overseen by a business ministry official but features input from other departments. The section featuring the foreign and trade ministry’s advice was supposed to be redacted but the government accidentally tabled an unredacted version to parliament.

A previously redacted section suggests that, in particular, the potential reaction of New Zealand’s “Pacific Island partners” to a reopening of oil and gas exploration is important for the government. It points out that the COP28 agreement “drew heavily” from the outcome of the 2023 Pacific Island Forum leaders meeting.

Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, told Climate Home that the previous New Zealand government’s decision to ban new offshore gas exploration was “courageous” and “strongly supported by the Pacific”.

Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan

She added that “any moves to restart offshore exploration would be out of line with the commitment we made in Dubai”. “We would have to question if New Zealand were truly committed to the safety and security of the Marshall Islands and all our brothers and sisters in the Pacific,” she added, referring to the threat faced by small island states of rising sea levels from global warming caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.

Pacific nations have also criticised the Australian government’s recent decision to approve the expansion of three coal mines. Tuvalu’s climate minister Maina Talia recently told the Guardian newspaper that this was “immoral and unacceptable”.

Australia is hoping to co-host the COP31 climate summit in 2026 with at least one Pacific nation – but Turkiye also wants to host that summit.

In a section marked “legally privileged”, the statement highlighted two legal risks that would stem from reversing the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration.

It noted foreign and trade ministry officials’ assessment that such a move “could be perceived” as New Zealand not intending to meet its official United Nations climate plan, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution.

“This gives rise to international legal risk,” the document says, adding that “there have been attempts globally to take novel cases against States under international law, for breach of their climate change obligations”. “While these legal risks are low at this time, as is the risk of challenge, this is an active area of international litigation,” it continued.

Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”

Governments are increasingly being sued – in both national and international courts – over their perceived lack of climate action.

In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland had breached its citizens’ human rights by not doing enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a conclusion the Swiss government disputes.

In response to a campaign led by the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, the International Court of Justice is preparing an advisory opinion on states’ legal obligations on climate change and human rights, and the consequences of causing harm.

In September 2022, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia’s failure to protect Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders from rising seas and extreme weather, because of its inadequate action on climate change, violated their human rights.

Nikki Reisch, director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s climate and energy programme, told Climate Home that lifting New Zealand’s fossil fuel exploration ban would be “ripe for legal challenge”.

“It’s likely to be challenged as contrary to the state’s climate obligations – both domestic and international – as well as its duties under human rights and constitutional laws to protect the right to life and other rights,” she said.

The foreign ministry also advised that lifting the ban on fossil fuel exploration would “likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand’s free trade agreements (FTA) not to reduce environmental protections for the purposes of encouraging trade or investment”.

New Zealand’s agreements with the European Union (EU) and the UK contain these kind of provisions. But the officials advised that the “risk of legal challenge” on this was “likely to be low”.

The civil servants’ advice was published on May 15, 2024. Tong said the risk of lawsuits had increased since then.

The EU has proposed Dan Jørgensen – a former Danish climate minister and convenor of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – as its new energy commissioner, Tong noted. “He is likely to take a dim view of New Zealand forcing the Alliance to kick the country out,” he said.

Tong added that the UK’s new left-wing Labour government, which came into power in July, has pledged to end new offshore oil exploration. “Failure to implement the COP28 outcomes could spark trade risks under existing free trade agreements,” he said.

(Reporting by Joe Lo, editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Civil servants warn fossil fuel exploration could harm New Zealand’s climate reputation appeared first on Climate Home News.

Mario Hastings is a community leader and former Toshao of Kako Village in Upper Mazaruni, Guyana. 

The Essequibo region of Guyana where I live lies at the heart of Guyana’s economic expansion – it’s one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Essequibo is also the home of many of Guyana’s Indigenous communities, and we are under siege from all sides.  

To the north, there is oil drilling off the coast. To the west, the Venezuelan army threatens to invade as the government covets Essequibo’s natural riches. To the south, fires rage as Brazilian farmers clear the borderlands of rainforest. And in the east, the Guyanese government has traded the rights to the intact forests of the Essequibo for global carbon offsets as well as for gold-mine concessions – often on the same lands – even though many Indigenous communities live in these territories. 

Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan

The Indigenous communities of Guyana, similar to Indigenous communities around the globe, live in the space between economic development and cultural conflict. And that is only when our existence is acknowledged. My village, for example, is not located on any “official” maps even though we have lived on these lands for many generations.

But our continued existence must be a priority to ensure the success of climate solutions linked to our forests. 

Guyana’s forests are valued because so many of the 18 million hectares of woodlands within the country’s borders remain undisturbed. Our trees are exceptional for their timber, our soil is rich, and in many places, the mineral wealth underground is unimaginable. And yet, the trees are still standing because of the ways in which we Indigenous Peoples have sustained them and how we live in relation to these forests. No one else cares for these territories in the same way. 

As we have kept our territories intact for generations, Indigenous lands, like the Essequibo region, include a large percentage of forests, sheltering much of the world’s biodiversity and absorbing large quantities of carbon. But carbon credit transactions that ignore Indigenous land rights sabotage the traditional governance systems and our relationship to nature that has kept the forests so valuable. 

There have been two rounds of carbon credit sales in Guyana, with payments from international bodies making their way through the government and a few other middlemen until reaching the group of Toshaos (community leaders) who have agreed to the government’s uncompromising terms. The cost of this compliance, however, has been far too steep. 

Guyanese community leader Mario Hastings (Photo: Kamikia Kisedje / Nia Tero)

We still do not have access to the carbon credit scheme agreement that the government has signed – even for those communities that the government does recognize. All of us are kept in the dark. 

The international organization that authorizes this carbon credit scheme, the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART), has rejected a formal complaint made by the Amerindian Peoples Association  about this lack of transparency. And yet, our lands have been given out without our consent and without resolving the issues surrounding the titles to our customary territories.  

From where we stand, it does not matter if the land grab is for the gold in the ground – where removing it threatens the trees and rivers – or for the carbon in the trees, which must remain standing. We should be allowed to share our opinions and participate in the decision-making. Instead, we are told that the carbon in the trees on our lands does not belong to our people, it belongs to the state. 

We have complained that the carbon credit scheme fails to provide an adequate process for validating the carbon, and it does not define who has rights to profit off of the carbon. The scheme’s standards do not adhere to ART’s environment and social safeguards. And our communities’ right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has been repeatedly ignored. 

Some of the communities were told they could submit sustainability plans, for how they would continue to care for the forests, and in return they would receive payments to subsidize that work and their way of life. But, in doing so, the communities were not surrendering their rights, especially their land rights that the government doesn’t recognize in the first place. 

Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”

Typical of places with a wealth of natural resources that have yet to be exploited, Essequibo is rarely in the lens of global media coverage. Outside interests operate with less restraint when they feel that no one is watching. And so, with the carbon credit markets, Indigenous rights are rarely respected, and no one notices. 

If we want to stave off the worst of climate change, however, we need tropical forests to remain upright and to do that, governments need to respect Indigenous rights over our lands and the biodiversity, forests and carbon that we protect. We want to be of service through the stewardship of our territories – and all humanity can benefit. 

Climate Home contacted ART about the complaint made by the Amerindian Peoples Association over Guyana’s carbon credit programme. ART responded as follows:

The Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART) is a global carbon crediting program that certifies high-integrity emission reductions and removals from protecting and restoring forests at scale. ART operates at a jurisdictional scale to align with Paris Agreement requirements for REDD+ and ensures social integrity by directly aligning with the UN-defined Cancún Safeguards.

Following an initial complaint submitted in March 2023 by the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA), a thorough review was conducted, which included stakeholder interviews and a close examination of the validation and verification process, determining that ART’s processes had been followed. Subsequently, on October 27, 2023, the ART Secretariat dismissed an appeal made by APA, due to the APA’s failure to comply with procedural requirements. A summary of the Appeal Record, as well as all Appeal Record Documents, are available on the ART website.

The post Guyana’s carbon-credit deal to protect forests undermines its forest protectors  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Since its head office opened in Johannesburg 16 years ago, the African arm of environmental campaign group Greenpeace has made a name for itself, battling governments and corporations to defend forests, protect oceans and tackle climate change. It was an organisation staff said they were proud to work for.

But an internal restructuring – which Greenpeace Africa’s board asked newly-appointed executive director Oulie Keita to implement in June 2023 – has left management fighting affected employees as well as the planet’s foes. 

Climate Home spoke to former staff and has seen leaked documents, meeting recordings and email correspondence that expose the disarray caused by the drive by Greenpeace Africa’s management to lay off around 40 people – about half of its total staff – at three of its five offices, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Africa and Senegal. The organisation cited financial and security reasons in justifying the job cuts. 

Some ex-employees interviewed by Climate Home, however, expressed doubt about those motives, saying they felt unfairly targeted for dismissal. They also criticised the new management’s approach to interaction with African governments, as well as Greenpeace Africa’s stance on LGBT+ rights and trade union representation.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

In a written response to those grievances, Climate Home was told that Greenpeace Africa “values the rights and voices of our employees and fosters an inclusive and collaborative work environment”. “Our policies align with the legal requirements in each country,” it added.

As one of the highest-profile environmental organisations on the African continent, Greenpeace has an ambitious vision to bring about “an Africa where people live in harmony with nature in a peaceful state of environmental and social justice”. The internal turmoil uncovered by Climate Home raises questions about its ability to meet that goal.

The terms of reference for a three-month operational review of the organisation, which was due to start in August 2023, cited a need for cultural change as a key reason for the restructuring. It said collaborative processes intended to boost productivity and accountability had failed, slowing down the delivery of a 2022-2025 strategic plan.

As COP Troika dithers on 1.5C-aligned climate plans, experts set the bar high

That four-year strategy “aimed to transform Greenpeace Africa, to be a viable organisation working on campaigns delivering systemic impacts in Africa, with an operating model that is fit for purpose and responsive to the challenges facing the continent”, the document added.

It also showed that Greenpeace Africa wanted to ensure it had enough of a presence in richer African nations to improve fundraising – an argument that was later used by management as a justification for downsizing offices in poorer nations like DRC.

Greenpeace told Climate Home this shift was “part of a broader effort to ensure that Greenpeace Africa remains financially sustainable. This approach strengthens our capacity to promote environmental justice in all regions, including those with fewer resources.” 

Following the shake-up, Climate Home understands that more than 10 former employees have launched legal action against Greenpeace Africa in labour courts in South Africa and Senegal, alleging unfair treatment by the organisation. Greenpeace Africa did not respond to questions on the cases, which are ongoing. 

It said, however, that its 2023-2024 restructuring was conducted “with the utmost care”, and “in accordance with all relevant labour laws in each of our countries and ethical guidelines”.

On March 1, 2023, the Greenpeace Africa board announced that, after a series of interim bosses, Mali-born development expert Keita had been appointed as executive director. 

In a statement, it said she would “lead the implementation of the organisation’s new strategy which, grounded in African consciousness, seeks to dismantle systems which have historically served only to benefit the colonial powers, still plundering Africa for its resources”.

Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”

Then board chair Oury Traoré, a fellow Malian who resigned this year, said in the statement that it was “critical to build a movement led by women and youth”. As a woman joining from the United Nations youth platform YouthConnekt Africa, Keita seemed well-placed to do that.

Staff were initially pleased with Keita’s appointment as executive director, which ended the long hunt for a permanent leader. “We were very excited,” said one then staff member in Senegal. “We had the sense that the organisation would become more stable.”

But that did not happen. Just a week later, an email landed in the inbox of Greenpeace Africa’s people and culture director Paul Ngugi and its then lead campaigner on climate and energy Melita Steele, flagging earlier support by Keita for Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

Sent by the head of Greenpeace Africa’s Congo rainforest campaign at the time, and signed on behalf of “the Congo Basin team”, the email raised “serious concerns” about Keita’s appointment, due to her alleged “very high admiration of Paul Kagame and her public communication to praise and admire him”.

The email, seen by Climate Home, included 15 posts by Keita on X (formerly Twitter), sent between November 2020 and October 2022. They praised Kagame’s “exemplary leadership”, calling him a “visionary”, “rare jewel” and “my Favourite President in the world”. Keita said she had moved to Rwanda “because of the admiration and respect I have for this man!”

A post on Oulie Keita’s X account on November 14, 2020 (Screenshot)

Commenting on this, the email from the Congo Basin team said that having a leader of Greenpeace Africa with that kind of admiration for Kagame was a serious problem for them and their work. 

The United Nations has accused the military forces of Rwanda, governed by Kagame since 2000, of sending 4,000 troops to invade parts of neighbouring DRC and of backing Congolese rebel group M23. The violence has displaced millions of people in the DRC, which is home to large swathes of the world’s second-largest rainforest – a huge carbon store whose protection is regarded as vital to curbing global warming.

The email noted that the Congo Basin team had been preparing a statement on the DRC conflict for Greenpeace Africa’s leadership to endorse, “as for us our organisation’s silence on this conflict is no longer acceptable”. It added that the DRC office now believed “our new ED [Keita] would never accept such a statement”.

A mourning ceremony for the victims of the DRC conflict took place in the city of Goma on September 2, 2024. (Photo: Arlette Bashizi/Reuters)

The email led to frantic activity at the top of Greenpeace Africa. The organisation’s engagement director brought forward training on social media use and prepared what she called a “risk mitigation comms plan for this particular concern”. 

On March 16, 2023, Greenpeace Africa’s then head of communication, Johannesburg-based Mbong Akiy Fokwa Tsafack, sent an email to staff on the subject of “the smear campaign” against the new executive director.

Greenpeace Africa, it said, wanted “to express its ultimate concern and disgust at the onslaught”. It accused unnamed people of using a “colonial approach, of divide and rule, taking advantage of the fragile political situation in the DRC to drive their agenda” and to “resist the transformation that is required to bring credibility to the presence of Greenpeace in Africa”. 

UN climate chief warns of “two-speed” global energy transition

Shortly afterwards, Keita herself sent a conciliatory email with no reference to Tsafack’s message. Keita said she had “heard with distress, yet with solidarity, the cries of the staff in the DRC who are rightfully disturbed about tweets on my social media handle”.

The posts, she noted, were made while she led YouthConnekt, which was chaired by Rwanda. “Cheering, supporting and celebrating the political will of these African leaders towards investing in the youth of Africa, including the main Champion the President of Rwanda as the co-initiator of this continental initiative was a big part of the job,” she wrote.

Keita added that she had “no personal political affiliations with any African countries”, thanked colleagues for raising “valid” concerns, and appealed for unity “to build the Africa we all want to live in”.

Keita did not respond to a request for comment for this article. Greenpeace Africa’s website states that the organisation “does not take sides in conflicts and wars on the African continent”, in line with Greenpeace’s global policy on peace. 

About seven months later, in October, Greenpeace Africa’s finance director, South African Gerhard Combrink, held a video call with the DRC office to tell staff there that management had decided “to close down” their office and centralise activities for the Congo Basin in Cameroon.

The announcement seemed to come as a surprise to those attending, many of whom criticised the decision. Combrink said the Greenpeace Africa board had “consulted widely with Greenpeace International and with other [national or regional offices], especially Belgium”, the DRC’s former colonial ruler. But staff in the DRC said on the call they had not been included.

The then lead for the Congo Basin team said that, as three-fifths of the Congo rainforest is in the DRC, losing the office there would be a “historical error” and would damage the organisation’s credibility globally. 

The forest – and its central role in keeping climate change in check – is threatened by government-backed efforts to drill for oil and by industrial logging.

“It’s like closing an office in Brazil, and you say you’ll be campaigning from somewhere else to try to save the Amazon forest. It doesn’t work,” the team lead said. “Closing it will send a signal to many other African countries saying that no, this Greenpeace is not an organisation that we can count on,” she warned.

Environmental activists, with a banner co-signed by Greenpeace Africa, protest in Kinshasa, DRC, on November 29, 2019. (Photo: Hereward Holland/Reuters)

Combrink said one “fundamental” reason for the decision was “the security issues we face and our inability to openly confront the government without placing our staff at risk”. He noted that the organisation had evacuated staff to safeguard them against threats. The campaigner, who did not respond to Climate Home’s request for comment, replied that these evacuations had only been “preventive” and no DRC employees had been arrested.

Combrink said another reason for shutting the DRC office was that, due to the war in Ukraine, funding from Germany – a key source of income for Greenpeace Africa – was drying up. He said that “the [Greenpeace Africa] board is adamant that if we do have activities, it is necessary that we focus on fundraising within those countries”, adding it was not possible to “substantially” raise funds in the DRC, one of Africa’s poorest countries.

In the terms of reference seeking an external consultant to conduct the review – to be hired in August 2023 and reporting to Combrink and Keita – Greenpeace Africa stipulated that its future footprint should “reflect adequate presence in countries affluent enough to raise income for the rest of the organisation”. 

In its earlier June 2023 letter to Keita, mandating her to carry out the restructuring, the Greenpeace Africa board had noted that Greenpeace’s global revenue was decreasing against inflation, with the war in Ukraine negatively affecting its donor base and leading to a reduction in grants to regional offices including Africa.

It said staff alone accounted for almost two-thirds of Greenpeace Africa’s total annual projected costs, leaving it “poorly equipped to reduce its expenditure in the short term when its income streams diminish”.

“Given the large fixed overhead costs required to maintain a formal office within a country, it is crucial that we utilize current grant income streams to grow within geographical areas that can provide future donor income streams,” it added.

Several months later, on the call with DRC staff, Combrink said the review had identified Ghana, Nigeria and Mauritius as good targets for expansion, adding that fundraising in Kenya had “started to pick up”.

Responding to his comments, Greenpeace’s then Congo Basin lead argued that, while decisions on where to locate offices should be based on more than finances, DRC was “getting a lot of money compared to other offices”, particularly for its campaign to save the country’s huge rainforest.

A PhD student measures the circumference of a tree in a forest reserve near the village of Masako in the DRC on August 8, 2012. (Photo: Ollivier Girard/CIFOR)

In spite of the subsequent restructuring, which led to most of the DRC office staff leaving, Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home its operations in the country had not ceased and had been strengthened in 2024. 

During its latest mission to the DRC in August, to engage with “key stakeholders”, including the government, Greenpeace Africa said the Hydrocarbons Minister confirmed his government’s commitment to remove oil concessions overlapping protected forest areas, including in the Virunga National Park, and invited Greenpeace Africa to help identify the areas threatened by the concessions.

“Such political dialogue provides us a platform to campaign to achieve positive outcomes for the environment and the people in Africa,” Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home by email.

It added that the board’s decision to conduct a “geographic footprint” exercise to consider fundraising potential across the continent also supported this objective – and was not a threat to its activities in poorer countries like DRC.

“This approach does not diminish – in fact it strengthens – our capacity to promote environmental justice in all regions, including those with fewer financial resources,” it told Climate Home.

As part of the broader restructuring of the organisation, further job cuts were announced at Greenpeace Africa’s offices in Senegal and South Africa.

Sources who worked at Greenpeace South Africa at that time said unionised staff members were affected by the retrenchment.

A document put together by trade union members, seen by Climate Home, lists 34 union members in Greenpeace Africa’s head office in Johannesburg. Of these, ten were in the fundraising department which trade union sources said was excluded from the restructuring.

Of the remaining 24, 15 were deemed “not suitable” for their positions and were laid off, as were several non-union staff, out of an overall headcount of around 50 employees.

Chart: Climate Home News

A legal document seen by Climate Home, dated May 2024, shows that lawyers acting for affected union members filed a case against Greenpeace Africa with the Labour Court of South Africa in Johannesburg alleging unfair dismissal and failure to follow due process.

It said court-ordered efforts at consultation between the employees and Greenpeace Africa had not resulted in any agreed selection criteria for retrenchment, but their contracts were terminated nonetheless. The case is pending and if not resolved in arbitration, will be heard by the court. Greenpeace did not comment on the proceedings.

Sources also raised questions about whether new staff, brought in after the restructuring, were permitted to unionise in the workplace.

A Greenpeace Africa employment contract from the end of 2023, seen by Climate Home, asked a potential employee in South Africa to “acknowledge that Greenpeace Africa is a non-unionised employer due to the nature of its operations, being a Non-Governmental not-for-profit institution relying on external grants for its survival”.

It requested that the employee “acknowledge that any [trade union] recognition agreement signed before 1 January 2024 is deemed cancelled and should a recognition agreement be required under local labour law, a new agreement will need to be signed in line with Greenpeace Africa’s new policies”.

Senegalese banker Ibrahima Cheikh Diong picked to lead new loss and damage fund

It is not known whether this is a standard clause in employment contracts for Greenpeace Africa staff. The organisation did not respond directly to Climate Home’s questions on this issue, or provide information on its unionisation policy, as requested.

In Senegal too, Climate Home understands that three former staff members have taken Greenpeace Africa to the local labour court. They are seeking damages and a declaration that their dismissals were unfair after they were accused of financial irregularities and other misdemeanours – which they deny. Greenpeace Africa declined to comment on the case, which is at a pre-trial stage pending conciliation efforts.

While Greenpeace’s management have insisted the job losses across their African offices were necessary to keep the organisation financially sustainable, many former staff members told Climate Home the restructuring was used as a way to ram through the changes wanted by the board in the face of internal opposition.

“It’s just a way to kill [the influence of] some activists who do not agree with what they say,” said a former staffer in Senegal “They want people who are very docile.”

Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it recognised that “some people may not be happy with the growing success of the new management”.

“We understand that organisational changes can be challenging, and we made sure that the change management process was carried out legally, fairly and transparently,” it added.

During the restructuring period, Greenpeace Africa management also took issue with staff members’ criticism of its approach to LGBT+ rights.

In June 2023, Greenpeace Africa debated internally how to mark Pride month and how to respond to the Ugandan government’s new Anti-Homosexuality Act.

Ugandan LGBTQ activists protest against their government in the South African city of Pretoria on March 31, 2023. (Photo: Alet Pretorius/Reuters)

Some LGBT+ employees criticised a plan to hold an all-staff meeting in Johannesburg to discuss these issues, where LGBT+ workers were going to be asked to share their experiences.

In a letter to Greenpeace Africa management, they said this would require them to out themselves and “identify us for further victimisation later”. 

Instead, they proposed that external experts on South African labour law, discrimination and gender sensitivity should be brought in to educate staff. 

They accused management of “a refusal to maintain professional standards” and of not following South African labour and equality law.

Their email elicited a strongly worded response from Greenpeace Africa governance officer Eugene Perumal, who wrote that they did not represent all of the organisation’s LGBT+ employees. He added that it was “disingenuous and disrespectful to insinuate that Greenpeace Africa Management paid no attention to this particular area”.

He then warned them: “You need to revise the disrespectful manner you engage with Greenpeace Africa senior management, the defamation, false statements and undermining are unacceptable behaviour patterns and [Senior Leadership Team] will take action accordingly.”

COP29 aims to boost battery storage and grids for renewables, as pledges proliferate

Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it had engaged external experts to provide LGBT+ education and support, and ensured that “all staff feel safe and respected during these discussions”. A training workshop in March on this issue “proved very successful”, it added.

The organisation, it said, is “firmly committed to promoting the principles of Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Safety (JEDIS) across all aspects of our work”, including by fostering and maintaining “a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment for all employees, including our LGBTQ+ colleagues”.

The organisational strife and contentious reforms inside Greenpeace Africa have been accompanied by a shift in external strategy, according to documents seen by Climate Home.

An internal report on Greenpeace Africa’s activities at the COP28 UN climate summit in Dubai last December, said that, during meetings, ministers from the Republic of Congo and Cameroon “expressed their strong displeasure with Greenpeace’s confrontational approach in trying to address the issues around climate change”.

A screenshot of Greenpeace Africa’s internal report on the COP28 climate summit

The report did not describe what they objected to, but said that Keita “reassured [the ministers] of a new approach of collaboration” and noted they “were willing to reset the relationship with [Greenpeace Africa] under the new leadership and map out areas of collaboration in the near future”.

This approach was criticised by former staff members. “It’s not the DNA of Greenpeace,” one said. “How can you be friendly with the government and it is killing people?” Another said, “it felt like we were being neutered.”

Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home that, under its current management, it “supports the building of a climate justice movement across Africa to hold the extractive industries and governments to account”. It had launched its first such movement in the DRC, Cameroon and Ghana, with plans to expand into the Republic of Congo and Nigeria in 2025, it added.

In addition, Greenpeace Africa pointed to its lobbying work against the oil industry and its impacts on the continent, as well as its advocacy calling for plastic waste to be cleaned up in Kenya, and more protection for oceans and the livelihoods of African fishing communities, among other campaigns. 

Despite the apparent turmoil experienced at Greenpeace Africa over the past 18 months, Climate Home understands that its parent organisation Greenpeace International has not intervened to help resolve the documented issues. Greenpeace did not respond directly when asked about this. 

Greenpeace Africa is one of 26 Greenpeace branches around the world, known as national/regional organisations or NROs. They all have some independence but are overseen by Greenpeace International, which is based in the Dutch city of Amsterdam. 

Nairobi-based development officer Yvonne Muyoti, who is in charge of monitoring Greenpeace Africa for Greenpeace International, was copied on the emails from Keita and Tsafack about DRC staff concerns over Rwanda.

Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it is an independent NRO guided by its board of directors but collaborates closely with Greenpeace International. “We value the support and oversight provided by Greenpeace International,” it said.

Some former staff members of Greenpeace Africa, however, are concerned that a lack of racial diversity in the upper levels of Greenpeace international – whose senior executives are mostly white and from rich countries – is preventing the global parent organisation from intervening in the African disarray. 

One black female former Greenpeace Africa staff member told Climate Home she believed Greenpeace International was reluctant to challenge Keita over her leadership style: “I think they are worried about how it will look – a Eurocentric organisation taking on a black woman.” 

Another former employee described Greenpeace Africa as his “baby”, but said those now in charge “don’t know the DNA of the organisation”. 

“People in Greenpeace have to be strong and be up against all the injustice they are facing in the organisation,” he said. “The fight must start inside before it goes outside.”​

_

Nairobi-based development officer Yvonne Muyoti, who is in charge of monitoring Greenpeace Africa for Greenpeace International, was copied on the emails from Keita and Tsafack about DRC staff concerns over Rwanda.

Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it is an independent NRO guided by its board of directors but collaborates closely with Greenpeace International. “We value the support and oversight provided by Greenpeace International,” it said.

Some former staff members of Greenpeace Africa, however, are concerned that a lack of racial diversity in the upper levels of Greenpeace International – whose top executives are mostly white and from rich countries – is preventing the global parent organisation from intervening in the African disarray.

One black female former Greenpeace Africa staff member told Climate Home she believed Greenpeace International was reluctant to challenge Keita over her leadership style: “I think they are worried about how it will look – a Eurocentric organisation taking on a black woman.”

Another former employee described Greenpeace Africa as his “baby”, but said those now in charge “don’t know the DNA of the organisation”.

“People in Greenpeace have to be strong and be up against all the injustice they are facing in the organisation,” he said. “The fight must start inside before it goes outside.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; fact-checking by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Megan Rowling, Sebastian Rodriguez and Matteo Civillini)

This story was updated shortly after publication to amend biographical details on Greenpeace Africa’s executive director Oulie Keita.

The post Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance appeared first on Climate Home News.

Colombia has launched a new $40-million investment plan for its energy transition, aiming to move away from oil and gas production, partly through pursuing green economic opportunities in sustainable tourism and nature restoration.

The South American country’s environment minister, Susana Muhamad, unveiled the plan last week in New York, saying it would mirror the donor-backed Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) agreed in recent years with South Africa, Vietnam, Indonesia and Senegal.

“We are on the way to consolidating a donor roundtable that will allow us to achieve an important financial package for the country,” Muhamad told journalists on the sidelines of New York Climate Week.

The Colombian government said in a statement that it has been in talks with the UK, Germany, Canada and the European Union – all of which are also key government funders of other JETPs – as potential backers, as well as the Inter-American Development Bank.

UN climate chief warns of “two-speed” global energy transition

Besides clean energy, the plan, which will mobilise a mix of private and public finance, will include funding for nature conservation, particularly seeking investment in ecotourism, sustainable agriculture and ecosystem restoration. Colombia is hosting the COP16 UN summit on nature protection at the end of this month – the first following a global pact to halt and reverse biodiversity loss agreed two years ago.

Colombia’s focus on nature in its energy transition plan is a new addition to the JETP model, said Andrés Goméz, head of Latin America campaigns at the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, an international nonprofit promoting the phase out of fossil fuels.

“Colombia, as a mega-diverse country, has the opportunity to create new productive economies around that biodiversity,” Goméz told Climate Home. “This proposal could be an example for other countries in the Amazon region.”

The South American country is one of the first large fossil fuel producers to pledge to wind down its oil and gas production. Last year, Colombia suspended licenses for new oil and gas exploration, which triggered domestic pushback.

Over half of Colombia’s export revenue comes from fossil fuels. The government of Gustavo Petro has prioritised reducing fiscal dependence on oil and gas, but this has scared off investors and provided fodder to his critics.

The multi-billion-dollar energy transition investment plan is poised to replace revenues from the fossil fuel industry with greener sources of income. But while some details have been made public, most of the plan is still unknown.

Colombia’s big green plans run into headwinds

The investment portfolio announced by minister Muhamad includes $4 billion for nature tourism, $3.5 billion for sustainable agriculture, $4 billion for climate change adaptation, $8.5 billion for ecosystem restoration and conservation, and $1 billion for institutional capacity.

The biggest chunk – $14.5 billion – will go to fund Colombia’s energy transition and expansion of renewables, which currently account for about a third of the country’s total energy supply and generate 75% of its electricity, according to the International Energy Agency.

In particular, the plan will also have to address Colombia’s coal industry – as the country is the largest producer of the polluting fuel in Latin America. Authorities will have to figure out what to do with retired coal-power plants and mining infrastructure, as well as including the coal sector’s workforce of more than 130,000 in the shift to clean energy, Gómez said.

One of the biggest challenges in implementing the proposal will be to avoid costly loans, Gómez said, as Colombia is already grappling with high debt levels. Instead, the government has suggested the use of other financial mechanisms such as debt swaps, he added.

Debt swaps for nature or climate involve creditors foregoing payments on loans with the proceeds instead being spent on environmental projects in the borrowing country. President Petro has mentioned them as a financial option to fund protection of the Amazon rainforest.

Green debt swaps, explained

The JETP process has so far been dogged by criticism that the partnerships mainly involve loans for energy transition – albeit usually on cheaper terms than the market. With Vietnam, for example, G7 countries offered a $15.5-billion investment package, of which only 2% of funds were grants, leaving the country reluctant to accept the offer.

Minister Muhamad said Colombia is still at the stage of raising funds and aims to announce new investments in its plan at the biodiversity COP16, taking place  in the city of Cali from October 21-November 1.

“Colombia is leading the discussion on how to make a very difficult transition – a truly just climate and energy transition. This is a fundamental step forward,” she said.

(Reporting by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan appeared first on Climate Home News.

A coalition of developed countries and corporations has agreed to a massive purchase of carbon credits from the Amazon rainforest worth $180 million, which has been described as the largest in history.

The LEAF coalition, an initiative launched in 2021 seeking to mobilise finance for forest protection, announced the agreement this week with the Brazilian state of Pará.

The state, which will host the COP30 climate summit next year in the city of Belém, last year recorded the highest Amazonian deforestation rate in the country. Around 170,000 sq. km, an area the size of Uruguay, was destroyed.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Announcing the carbon credit initiative in New York, Pará State Governor Helder Barbalho told international press that the deal – which allocates a portion of the funds to indigenous and local communities – is “extraordinary”.

“It will be the largest carbon credit sale in history,” Barbalho said in a statement. “We dream of making living forests valuable, turning what dead forests need into a reality where the forest gains value.”

Around 30 multinational corporations including Amazon, Bayer, BCG and H&M Group will purchase the credits from the project at $15 per tonne. The governments of the UK, US, Norway and South Korea will also back the deal with purchase guarantees, promising to buy a chunk of the credits at $15 per tonne if no private-sector buyer is found for them.

LEAF expects to generate around 12 million forest credits by reducing deforestation in Pará from 2023 to 2026. The coalition has already established smaller projects in Costa Rica and Ghana, which sold credits at a lower price of $10 per tonne.

“The LEAF approach represents the best, and perhaps last, chance to halt and reverse tropical deforestation by 2030, channelling billions in climate finance to the Global South,” said Eron Bloomgarden, CEO of Emergent, coordinator of the LEAF coalition.

The Canadian city betting on recycling rare earths for the energy transition

Ahead of climate finance talks at COP29 in Baku, developed countries have continued to highlight the role of private investment using approaches like that of the LEAF coalition as a way to move funds from Global North to South.

Bilateral purchases of carbon credits have also become more common, but the rules governing these agreements have yet to be finalised at the UN climate talks, with another push due at COP29 – leading to controversial deals.

If successful, the LEAF Pará initiative could become a “role model” for forest protection in the Amazon, but this will require evidence that it is changing the state’s emissions trajectory, said Mariana Oliveira, manager of the Forests, Land Use and Agriculture Program at WRI Brasil.

“Given the nature and structure of the transaction, it will be necessary to closely watch the interventions to be sure that there is a link between the revenue from carbon credits and the interventions,” Oliveira told Climate Home News.

Since 2020, Pará state – the second-largest in the Brazilian Amazon – has committed to an emissions reduction strategy aiming to restore around 5 million hectares of forests and achieving net-zero forest emissions by 2036. The state has also put in place a mandatory tracking system for all cattle and buffalo supply chains. After a slight rise in 2021, Pará’s deforestation fell in 2022 and 2023.

Senegalese banker Ibrahima Cheikh Diong picked to lead new loss and damage fund

While the state is already making efforts to combat deforestation, Oliveira said the information available on the LEAF deal suggests these efforts will be additional and with a separate source of funding – which are critical elements of high-integrity carbon credits.

“From now on, it is important for civil society to closely monitor how this program will develop, demanding real and effective participation from traditional peoples,” she added.

(Reporting by Sebastián Rodriquez; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history” appeared first on Climate Home News.

The three countries hosting the annual COP climate summits from 2023-2025 – known as “the Troika” – have again called on governments to submit stronger climate action plans that can keep the warming goals of the Paris Agreement “within reach”.

The United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan and Brazil this week in New York reiterated their promise to lead by example and produce by the end of this year nationally determined contributions (NDCs) aligned with the Paris pact’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

But they failed to announce any numbers or flesh out what a 1.5C-compatible NDC means for them. Observers keen to understand how the three nations will reconcile a science-based climate plan with their expanding fossil fuel ambitions were left disappointed.

“We witnessed a worrying case of cognitive dissonance,” said Romain Ioualalen, global policy manager with Oil Change International, which campaigns against fossil fuels. “At a time of grave climate urgency, the COP Troika is failing to deliver the leadership and clarity needed to raise climate ambition.”

The Troika has previously indicated that there is no universally accepted definition of what a 1.5°C-aligned climate plan should or should not include. “It’s up to each one to decide,” Brazil’s head of delegation, Liliam Chagas, said at the Bonn climate talks in June, raising fears of “1.5-washing”.

That view is not shared by many climate experts and campaigners who are issuing suggestions for what such an NDC should look like.

A group of leading civil society organisations this week published an open letter that outlines “ten essential tests” to determine whether countries’ plans meet the 1.5C goal – seen as safer than the other, higher ceiling of “well below 2 degrees” set in the Paris Agreement.

The tests outlined in the letter include a commitment to end fossil fuel expansion, detailed and measurable targets both for the whole economy and for specific sectors such as transport, building and agriculture, provisions for wealthier countries to scale up climate finance, and measures to protect natural ecosystems and make food systems greener.

UN climate chief warns of “two-speed” global energy transition

“A lot of the failure or success of [the] Paris [Agreement] is going to be determined in the next eight or nine months as countries put forward their next round of NDCs,” said Alden Meyer, a senior associate at E3G and veteran watcher of the UN climate process. “If these don’t step up and meet the mark, it’s really our last chance… this is a critical moment.”

To limit average temperature rise below 1.5C, scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say global emissions need to peak before 2025, shrink 60% by 2035 from their 2019 level, and continue on a steep downward trajectory, reaching net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide by around mid-century.

The next round of updated NDCs, due by next February, should turn the goals agreed at COP28 last year into practice, advocates say. In the energy sector, that means laying out plans to triple renewable energy capacity and double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030 – and, crucially, transition away from fossil fuels.

Climate experts and campaigners have stressed that a 1.5C-aligned NDC needs to include an explicit commitment to no new coal, oil and gas exploration, as well as credible targets for slashing existing production and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

“Claiming to lead on climate while continuing the expansion of oil, gas and coal production is indefensible at this point,” said Natalie Jones, policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development. “Governments need a plan for reducing reliance on fossil fuel production,” she added.

Senegalese banker Ibrahima Cheikh Diong picked to lead new loss and damage fund

Fossil-fuel reduction targets will be closely watched as a litmus test for the ambition of major hydrocarbon producers, including the Troika of COP presidencies. The UAE, Azerbaijan and Brazil are set to increase their combined oil and gas production by 33% by 2035, according to a new analysis by Oil Change International.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva aims to turn his country into the world’s fourth largest petrostate (it now ranks ninth), opening new extraction frontiers both on land and offshore, including in the Amazon. This plan contrasts with Brazil’s promise to present a new NDC  aligned with the 1.5C temperature goal this year – reaffirmed by Lula himself in his speech at the UN General Assembly this week.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva addresses the 79th United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 24, 2024. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

“As long as the Brazilian government insists on extracting oil and gas, especially in the Amazon, talking about decarbonising the economy and a fair energy transition is a pure exercise in rhetoric,” said Ilan Zugman, Latin America managing director for campaign group 350.org.

Azerbaijan has similarly come under renewed criticism this week with researchers at Climate Action Tracker (CAT) slamming its existing climate goals as “critically insufficient”.

The scientific watchdog said Azerbaijan was among “a tiny group” of countries that had weakened the targets in its latest NDC, published in late 2023, contradicting the Paris Agreement’s requirement that each climate action blueprint should be more ambitious than its predecessor. CAT singled out the Caspian country’s plans to expand fossil fuel production by 30% over the coming decade and its rising methane emissions.

Azerbaijan is now working on a new NDC that should be in line with the 1.5C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, the government said.

But, while energy is a crucial piece of the puzzle, it is not the only economic sector that needs a dramatic transformation in order to limit global warming to 1.5C. Agriculture, food production, industry and transport all contribute a large share of greenhouse gas emissions.

Experts say that spelling out specific emissions reduction targets for each sector can help guide policy-making across different government departments and attract larger investments.

COP29 aims to boost battery storage and grids for renewables, as pledges proliferate

E3G’s Meyer told journalists that “a robust consultation and transparent engagement process” are also key to building a 1.5C-aligned NDC. “If you’re going to get buy-in to implementation of the NDCs on the ground – which is the real key to reducing emissions – you need all those sectors engaged and backing the plan,” he added.

Mike Hemsley, deputy director at the Energy Transitions Commission think-tank, told Climate Home that sectoral targets will also play a pivotal role in engaging the private sector, alongside roadmaps and policy packages to implement them. “There’s increasing recognition that if you don’t have that in there, you’re not going to actually realise the ambition you set out in the NDCs,” he said.

With goals only as good as the measures taken to meet them, a significant gap remains between the already-deficient set of national climate targets on paper and action in the real world.

Civil society groups say that governments need to outline how they are planning to hit their NDC targets in a clear and transparent way without resorting to “creative accounting”, as CAT warns.

A major sticking point is the reliance on forests and other carbon sinks to bring down emissions, because of the complex calculations involved and the unpredictable risk of carbon being released back into the atmosphere if, for instance, trees are decimated by a forest fire.

Australia, for example, has been accused by CAT of creating an “illusion of progress” towards its NDC targets by constantly revising its carbon sink assessment upwards and allowing more room for increased fossil fuel emissions.

E3G’s Meyer is sceptical that, despite the promises of 1.5C -aligned NDCs, countries will step up with the level of ambition needed – and said the task for COP30 host Brazil next year should be to encourage countries to work out how to fill the gaps.

“We need to see [the next NDCs] as a floor not a ceiling, and say what more can we do to supercharge ambition,” he said.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini and Megan Rowling; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post As COP Troika dithers on 1.5C-aligned climate plans, experts set the bar high appeared first on Climate Home News.